Comparing WotC's D&D Conversion Guides With Fan Created Alternatives

Stan Shinn, who is known for creating some thorough D&D conversion guides from previous editions to 5E, took a look at the recent WoTC conversion guidelines. "I've done an analysis on the WOTC 1e to 5e conversion tool that came out recently. When looking at how accurate the conversions are, WOtC's 1e to 5e conversion method is off by an average of 52%. My tool (which I published about a year ago) uses a table approach and is only off by an average of 5%. If you exclude the Ability Score modifier conversion, my tool is only off by 1%! Anyway, hope you find my tool useful -- I still prefer it for on-the-fly conversions."

​

Useful links:

• Stan's latest 1e to 5e conversion tool
• Stan's original article on 1e to 5e conversion
• WotC's 1e to 5e conversion tool

 

[delericho]

I don't like that all exceptional strength converts straight to an 18, I would probably do 18/01-75 as an 18, 18/76-99 as a 19, and 18/00 or higher as a 20.

The thing is that in 1st/2nd ed, exceptional strength was (in effect) a Fighter/Warrior class feature, as indeed was getting more than +2 hit points per level for high Con. With 3e (and later), the Fighter has his own set of class features and so exceptional strength should be replaced.

 

[Stan Shinn]

Ah! I did have a math error in my To Hit calculations (was using HD/2 - 2, instead of the WOTC way of HD/2 + 2). With that correction, WOTC's method of To Hit was off by -34% instead of -122% (vs. -3% using my table method). As to other possible miscalculations due to not accounting for multiple attacks, etc., anyone who wants to help me do further analysis on the two methods, drop me an email at stanshinn@gmail.com and I'll email you the source spreadsheet

 

[Mistwell]

How about addressing the primary issue people have pointed out: WOTC adjusted it based on an entire appropriate encounter, and you adjusted it based on the individual monster, which involves differing goals. WOTC isn't "off", it's intentionally doing something different from what you are doing.

 

[Stan Shinn]

Folks also might want to check out the original thread for this on Google+:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StanShinn/posts/ex1YqrjACuU

One thing I said there was "...I think what you're meaning is what the WOTC conversion doc said with regard to 1e encounters having more creatures typically than 5e encounters? I did think about that, and while it might be true for thinks like a horde or orcs or goblins, lots of encounters had only 1 monster in 1e, and the math breaks down at that point IMO. Also, part of the 1e feel is having more deadly encounters, whereas the WOTC method has all the creatures being weaker than their normal 5e stats. In any case, use whatever method you like! WOTC's formula could I suppose be memorized, whereas I require a table. "

Both techniques have their merits depending on what you're going for. I like deadly 1e encounters

-- Stan (Dwilimir)

 

[the Jester]

A note about the Green Dragon: 1E dragons are rather puny compared to future editions, even 2nd. Converting a 2E Young Green Dragon works a lot better:
- 1E: 50hp p), 18AC, +8 to-hit, 3 attacks ((8)1d8+3, (8)1d8+3, (14)2d10+3), 27 breath damage, +0 Dex mod

I'm guessing that should say "2E"?

 

[Obryn]

The variance column is kinda shady in the comparison. You should be using the absolute value of the differences rather than taking +/- into account.

By not doing so, you're effectively rigging the results since it's just a matter of finding the right monsters that the totals add up to close to zero.

What's really important is the accuracy of conversion, regardless of the direction of difference. Not that this is a critical scientific paper or anything, but stats are part of my job, so...