Converting a Pathfinder Adventure path to 5e?

[Wonton]

Hey,

I'm fairly inexperienced as a DM - I ran the Serpent's Skull adventure path for Pathfinder in the past, but now I might be DMing a 5e game. I knew the 3.5/PF rules like the back of my hand but am still reading the 5e rules. How easy would it be to convert a Pathfinder adventure path to 5e? I'm guessing monsters would need a lot more hit points, for a start - I've seen a lot of level 1 spells that deal 3d6 damage and such. Would DCs, ACs, attack modifiers, or skill modifiers need to change a whole lot? The proficiency bonus of +2 at level 1 means everyone's slightly better at hitting things from the get-go, from what I understand.

Any advice on transitioning from the 3.5/PF system to 5e would be appreciated.

[Shadow]

It's my opinion that conversions are almost always a lot easier than people make them out to be.
Just use mobs that are in the MM instead of what's listed, and choose appropriately. Converting DCs are easy as well. Just decide how difficult the task was in the origin material and use that level (easy/hard/very hard/etc) DC.
There are really only two issues with converting anything.
The first comes when dealing with specific NPCs, in which case you need to basically roll up a character for each one for it to be compatible. The second comes with magic items, in which case you need to tone everything down a bit.
Neither of those two hurdles are insurmountable by any means, but that's where the brunt of the work comes into play when converting anything. Most of it can be done on the fly. Preparation is better, but not really required, except in the cases of NPCs and magic items, which absolutely need to be done prior to the session.

[Wonton]

Just use mobs that are in the MM instead of what's listed, and choose appropriately.

Good point. It didn't occur to me that instead of scaling the PF Ghoul, I could just use the Ghoul in the 5e MM.

Of course, the problem with the AP I'm running (Serpent's Skull) is that there are a LOT of weird creatures right off the bat - they're not just fighting humans/skeletons/zombies, there's weird poison crabs, fungi, plant-people... Converting the regular NPCs shouldn't be too much work (Gnome Bard 2, figure out abilities, etc), but it's the special creatures I'm worried about.

[Shadow]

Good point. It didn't occur to me that instead of scaling the PF Ghoul, I could just use the Ghoul in the 5e MM.

Of course, the problem with the AP I'm running (Serpent's Skull) is that there are a LOT of weird creatures right off the bat - they're not just fighting humans/skeletons/zombies, there's weird poison crabs, fungi, plant-people... Converting the regular NPCs shouldn't be too much work (Gnome Bard 2, figure out abilities, etc), but it's the special creatures I'm worried about.

Yeah, that is a problem. Except that my previous advice about it still applies.

Just use mobs that are in the MM instead of what's listed, and choose appropriately.

Which brings me right back to:

It's my opinion that conversions are almost always a lot easier than people make them out to be.

You're trying to make it harder than it needs to be.
:biggrin:

If the players aren't familiar with the module already, then they won't even know that you changed the mobs that were supposed to be there.
If the players were already familiar with the module, then tossing different monsters than they were expecting only works in your favor and keeps them from playing the meta-game too much.
Don't sweat the details of mobs. Sweat the details of the story. The mobs are plug & play. The story is not.
Conversions are easy. It's DMs that make conversions difficult by over thinking things and trying to convert everything seamlessly and completely when there is absolutely no need to do so.
The players either won't know the difference or the difference will work in your favor. Trying too hard creates more work for no reason.
Weird poison crabs? Use something else poisonous in the same CR range. Fungi? Plant-people? Use something else in the same CR range. Keep it simple. It will work better for you and it will work just fine (or better) for your players.

[Wonton]

The mobs are plug & play. The story is not.

Well, surely you understand that the mobs are important to the story sometimes... :smallconfused:

A randomly encountered pterodactyl could just as easily be a giant eagle, but sometimes there's a story reason for a mob being there and I'd rather change a few numbers on stat blocks around than mess with the whole story of the AP.

[Kryx]

Of course, the problem with the AP I'm running (Serpent's Skull) is that there are a LOT of weird creatures right off the bat - they're not just fighting humans/skeletons/zombies, there's weird poison crabs, fungi, plant-people... Converting the regular NPCs shouldn't be too much work (Gnome Bard 2, figure out abilities, etc), but it's the special creatures I'm worried about.

This is exactly why I'm running rise of the runelords and maybe curse of the crimson throne. More simple bestiary.

Though to be helpful: I suggest as much as possible work with a mm monster and maybe reflavor. Luckily RotRL has the first book converted on a forum for me with custom monsters. I'd suggest always googling "5e conversion ZOMBIE" where ZOMBIE = creature name.

