D&D 3E/3.5 Converting Old 3E to New 3E standard problems

[mypetrock]

I'll let someone else tell you what is acceptable or not. My opinion is that you should go ahead and post the altered encounter below the original encounter (possibly directly beneath or in an appendix) or alternately post the new encounter in some forum where people can get your altered encounter if they find the encounter is off-base as strictly converted.

Regardless of your decision, I would hate for our discussions to dissuade you from posting your conversion where the community can take a look at it. After all, one some level you have performed a service for the community at large. Your labors should not be for nought because of a technicality.

mypetrock

 

[Leopold]

I'm all for posting the conversion WITH a sample of the convertors notes that say "If you want to have it be playblanced, use X,Y, and Z and do it like F". That is fine, just take the stats as they are currently and convert them to 3E standarads and then add notes just like they do in the Dungeon magazines on how to ramp up the levels or decrease them.


i fully understand that 1E>3E breeds brutally tough monsters and encounters. I have a room in night below that has 15 hook horrors. Let's see avg party level is 8 15 CR 6 monsters=12..that's bad. But then i say "Hey i am the DM, I'll take a few out" and be done with it.

It's the DM's call if they want to change things or not, tis our job to make it so that they are ABLE to change and alter them with 3E type stats to begin with. Once they have that precious knowledge then they can begin to change and alter the adventure to suit their gameplay.

I know converting all of night below that the monsters are horribly overpowerd and have crushed their share of pc's under their thumb. But then again, my players thrive on mass numbers and overwhelming odds, they love it so it fits perfectly with the game.


Give the DM the tools to do his job and your conversion will NOT go in vain..

 

[Celebrim]

So, can I get some opinions on what is acceptable? Which of the following is legal and appropriate, if any? Ideas are offered in order of what I would think is least problamatic.

Version 1)

a) An encounter key (ex. 61.)

b) A stat block of the bare encounter with as few amendments as is possible.

c) A clearly labeled conversion note with a suggestion and explanation for achieving some goal of play balance.

Version 2)

As above except that certain mechanics are replaced by some non-equivalent mechanic where in D20 it would now be standard to use the latter mechanic for the situation in question. This most likely would occur in converting traps, since 1st edition had no standard for avoiding traps and each trap used a mechanic of its own. For example, a reflex save is now standard for avoiding pit traps, but 1st edition designers would have varied between dex checks, random luck, and saves vs. paralyzation if they provided any means of avoidance at all. I could retain any of the three mechanics in a conversion, but I'd like to prefer D20's default mechanic of a reflex save.

Version 3)

As any of the above but follows with section d.

d) A stat block for the suggested modified encounter when the suggestion differs by something other than number of opponents or other trivial matter. For example, if original encounter involves 16th level cleric, then as a suggestion a stat block for the same cleric at 12th level is provided. (I haven't converted the module, and am not going to and I don't think it is an ESD, but merely as an example, Arakis from DL was a 33rd level character in 1st edition)

Version 4)

As any of the above, except that the goal in providing suggestions is capturing some element of 'flavor' which is missing from a straight conversion and not merely play balance. For instance, you might do this if some mechanic has changed vastly from 1st to 3rd edition - ei poison, mechanics of certain spell effects, class abilities, humans types no longer as monster entries, feral humanoids with class levels, prestige classes, etc.

Version 5)

As any of above, but d and c are offered in a separate companion 'Play Notes' file, in which it is stated that this is the stats I used when running the module in D20 (or intend to) use and why.

 

[Leopold]

easy Version 1 with no amendments made.


We have to make judgement calls for traps and pits and instant uber death spells. Certain places where it saves "Save vs spell to avoid X" equals a reflex save sometime and other will save. Go by what the spell or the SRD says. I rely heavy on song and silence for trap CR's and info.


Easiest conversion module:

1. Convert creatures to 3e
2. Use standard WOTC approved statblock format
3. Change game mechanics over to 3e for saves, spells, etc.
4. Create large creature key with critters.
5. Make notes in the beginning or end detailing how to modify to increase playability and balancing but perform none of it in the coversion.


That's how I am doing it and I am seeing allot of them done like that. This allows for plug n'play of critters verboten from the module, let the DM do the thinking and in the flair/flavor, you've already given them the data to perform the task.

 

[Celebrim]

"easy Version 1 with no amendments made."

Which brings us back to where we started at. There is really no point in arguing about it. We both read the document the same. I can't see why you are happy about, but that's your business.

