Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herobizkit" data-source="post: 6373619" data-attributes="member: 36150">In an effort to show my players that combat isn't the be and end-all of D&D, I volunteered to DM a 5e starter campaign abd opted to use 3.0's premier module, The Sunless Citadel, as a primer. At the time, only the Basic PDF was available and so I had no 5e monsters to use.  Struggling to figure out what to do, I turned to EnWorld and found <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?335778-Attempt-at-Conversion-doc-to-convert-3-5-edition-and-Pathfinder-monsters-to-D-amp-D-Next-on-the-fly" target="_blank">this thread</a> about how to convert 3.x monsters on the fly to 5e.Then the Hoard of the Dragon Queen PDF came out.  And what a difference.As an example, take a gander at the Hobgoblin, a critter that came up enough to matter in my run.  I'm going to post the comparisons directly beside one another like so [3e | 5e].AC 15 (+1 Dex, +3 studded leather, +1 light shield) | AC 18 (chain mail [16], shield [+2])HP 1d8+2 (6 average) | HP 2d8+2 (11 average)Attack: Longsword +2 melee (1d8+1) or javelin +2 (1d6+1) | longsword +3 (1d8+1 or 1d10+1 if 2-handed) or longbow +3 (1d8+1) PLUS 2d6 for 'sneak attack' if target is engaged with an allyCR: 1/2 | 1/2I find it difficult to believe that two hobgoblins would be a fair challenge to a party of five (♪ Closer to freeeee...) and even less fair to a party of four.  Speaking of, anyone know if the baseline assumption is 4 or 5 party members?And don't get me started on comparing a 3.x Wyrmling White Dragon to a 5e Wyrmling Red Dragon.Question is, why do 5e monsters seem to hit harder but less often, while players hit more often but not necessarily as hard?  Is this how it's "supposed" to be?I'm no number-cruncher, but I assume there are many who can help me make sense of 5e's design philosophy...Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?</blockquote>

Verification