Quote from: estar;692998Yes but what is the To-Hit bonus and the bonus for a saving throw? For a monster not a character.
My guess that it would have to be a factor of HD.

Absolutely.  Since prof bonus is the same for every class, it would be the same for HD of monster. So a level 1 or 2 monster would have a +1 to hit.  A level  3-6 monster would have +2, etc.

QuoteSome examples (Monster names removed)

AC 6; HD 5; #AT 3; D 1-4/1-4/1-8; MV 120 (40); Save F2; ML 8; AL N.

AC 4; MV 6” *12”; HD 4+4; hp 24, 18; #AT 1 ; Drng 2-8 + poison; AL CE

AC 2; MV 15”/30”; HD 7+3; #AT 1; Dmg 1-8 +drain two levels; AL LE; SD +1 or better weapon to hit

Sure you could use stat substitution but what would be even more of a neat trick if you can derive the numbers from the above and go with that.

I'll do this, but one caveat.  Without knowing the monster type, it would be hard to do the saving throw conversion.  This is because a monster that is quick would have a DEX bonus, while a brute of a monster would have high STR or CON.  A mind flayer, for instance, I would give bonuses to saves on INT and WIS.

But here's how I would do the conversions on the fly:

AC 14; HD 5; #AT 3(+2 TH); D 1-4/1-4/1-8; MV 60 (20); ML 8; AL N.

AC 16; MV 30'; HD 4+4; hp 24, 18; #AT 1 (+2 TH) ; Drng 2-8 + poison; AL CE

AC 18; MV 30/60; HD 7+3; #AT 1 (+3 TH); Dmg 1-8 +drain two levels; AL LE; SD magic weapon to hit

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693000Absolutely.  Since prof bonus is the same for every class, it would be the same for HD of monster. So a level 1 or 2 monster would have a +1 to hit.  A level  3-6 monster would have +2, etc.

Mmm good point however I think what bestiary does is take that number and add in the STR or DEX bonus depending on whether it is melee or ranged.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693000I'll do this, but one caveat.  Without knowing the monster type, it would be hard to do the saving throw conversion.  This is because a monster that is quick would have a DEX bonus, while a brute of a monster would have high STR or CON.  A mind flayer, for instance, I would give bonuses to saves on INT and WIS.

Back before I started using Swords & Wizardry I pretty much had to do stat block substitution for GURPS, Fantasy Hero, etc. Just how those system worked out.

I started to do that with Swords & Wizardry but ultimately said to hell with it. In S&W the HD equals the +to Hit when using ascending AC. So I started using the original module's statblock. The only thing I had to look up was the single saving throw number for that HD, which Matt Finch had on a chart for making your own monster.

Personally I don't like deciding whether a monster is "quick" etc. I would rather have a way of using the HD and other stats I would need.

Now D20 wouldn't have this problem as the statblock they provide have the monster STR, DEX, etc. So the above doesn't apply to D20 conversions.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693000AC 14; HD 5; #AT 3(+2 TH); D 1-4/1-4/1-8; MV 60 (20); ML 8; AL N.

AC 16; MV 30'; HD 4+4; hp 24, 18; #AT 1 (+2 TH) ; Drng 2-8 + poison; AL CE

AC 18; MV 30/60; HD 7+3; #AT 1 (+3 TH); Dmg 1-8 +drain two levels; AL LE; SD magic weapon to hit

The only thing I would do different is just use the TH for the saving throw bonus as well. Maybe a 1/4 HD.

In the end I think you are on to something with the compatibility of D&D Next. Obviously it not the same as running the modules in their original system but compared to trying to run them using GURPS, BRP, or D&D 4e; D&D Next is a lot easier.

Not trying to hijack your thread (thank you for the ongoing reports, I find them highly useful).  But I wanted to post a short playtest report on Next, and didn't think it justified a whole new thread, so decided to tact it on here.

Anyway, an interesting thing happened in my last playtest.  I'm the DM, using Roll20, and I didn't have a huge amount of prep time before our last session.  I knew what the monsters were in each section of the dungeon the players were likely to go in (they're in a crypt, so it's all undead there), but I hadn't taken a careful look at the map I had borrowed from some unknown place.

The players got to a very large tomb, with one huge sarcophagus in the center-rear of the room across from the entrance, and a bunch of funerary urns lining the sides of the room.  My original plan for the room was simply to have a mummy rise from the sarcophagus when the players got close enough - that was it, my entire quick plan for the room before the session.  In fact, that whole room had been added sort of haphazardly at the last minute.

The image of the sarcophagus happened to show a picture of a glaive on top of the sarcophagus (which, when the players noticed it, made me think "huh...ok, there's a glaive, I'll have to do something with that.)

As the thief starts running towards the weapon, another player yells "wait, the room is probably trapped!"

And I thought, "hey yeah...this room is probably trapped".

So I invented a trap on the spot, made the thief roll a dex save to avoid a dart that shot out of an urn to the side of the room.  There it was, a purpose for all those urns in the room.  I decided on the fly that all the urns were trapped similarly, with pressure plates in the room.  The thief had a grand old time disabling as he went.

There was a large treasure chest at the back of the room, and this time the thief was carefully checking it for traps.  Sure, why not, it's trapped to trigger the Sarcophagus to open when it is opened.  The glaive? Same trap, both are lures to trigger the mummy rising.  The trap stats are super-easy to simply make-up on the spot.

As the rest of the party follows the thief in, I knew the thief couldn't resist the treasure.  So he tried to disable the trap, which I gave a somewhat difficult but definitely possible DC to disable.  BAM, natural 1 on his check, Sarcophagus top flies open.