I should note however, that although you chose Version 1, you in fact in the rest of your post talked about Version 2. In version 1, if the orginal designer demanded a dex check or used a random result, you would retain the original, since both mechanics can still be performed in D20. You would not replace the dex check with a skill check (which would favor classes not favored by the original mechanic) or a reflex save (since this favors experience over ability and the original designer almost certainly would have called for a save vs. paralyzation if this is what he wanted), even if this was the common practice of third edition designers, because you are imposing a mechanic upon the work which involves a judgement call on your part, ei unnecessarily rewritting the work.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Well, if I download the ESD of the Temple of Elemental Evil, and then I download a conversion, I would hope that the person doing the conversion would have made adjustments. Some monsters are simply much tougher in 3E. An unthinking conversion is actually a significant power-up to the module, and I don't want that.

 

[Grazzt]

Well, if I download the ESD of the Temple of Elemental Evil, and then I download a conversion, I would hope that the person doing the conversion would have made adjustments. Some monsters are simply much tougher in 3E. An unthinking conversion is actually a significant power-up to the module, and I don't want that.

I agree, except under the policy you can't make adjustments. If the encounter calls for six giants (for example), ya gotta put six giants in there...even if there is no way in hell the party could handle it.

It would be on the DM to adjust it as he sees fit.

 

[Leopold]

I agree, except under the policy you can't make adjustments. If the encounter calls for six giants (for example), ya gotta put six giants in there...even if there is no way in hell the party could handle it.

It would be on the DM to adjust it as he sees fit.

and i believe that is the point that people above were trying to make.


Look we all know that 3E is VASTLY more powerful than their 1E modules. But you CAN put notes at the bottom and suggestions on where to change things, you just cannot post it in the body of the conversion.

The best example of this is any recent copy of Dungeon Magazine. IN there they have guides on how to make it suitable for lower level play AND higher level play (add HD to the monsters, take away X weapon, add levels of barbarian to here, etc.).


After a while you get numb to the idea of a room having 15 hook horrors and the PC's are only 8th level..pish..let the DM worry about that...

 

[Celebrim]

Leopold: But the two things you describe are not the same thing. When in Dungeon they make suggestions for scaling the module to different levels, that is exactly what they are doing - scaling the module. But you cannot scale a module that does not scale to ANY level to begin with. If I add a list of conversion suggestions at the end of the module, that is not scaling the module. That is suggestions to balance the module to begin with, so that we can then scale it.

My conversion does both. The main body of the conversion (the part that flagrantly violates the notion that I'm not allowed to alter encounters to achieve among other goals game balance) is balanced for play at the character level that the original module was designed for. But also, prior to the module, I have a section which offers suggestions for scaling up or down the suggestions within the main body for parties just above or below the suggested level. This would not be possible unless the conversion was balanced to begin with.

It is easy to tell the difference. When you balance the module you make suggestions for one level of play. When you scale the module you make suggestions for several levels of play.

And in point of fact, either of them probably violates the strict interpretation of the document because you have at that point taken it on yourself to do the very thing that prompted this rant in the first place:

"WRONG! It is NOT our job to balance the module, our job is to put the data in to the correct format and then spit out the end result."

Again, I don't know if there is much point in discussing this because there is nothing I can do about it. The lawyers at WotC have spoken and who am I to fight them. But I still believe that this is a very poor double standard on what I am allowed to do with WotC's material. Noone here is argueing that I cannot for myself convert and balance the module however I like. On one hand I am a DM myself. However, that I would be forbid to share that portion of the material which is exclusively OGC (with the exception of possibily an encounter key) is ridiculous. After all, how is this WORSE than publishing my own stats for or modules featuring copyrighted or trademarked material like Drizzt, Waterdeep, The City of Greyhawk, etc. And it seems to me that it is obviously NOT as much of an infringement as converting monsters which WotC hasn't yet got around to converting - which everyone does. Ultimately, even if I'm not offering this material as 'conversion' don't I have some right to share how I chose to play the game with other DM's? Who cares if the work is 'definitive'? Is there even such a thing, since who does not rewrite published modules anyway, or who does not play them in their own unique way? The story hours that we freely collect in other forums contain far more material about the plot, characters, themes, and other indentifying aspects of the module than anything I'm proposing submitting.

Isn't it enough that I submit something that can only be used in the manner intended if the person has a copy of the module? I don't want to quote text. I don't even have to include NPC names (though they are useful tags), or the names given to areas of the encounter key (although again, those are useful tags).

 

[green slime]

I agree with Celebrim:

A straight-out, no suggestions on balancing, conversion for 3e is useless, and an exercise in futility for the converter.

It will be useless for those that own the original module, as they need to read through it far more carefully than an ordinary off-the-shelf adventure. And do far more editting than would be ordinarily required.

I have been converting the "Darkness Gathering" series, and that is not going to be seen on this website.