D&D 5E Pathfinder to 5e: expected power level and low level surivability

[nightspaladin]

I'm starting a new game. New players want to try out some quick scenarios before starting a meaty campaign.

I'm thinking of running a pathfinder ap in 5e for them, but pathfinder and 5e characters seem to different amounts of survivability. So my question is in anyone's experience what level in 5e do you think is equal to pathfinder level 1?

I've been told by some that level 3 seems close to the same power level as previous more powerful editions (I.e pf, 4e) first level. Has anyone found this to be true?

If it is, I'm thinking about running a small intro party building adventures to get them to level 3, then start the AP there.

Any thoughts on this plan? Or other observation from anyone that has done such a switch over? Thanks

 

[Tony Vargas]

So my question is in anyone's experience what level in 5e do you think is equal to pathfinder level 1?

I've been told by some that level 3 seems close to the same power level as previous more powerful editions first level. Has anyone found this to be true?

Maybe, approximately.

I don't find that 3e material converts at all smoothly to 5e, in general. I've done conversions of Basic, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5/PF, 4e & Essentials modules at 1st level. Basic & AD&D work easily, little to worry about beyond inverting AC. Too directly translating 4e/E produces problematic combats. 3.x/PF was the hardest to convert adventures. (4e the hardest to convert characters, apropos of nothing).

If it is, I'm thinking about running a small intro party building adventures to get them to level 3, then start the AP there. Any thoughts on this plan?

Starting above first is a fine idea. In theory, there's a point to apprentice tier: it doles out basic class abilities slowly to extend the learning curve for new players and reduce the cherry-picking aspect of MCing. In practice, if you're not using MCing and your players are experienced with d20 or AD&D, there's no need for it. You can start at 3rd, or even 5th.

 

[Jester David]

If you're using Pathfinder adventures but 5e monsters it should be fine to just start at level 1. Kinda.
5e characters have fewer options at their disposal but with the ability to recharge and take short rests, they can do more in an adventure day than most 1st level Pathfinder characters. They're squishy, but not that much more.

Something like Rise of the Runelords should convert over pretty easily.

 

[Dausuul]

Maybe, approximately.

I don't find that 3e material converts at all smoothly to 5e, in general. I've done conversions of Basic, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5/PF, 4e & Essentials modules at 1st level. Basic & AD&D work easily, little to worry about beyond inverting AC. Too directly translating 4e/E produces problematic combats. 3.x/PF was the hardest to convert adventures.

That's surprising. I would have expected 1st level to be the point where 3E and 5E line up almost exactly; the mechanics for PCs are very similar, with roughly the same starting hit points, attack bonuses, ACs, and damage. It's the later levels where the systems start to diverge.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's surprising. I would have expected 1st level to be the point where 3E and 5E line up almost exactly;

I was surprised, too. ;( I did figure that low-level play would be the least divergent. Sure, I was expecting 5e to choke on 4e's set-piece combats, and to work fine with AD&D, and it did. I was also expecting it to work with 3e, but it didn't. Well, it worked better with 3.0 Sunless Citadel than 3.5/PF Bastards of Erebus.
Part if it may be that 3e has a lot of detail, while AD&D is sketchy - the latter lends itself to the snap rulings that 5e is fine with (or, at least, I'm fine with while running 5e).

 

[Bacon Bits]

Any thoughts on this plan? Or other observation from anyone that has done such a switch over? Thanks

The first thing to notice, IMX, is that level 1 and 2 are extremely short. Level 1 is expected to last approximately one or two encounters, and then the PCs level up. One adventuring day is enough to hit Level 2. Level 2 is twice as long as that, and still only take one adventuring day to hit level 3. Players hit level 3 very quickly. I've never played a 5e campaign that didn't start at level 1, and I've also never played a 5e campaign that didn't hit level 3 by the third session. The bottom line is that levels 1 and 2 are so short that it's often not worth skipping them. You don't really gain anything, and the players enjoy leveling up.

Early on in the 5e book, they discuss the "tier" system, and that's really how the game is organized. When you hit a new tier, you should expect a boost in PC power. That's why the classes generally don't look like they get going until character level 3. They're not supposed to. They're training levels. This delayed growth is one of the main drawbacks to multi-classing in 5e.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Any thoughts on this plan? Or other observation from anyone that has done such a switch over? Thanks

Hi, Nightspaladin.

I've been trying just that ever since getting the 5E Player's Handbook as soon as it was released and I think I agree with much of what's already been said.

Ultimately, having tried it for a couple of years, now, I've decided to just play Pathfinder when I want to run 3X or Pathfinder adventures. Some of the reasons include the fact that I've gotten tired of converting things. Not that it can't be done. It definitely can, with some work.

5E characters are stronger in at least one way. The system assumes that they have several abilities that they would have to get via feats in Pathfinder. So, first level 5E characters are stronger, in my opinion, than Pathfinder characters, at least in that respect. But, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

For me, it would be easier to convert the desired 5E classes to Pathfinder rather than converting an entire Adventure Path from Pathfinder to 5E. Though, overall, I think the 5E classes are somewhat weaker than their Pathfinder counterparts (once the free feats and other 5E rules are applied to Pathfinder classes, too).

At low levels, though, it works fairly well. But the math gets more and more out of sync as the levels and challenge ratings increase.

 

[Kalshane]

I converted my RotRL Pathfinder game over to 5E around level 12. Other than reducing DCs and treasure and having to convert a lot of monsters that don't exist in 5E, it worked out fine.

I'm trying to get another RotRL game going, starting from the beginning, but I'm starting the PCs at level 3. Goblins are a good deal more dangerous in 5E than they are in PF at low levels.

I'm also playing in a Wrath of the Righteous game that converted from PF to 5E around level 6. It's been working out okay so far (we're currently level 8), though the DM says he's been re-working a lot of the AP (both plot and encounter-wise) so I don't know if a straight conversion would be better or worse.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Although 1st level seems similar in 3.5 and 5e, you are less durable in 5e due to the fact that enemies are hitting harder.
A goblin in 5e has an attack bonus of +4 and does 1d6+damage. Ouch.
On the other hand PCs also hit harder. I would not subsrcripe to pathfinder PCs having more tricks at their disposal at level 1. A wizard hits a lot harder at low levels in 5e. A fighter has second wind on short rest basis. So level 1 is more brutal. You need to be the one to hit first. Rests prolong your adventuring day.
Level 2 will increase survivability a lot and at level 3 everything should be fine, although you still are squishier in 5e due to lower relative AC.
I would assume 2nd or most probably 3rd level PCs being equal to level 1 4e characters.
I would also support the opinion that for inexperienced groups starting at level 1 is still the right decision because of the amount of abilities you already have at level 3.
On the other hand it is level 3 where you usually get your subvlass features. So if you start a 4e adventure or maybe even a pathfinder one consider adding a prologue adventure to introduce abilities and then start the real campaign at level 3.

 

[Awesome Adam]

The only Pathfinder Adventure Path I've ever run has been Rise of the Rune Lords, but I honestly wouldn't sweat running it as is, using 5E monster stats, and adjusting difficulty numbers down to 5E levels on the fly.