[Shadow]

Well, surely you understand that the mobs are important to the story sometimes....

And in those cases you can use the rules in the MM to build the monster that's needed, just like you'd build an NPC that was needed. But rarely is any certain monster so completely essential that you, as the storyteller, simply have no opportunity to change what that monster is.
In fact, if a monster is so central to the story that it can't be changed.... all that means is that you have more warning that it's coming and can change it with ease anyway.

Example: A band of hobgoblins is terrorizing a nearby village. Why does it have to absolutely without question be hobgoblinis?
It doesn't. You are in control. Just change it if you don't want to build them properly.

I still fail to see the problem, and I still maintain that you're doing exactly what I warned against.
"It's DMs that make conversions difficult by over thinking things and trying to convert everything seamlessly and completely when there is absolutely no need to do so."

[Kryx]

I still fail to see the problem, and I still maintain that you're doing exactly what I warned against.
"It's DMs that make conversions difficult by over thinking things and trying to convert everything seamlessly and completely when there is absolutely no need to do so."

You're being quite harsh. It is of your opinion that reducing monsters to more base monsters does not reduce enjoyment. And yet every edition publishes multiple bestiaries. It will take more time to convert monsters, but it is worth it in many cases imo.

[Shadow]

You're being quite harsh. It is of your opinion that reducing monsters to more base monsters does not reduce enjoyment. And yet every edition publishes multiple bestiaries. It will take more time to convert monsters, but it is worth it in many cases imo.

It's not harsh at all.... when you take it in context with the fact that I also said this:

And in those cases you can use the rules in the MM to build the monster that's needed, just like you'd build an NPC that was needed. But rarely is any certain monster so completely essential that you, as the storyteller, simply have no opportunity to change what that monster is.

[Wonton]

I'm with Kryx on this one... story is more important than monsters overall, but you can't just replace everything with skeletons, humans, kobolds, and hobgoblins and call it a day. Different monsters give different flavor, and I would rather stay true to the flavor of the original AP.

Anyone else have any advice on converting?

[Justin Sane]

but you can't just replace everything with skeletons, humans, kobolds, and hobgoblins and call it a day.On the other hand, using the stats for skeletons, humans, kobolds and hobgoblins and refluffing them as needed is a life-saver. Players won't look at your notes, how will they tell?

[Kryx]

On the other hand, using the stats for skeletons, humans, kobolds and hobgoblins and refluffing them as needed is a life-saver. Players won't look at your notes, how will they tell?

Look at RotRL for instance. In the first book alone there are around 10 things that need to be made. Koruvus without his extra arm just isn't Koruvus. You can use goblin as a base, but it still needs to be modified imo.

[pibby]

Look at RotRL for instance. In the first book alone there are around 10 things that need to be made. Koruvus without his extra arm just isn't Koruvus. You can use goblin as a base, but it still needs to be modified imo.

I'm not going to say I know much about RotRL but for your example from that module what is it about Koruvus's extra that makes it special? From a homebrew standpoint you can just do as you mentioned and have the extra arm as an extra attack, no sweat.
I don't have the DMG or the MM but I recently did browse the DMG, and if it's CR that you're worried about there are tables of example monster addons and their effects on CR, so you can eyeball Koruvus with his extra arm from there. From what I've read about on the forums CR isn't that much of an issue so much as player skill is. Like the extra arm may be made irrelevant if the PCs often use ranged tactics.

For most people, including myself when I first started homebrewing stuff in D&D encounters, the perceived problem is replicating the exact feel of a module in parts and overall. For instance, players will never have the exact same feel of "3.5" combat in a 5e game; that's just something that should be expected. A better approach to converting modules to your preference is to go through the module yourself and then recall what you felt most memorable. It's generally those kinds of things that warrant replication rather than something like the exact dungeon layout or the exact number of mooks the BBEG had.

[Kryx]

I'm not going to say I know much about RotRL but for your example from that module what is it about Koruvus's extra that makes it special? From a homebrew standpoint you can just do as you mentioned and have the extra arm as an extra attack, no sweat.
I don't have the DMG or the MM but I recently did browse the DMG, and if it's CR that you're worried about there are tables of example monster addons and their effects on CR, so you can eyeball Koruvus with his extra arm from there.

That's exactly what I did. Not adding the 3rd arm would not be flavorful - that's the point I'm making.

But he was an easy case. Tutso and the Greater Barghest were harder.