D&D 5E Official conversion guides from ALL editions are coming this fall!

[Stormonu]

I'd be surprised if WotC released a conversion guide for a game they don't own. I'm sure homebrewed conversions will be available, though.

PF is printed under the OGL - which WotC put into place first anyways, so it should at least be possible. If they have any interest.

My hope is this not only a convert foreward process but a convert back as well. I.E., using 5E stuff in older editions.

 

[Chriscdoa]

Since paizo make a ton of money from APs it would actually be in their interest to make a conversion guide.
So people could play 5e using paizo APs.
thats better than people avoiding pathfinder totally.

Fingers crossed anyway

 

[JEB]

Will they be converting PF to 5E too?

Definitely not, but the official 3.5 conversion rules should get you 90% there. For the rest, there's an official conversion guide from Paizo, and some briefer guidelines I made.

As for the original topic, I happily await official guidelines! I also wonder if we'll be getting those conversion docs for dndclassics.com material they talked about way back when...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmm...individually or collected, conversion guides are a product I'd pay for in physical form.

 

[Morrus]

No I completely understand. My question is what is the point of the sentence. Of course you would have to convert before hand or on the fly. What other possible way is there? It's like when people say "may or may not" why even say it? Of course you may or may not, there isn't any other possible outcome so why say the sentence? It's trivial and adds nothing to the conversation. Same as when people say "it is what it is" of course it is what it is, if it was what it wasn't then there would be a billion different things that the thing was that it wasn't. Sorry, these are pet peeves of mine that really bug me. It's like someone is just saying something when they have nothing of meaning to contribute, much like me and this post.

The difference being that you can't run something like a 4E statblock "as-is". There's no "of course" about it -- some folks were hoping that would be possible. IMO, it's not that it won't be possible, it's that it can't be possible. The underlying maths is too different.

And I'm sorry my posting isn't up to your standards. You're welcome to not read my posts if that makes you feel any better, but please do not wander round the boards proclaiming peoples' posts as "trivial and adds nothing to the conversation" or the like.

 

[DaveMage]

Since paizo make a ton of money from APs it would actually be in their interest to make a conversion guide.
So people could play 5e using paizo APs.
thats better than people avoiding pathfinder totally.

Fingers crossed anyway

I would expect some Pathfinder/5E fan will do it for those who want it. There are some sharp folks out there who do fantastic conversions.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Man, if WotC had handled the 4E rollout like they are doing with 5E, there'd have been a lot less angst in 2008.

Finally, there's leadership that respects those that play (or heavily bought into) other editions. Kudos to WotC!

I must admit, I was really critical of the lack of leadership displayed by a now-departed member of the WotC team during the course of 4E but it's clear the lesson has been learnt internally. After all, there is more to leadership that simply congratulating yourself for being everyone's boss....

 

[Evenglare]

The difference being that you can't run something like a 4E statblock "as-is". There's no "of course" about it -- some folks were hoping that would be possible. IMO, it's not that it won't be possible, it's that it can't be possible. The underlying maths is too different.

And I'm sorry my posting isn't up to your standards. You're welcome to not read my posts if that makes you feel any better, but please do not wander round the boards proclaiming peoples' posts as "trivial and adds nothing to the conversation" or the like.

Please please please explain your quote then. I still don't get it. You say that you can't run them as is. Explain your sentence "They'd have to be converted, either in advance or on the go." What in the world were you trying to get across with this point? If we break it up into 2 sentences both seem to imply that you would have to convert them one of 2 ways. They would have to be converted in advance. They would have to be converted on the go. I just don't understand what this means. Of course, what other possible way would they have to be converted??? In the post I quoted uptop you say that they can't be converted on the go, as is while playing, yet the post previously mentioned in this paragraph sounds as though you are saying they would have to be converted on the go. By intention it sounds like you meant "They would have to be converted in advance, they CAN NOT be converted on the go". That's not what you said though. I'm simply trying to figure out what that sentence in your earlier post actually means. It's absolutely maddening to see a person say 2 completely different conflicting things. It's just my OCD or something I guess.

 

[Morrus]

Please please please explain your quote then. I still don't get it. You say that you can't run them as is. Explain your sentence "They'd have to be converted, either in advance or on the go." What in the world were you trying to get across with this point? If we break it up into 2 sentences both seem to imply that you would have to convert them one of 2 ways. They would have to be converted in advance. They would have to be converted on the go. I just don't understand what this means. Of course, what other possible way would they have to be converted??? In the post I quoted uptop you say that they can't be converted on the go, as is while playing, yet the post previously mentioned in this paragraph sounds as though you are saying they would have to be converted on the go. By intention it sounds like you meant "They would have to be converted in advance, they CAN NOT be converted on the go". That's not what you said though. I'm simply trying to figure out what that sentence in your earlier post actually means. It's absolutely maddening to see a person say 2 completely different conflicting things. It's just my OCD or something I guess.

I'm sorry you can't understand me, but I've made as much effort as I'm prepared to at this point, and your aggressiveness about it is not making me want to help any further. I'm also sorry if you have OCD, but you absolutely need to tone down the hostility.

 

[Evenglare]

Seriously not meaning any ill will. I'm trying to get an answer, but since you can't provide one I guess I'll just have to deal with it. Again, sorry if you mistook hostility for me calling out to get answers.