D&D 5E Converting Monsters - which addition is easier to convert from?

[akr71]

I never played 3e through 4e (that is, including 3.5 and Pathfinder), so I have little experience interpreting with stat blocks from those versions.

When/if you need to convert a monster from an older version, which edition do you prefer to use to make a 5e version? That is, assuming you can find a stat block from multiple older editions. In the past, I've just run with whichever I've stumbled across first.

 

[Wulffolk]

I never played 3e through 4e (that is, including 3.5 and Pathfinder), so I have little experience interpreting with stat blocks from those versions.

When/if you need to convert a monster from an older version, which edition do you prefer to use to make a 5e version? That is, assuming you can find a stat block from multiple older editions. In the past, I've just run with whichever I've stumbled across first.

In my opinion, 3e has the most in common with 5e, and would be the easiest to convert. Previous to 3e Armor Class and Ability scores were handled quite differently, as were saves.

 

[Sacrosanct]

whatever edition you're most familiar with. I know that sounds a bit dismissive, but it's true. What I mean by that, is that in my case, I'm extremely familiar with AD&D. So I know how each monster "feels", as far as a challenge goes, and what it's supposed to represent. So when I do a 5e version of it, I know exactly how to stat it out in 5e based on that feel. Having only played a little 3e and no 4e, I wouldn't know how to do that.

 

[CapnZapp]

The best approach is to realize there is no such thing as conversion balance.

That is, an encounter - six Bugbears and a Mind Flayer, say - will not map as the same challenge across editions *anyway*.

So I'd simply use the 5e monster stats and be done with it.

And if the monster doesn't have official 5e stats, reskin a monster of similar status to be that monster.

Under no circumstances do I feel it is worthwhile to manually create/convert a monster, counting points of AC and such, and especially not CR.

The science of it is all bogus anyway. And each edition has its own balance (including not only the composition of individual monsters but also their numbers in the encounter).

Best to keep it quick and simple, since the results ain't worse and you'll do a tenth of the work.

Just make sure your players are on-board with the "sandbox mindset", that is, that don't assume any particular encounter balance, that is, they don't just assume any monster group must be defeatable or they wouldn't be there...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[akr71]

All good answers - thanks! It was a long hiatus of not playing between AD&D/2e until getting into 5e almost 3 years ago... I've gotten pretty comfortable re-skinning 5e monsters and NPC stat blocks for the powerlevel I'm looking for.

Once I get the ability scores & figure out an appropriate proficiency bonus, the saves & skills fall in place. When looking through old Dragon or Dungeon magazines for adventures or ideas to lift, I sometimes get bogged down with some of the special abilities or spell & spell-like abilities that either don't exist anymore or I have never heard of before (Entropic Shield anyone?). I also don't have any problem substituting for known abilities, but without knowing what an original ability does, I get concerned I'm losing the feel of the creature.

So... either more research, or stop stressing and just wing it.

 

[thorgrit]

It's worth noting that, if you're going for a big setpiece encounter on a grid with a heavy tactical skirmish feel, it might be worth your time to look up the 4e version of some of the more complicated monsters. Without getting into the "bad" of 4e, I want to mention just this one sliver of 4e that applies well to this circumstance - a stat block that actually had all of a monster's abilities listed in one place. Some of the more complex monsters, at least in the 3e era, had a smaller stat block, but at the cost of offloading that into mentioning the monster had a bunch of feats and spells, each one of which had to be looked up individually and could be easy to miss.

If you do look to 4e for inspiration, ignore the numbers and math, and just look at the theme of some of the powers. All 4e powers were attack rolls against a specified defense, so keep an eye out for abilities that should be converted back into saving throws against the monster's DC.

 

[jimmytheccomic]

I keep my monster conversions fairly simple.

Step one: Decide what CR the monster should be.

Step two: Use the table in the DMs guide to correlate AC, Damage output, etc to what I want the CR to be.

Step three: Add the special ability, which is really the fun part of the monster anyway. I'll alter special abilities to fit better with 5e design goals. (Like, if something gives a minus 5 to rolls, I'll change it to disadvantage. "Stunned for d4 rounds" = retrying save at the end of each round, etc.

