D&D 4E Any notable 4E adventures worth converting to 5E?

[zaratan]

I probably wouldn't use the entire adventures of 4e, because was all about combat. But definetely could adapt encounters to 5e, there are lot of great encounters.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Like I said, don't have enough experience. Except I was talking about 4 PCs not 5, I believe you. Glad to hear it's like that, actually.
Would you say to just throw out the multiplier for multiple monsters after level 6 or so?

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e doesn't handle 4e-style 'set piece' encounters very well (they tend to be too complex for TotM, and the numbers of enemies present can drive difficulties pretty high, and there won't be enough of them because 5e assume more/smaller/easier/faster encounters both per session and per day), and 5e lacks any sort of skill challenge mechanics, so a 4e adventure is not going to convert smoothly.

You might use one as a general source of inspiration, though. Read through the 'story' portions and see if it sparks any ideas, then design your own adventure using 5e guidelines and stats. Or, you can keep the situations and creatures (just using 5e stats where available, don't try any sort of numeric conversion formula) as a starting point, not worry about 'balanced encounters' at all, and run as more of a sandbox - if the players bite off more than they can chew, it's on them. If they come up with ways to 'divide & conquer' the larger encounters and take on fewer enemies at a time, they'll do fine.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Regarding encounter building guidelines, the issue is not that the multiplier for multiple monsters isn't working as intended - it's that the intent of the encounter building rules is counter-intuitive because of the names assigned to each difficulty:

Where the DMG says "deadly" and the reader naturally thinks "that could kill the whole party," the DMG actually means "some of the party might die, and this is the only difficulty that has any serious risk of the party not defeating the encounter."

So situations like 4 trolls getting beat-down by a 4-person party in 3 rounds with probably no one in the party dying is exactly what the game means for a "deadly" encounter - or at worst, the estimation is off by this actually fitting the "hard" encounter definition (which is far less off than an intuitive reading of the difficulty names would suggest).

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, in 5E, the only proper name for four trolls vs a level 10 party should be "a complete waste of time".

Meaning; no matter whether the trolls manage to shave off a few resources or not, the only proper encounter advice is "don't" - the way to run the encounter is to not run it at all.

Simply say "you run into four trolls but curbstomp them without even stopping" and move to the next encounter. That took 5 seconds, which is the appropriate time frame to spend on such a trivial and non-challenging encounter.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yeah, in 5E, the only proper name for four trolls vs a level 10 party should be "a complete waste of time".

The game chose a different target difficulty than you expect - that doesn't mean the game is bad, it just means you have to choose; change your expectation, or run the game in a way that it meets your expectation.

Constantly flinging mud at the game instead of saying what is actually true (in this case, the phrasing would be something like "I don't like encounters to be as easy as the 5th edition guidelines") isn't really benefiting any points you might otherwise make.

 

[pemerton]

Heathen, an adventure from one of the earliest 4e Dungeon magazines, is not too bad. I don't see why it couldn't be converted to 5e.

 

[tsuyoshikentsu]

There are a lot of great Living Forgotten Realms adventures. Just cut out a lot of the filler combats.

For skill challenges, just run it as a single group skill check except that each character can choose a relevant skill to roll for the check.

 

[CapnZapp]

The game chose a different target difficulty than you expect - that doesn't mean the game is bad, it just means you have to choose; change your expectation, or run the game in a way that it meets your expectation.

Constantly flinging mud at the game instead of saying what is actually true (in this case, the phrasing would be something like "I don't like encounters to be as easy as the 5th edition guidelines") isn't really benefiting any points you might otherwise make.

Okay, let me rephrase:

When you convert, drop most encounters that aren't deadly or above, and upscale the rest; unless you want strings of unexciting filler combat that mainly wastes time.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Okay, let me rephrase:

When you convert, drop most encounters that aren't deadly or above, and upscale the rest; unless you want strings of unexciting filler combat that mainly wastes time.

Still, calling any encounter easier than what 5e calls "deadly" "unexciting filler" isn't universally accurate.

You're treating your preference as being near universal, where evidence suggests the opposite.