D&D 3E/3.5 Analyzing 4 Methods for Converting 3.5 and Pathfinder to 5E

Please add a TL;DR summary to the top of your document.

 

[Carcharoth]

Yeah, this article matches my own experiences for the most part. One thing I have found with pathfinder is that it never hurts to add on about 15% hp to match the challenge weightiness the encounters should have had in the original adventure.

I originally did the same thing but I’m still working on finding a more consistent method. There is a fairly tight progression when it comes to HP and CR in relation to the expected 5e values.

For instance, the lower CR ranges are closer to 20% of the expected 5e values, while the higher ranges are closer to 100%. Not until CR 2 does a creature reach ~50% of the expected HP, CR 7 to reach 71%, or CR 15 to reach 98%. It appears that one should grant a higher percentage of HP to creatures with lower CRs, while granting a lower percentage to those with higher CRs.

View attachment 72211

DPR on the other hand is pretty much all over the place. I fully expect the DPR to vary more since many creatures use magic vs. standard melee, but the DPR relationship is definitely far more variable.

View attachment 72212

 

[dd.stevenson]

I originally did the same thing but I’m still working on finding a more consistent method. There is a fairly tight progression when it comes to HP and CR in relation to the expected 5e values.

For instance, the lower CR ranges are closer to 20% of the expected 5e values, while the higher ranges are closer to 100%. Not until CR 2 does a creature reach ~50% of the expected HP, CR 7 to reach 71%, or CR 15 to reach 98%. It appears that one should grant a higher percentage of HP to creatures with lower CRs, while granting a lower percentage to those with higher CRs.

Have you looked at something like CR * Con Mod?

I'm not gonna lie; I just use a regex macro in word to rewrite the important stats, so your more complex percentage change by level method works just swell for me

 

[dwayne]

I use my own conversion chart, my imagination and adjust as need be to match the flavor and the intent of the creature I want to use. In other words I make up the stats that I feel best suit the creature and what it was meant to be as per the original creatures stats. But the charts are nice for the ones who just need the facts and a ruler to draw the lines, was a good read

 

[neobolts]

Excellent work, although my eyes glazed over a little bit when I hit the charts.

It looks like a very logical and simple approach to the reconciling 5e bounded values with the 3.5's boundless values. I take it the Summary method at the top is the "Carcharoth method" you refined from the results of analyzing the other 5 methods?

 

[Wrathamon]

I take it the Summary method at the top is the "Carcharoth method" you refined from the results of analyzing the other 5 methods?

That was my take as well

 

[Carcharoth]

Have you looked at something like CR * Con Mod?

I'm not gonna lie; I just use a regex macro in word to rewrite the important stats, so your more complex percentage change by level method works just swell for me

Unfortunately, because the lower CRs typically have lower Con Mods (smaller boost), while higher CRs typically have higher Con Mods (larger boost), it doesn't really match the type of progression. The lower CRs really need a higher boost in relation to higher CRs.

BTW, regex and excel are friends of mine

 

[Carcharoth]

Excellent work, although my eyes glazed over a little bit when I hit the charts.

It looks like a very logical and simple approach to the reconciling 5e bounded values with the 3.5's boundless values. I take it the Summary method at the top is the "Carcharoth method" you refined from the results of analyzing the other 5 methods?

After reading the Wizards doc, I did make a conscious effort to bind the values. Compression seemed to be the best bet, as it allowed me to start using basic 5e rules to calculate AB, Save DCs, etc.

There was a request earlier to provide a summary at the beginning of the post because it is so long, so I provided the end results there. It appears I can refine that area -- I there something I should say to make it a bit clearer?

On the subject of charts, I talked to someone about the numbered charts... would it be better/ more helpful to provide graphs with a summary rather than the detail? I can whip them up pretty quickly if it would improve the explanation.

 

[neobolts]

After reading the Wizards doc, I did make a conscious effort to bind the values. Compression seemed to be the best bet, as it allowed me to start using basic 5e rules to calculate AB, Save DCs, etc.

There was a request earlier to provide a summary at the beginning of the post because it is so long, so I provided the end results there. It appears I can refine that area -- I there something I should say to make it a bit clearer?

On the subject of charts, I talked to someone about the numbered charts... would it be better/ more helpful to provide graphs with a summary rather than the detail? I can whip them up pretty quickly if it would improve the explanation.

I think one sentence at the start of the summary would improve the readability of the whole post, i.e. "First let me show you a composite formula I made from the best performing aspects of five different methods, and then support my conclusions with a detailed breakdown each of those five methods."

 

[Carcharoth]

I think one sentence at the start of the summary would improve the readability of the whole post, i.e. "First let me show you a composite formula I made from the best performing aspects of five different methods, and then support my conclusions with a detailed breakdown each of those five methods."

Thanks for the excellent suggestion. I updated the post; however, I don't see the changes yet, even though they appear in the editor. Maybe it will show up a little later.

Regardless, yesterday, I came across the following tweet from Jeremy Crawford regarding monster AC on http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/30/no-monster-has-ac-above-25/. All though I presume most people anticipated this, its still nice to hear an officially unofficial answer.

View attachment 72244