My favorite books to convert from are the 4e monster books and the Pathfinder bestiaries, they tend to have interesting and flavorful special abilities. The damage/AC/saving throws are just details, I just crank through that as quickly as possible.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I never played 3e through 4e (that is, including 3.5 and Pathfinder), so I have little experience interpreting with stat blocks from those versions.

They are not fun to try to convert to 5e. Not in terms of numeric formulae, and definitely not in terms of making encounters designed for those editions work in 5e.

When/if you need to convert a monster from an older version, which edition do you prefer to use to make a 5e version? That is, assuming you can find a stat block from multiple older editions. In the past, I've just run with whichever I've stumbled across first.

Two things make conversions easier: familiarity with the two editions in question and similarities between them.

5e has a desultory similarity to 3e in that it uses the d20 core mechanic, has something called feats, and uses a similar take on MCing (which is also similar to the character-with-two-classes rules in AD&D). But, the two don't really play much alike, and aren't trying to accomplish the same things. They have very different focus. 3e is (& 4e was) more player focused, 5e is heavily DM-focused.

The classic game (0D&D, 1e & 2e AD&D, BD&D, B/X, BECMI) is much more similar to 5e in that emphasis. The game is the DM's, the players are not co-equal in any sense, and they & their characters are only the focus of the world or the game to the extent the DM makes them so. For me personally, I'm most familiar with/appreciative of 1e AD&D, so I find it easiest - effortless, really - to convert from 1e to 5e, even on the fly. Maybe, when I'd doing that, I'm also coverting 5e back to 1e, a bit.

 

[ccs]

I never played 3e through 4e (that is, including 3.5 and Pathfinder), so I have little experience interpreting with stat blocks from those versions.

When/if you need to convert a monster from an older version, which edition do you prefer to use to make a 5e version? That is, assuming you can find a stat block from multiple older editions. In the past, I've just run with whichever I've stumbled across first.

If I'm running a module, then I convert it from whatever edition it was written for. For ex; we just wrapped up The Mummies Mask, a PF AP that I ran for 5e. So any monsters or whatever that aren't already in 5e I just started with their PF versions.

If I'm just pulling a non - 5e monster my general default is 1e. Or where ever it 1st appeared after 1e.

Edit: I forgot to mention; If I'm converting a module I don't bother to alter the # of monsters in an encounter. So if a room lists 5 hobgoblins, 5 hobgoblins it is.... I just use the stat block for whatever edition I'm running.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It's worth noting that, if you're going for a big setpiece encounter on a grid with a heavy tactical skirmish feel, it might be worth your time to look up the 4e version of some of the more complicated monsters. Without getting into the "bad" of 4e, I want to mention just this one sliver of 4e that applies well to this circumstance - a stat block that actually had all of a monster's abilities listed in one place. Some of the more complex monsters, at least in the 3e era, had a smaller stat block, but at the cost of offloading that into mentioning the monster had a bunch of feats and spells, each one of which had to be looked up individually and could be easy to miss.

If you do look to 4e for inspiration, ignore the numbers and math, and just look at the theme of some of the powers. All 4e powers were attack rolls against a specified defense, so keep an eye out for abilities that should be converted back into saving throws against the monster's DC.

I agree. 4e tried to boil the monsters down to the basic gimmick, which seems to be the design philosophy of 5e. Different gimmicks don't necessarily transfer well across editions, but focusing on "this is the big thing the monster does" is helpful. Making monsters more straightforward is a boon to new/casual DM's (although I think they should have kept the roles, even if just as descriptive--think of all the "Strahd is too weak" threads that would have been prevented if we could have just said "what part of lurker don't you understand?"). Of course that means designing encounters so that monsters have a reasonable chance to do their thing against the PC's (which those Strahd threads have convinced me is a lost [or at least fading] art), but if the new/casual DM is Dming for mostly new/casual players, there probably won't be enough PC shenanigans to keep the monsters at too big a disadvantage. DM's who prefer to count how many 1st level spell slots the monster has should probably look to an earlier edition.