At this point we took a 5 minute bathroom break, and one player says to another "with the size of that sarcophagus, it's got to be a giant creature in there".  

And that's the first time I notice that yeah, that's an awful big sarcophagus.  Did I accidentally re-size the map to be twice the intended size? Could be, but it all looks OK and the resolution came through just fine.  Huh. Yeah, that mummy should be giant, otherwise there would be no reason for such a large sarcophagus.  

So I took my remaining three-minute break to re-jigger my mummy.  It's now giant, to I gave it reach, and another hit die of hit points, and a some more speed, a bit more attack and damage, and reduced its AC.  Took about 2 minutes or less for that.

We're back, up rises a giant mummy, and we're off to the races.  Two players miss their saves and are terrified by the mummy's despair ability.  The other three hack at it mercilessly, but notice it's not taking as much damage as they expect it should from their weapons.  The Cleric hits it with a flame spell and notices it seems to writhe in pain more, so the part hauls out some fire attacks.  The fighter goes down unconscious, but the remaining players are able to take it down just as the two players who were frightened make their saves finally.  Battle over.

This turned out to be a really fun encounter.  And, my purpose for posting about it is just to mention just how simple it was in Next to generate stuff on the fly.  Traps? No problem.  Making a monster Giant? No problem.  Resizing a map to double the size by accident? No problem.  The system has so much room for DMs that very little gets in the way of just playing the game.

Now, I liked 4e plenty when we played it, but I would have never tried some of those things in 4e.  The rules were too fixed.  The mummy powers would have been so pre-planned that adjusting them on the fly like that would have been more difficult and more noticeable to the players.  The traps would have likely needed a skill challenge, and I just didn't have enough planned to pull off such a skill challenge that would have felt not-forced.  

We've been having a lot of fun with 5e, and this was yet another session that went great.  It "feels" like I felt when I played AD&D 1e so many years ago, and it's been a long time since I felt that way.

Quote from: Mistwell;693203Not trying to hijack your thread (thank you for the ongoing reports, I find them highly useful).  But I wanted to post a short playtest report on Next, and didn't think it justified a whole new thread, so decided to tact it on here.

No worries at all.  I agree with you.

Oh, and good summary.  I also agree with you there.  I've found it very easy to ad-lib stuff in Next.

Quote from: estar;692998Yes but what is the To-Hit bonus and the bonus for a saving throw? For a monster not a character.
My guess that it would have to be a factor of HD.

2+(HD/2) for an attack bonus will be good enough for government work in converting to DDN on the fly.

Saves are based on ability scores.  Use the same inherent understanding of whatever a monster's ability scores should be that you have developed over the decades.

A DM friend tried running T1 with 5e and halfway through the session his players were asking why they weren't just playing 1e. I talked with him afterward and he said at converting Hommlet was easy-ish, but he felt that he wasn't getting anything out of the conversion.

I think his problem was his players were old school so they couldn't (or wouldn't) justify the time to learn the nuances of 5e. I am pretty sure that if 5e wasn't called D&D, it wouldn't get a second glance from most people.

I tried to run 5e for a few friends last weekend, but in doing chargen for the session, I just got bored so we just played OD&D instead. I was using the last playtest, not the current one. I haven't read the new one yet so I can't comment on it in play.

They want me to get 13th Age and run that, but the only new RPG that has sparked my interest recently is Zweihander and I fear I may run into the "why not just run WFRP 1e" issue as the other DM did with 5e vs. 1e.

Quote from: Mistwell;693203Not trying to hijack your thread (thank you for the ongoing reports, I find them highly useful).  But I wanted to post a short playtest report on Next, and didn't think it justified a whole new thread, so decided to tact it on here.

It sounds really positive, and for those whose boat it floats it sounds very easy to drop a grid on that and tighten up positioning (I assume you weren't that strict).

Quote from: Spinachcat;693468A DM friend tried running T1 with 5e and halfway through the session his players were asking why they weren't just playing 1e. .

As someone who plays 1e as his preferred edition, but is enjoying Next, I can give you a few of my reasons

1. Customization.  There really isn't any customization within classes themselves in AD&D.  If you wanted a sneaky fighter, you did a fighter/thief multi-class (and had to be demi-human unless you tried to dual class).  In Next, you choose a fighter class but a sneaky background and/or feat.  There you go.  Along the same lines, the customization isn't so flooded with individual feats that you run into the bloat, char op, or trap choices that you saw with 3e.  Next has them in theme packages rather than a million feats.

2. Streamlined and smoother rules.  There really isn't any comparison here.  None of those funky weapon vs armor tables, no attack matrix's to look up, the same mechanic for saving throws, attack rolls, and ability checks rather than an individual rule for each.

3. Advantage.  I really like this mechanic as an easy way to handle things as opposed to tallying individual bonuses or penalties.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;693477it sounds very easy to drop a grid on that and tighten up positioning (I assume you weren't that strict).

I used minis and a grid when I ran my playtest game it is no more easy or harder than any other system that has movement rates and ranges in feet. In short it is a no-brainer.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693521As someone who plays 1e as his preferred edition, but is enjoying Next, I can give you a few of my reasons

OK these are your reasons and I'm totally cool with them. What I'm about to say is my take on those, and this isn't meant to challenge your approach at all. I'm just a different person. Just making it clear up front. Just sharing my own take on these.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;6935211. Customization.  There really isn't any customization within classes themselves in AD&D.  If you wanted a sneaky fighter, you did a fighter/thief multi-class (and had to be demi-human unless you tried to dual class).  In Next, you choose a fighter class but a sneaky background and/or feat.  There you go.  Along the same lines, the customization isn't so flooded with individual feats that you run into the bloat, char op, or trap choices that you saw with 3e.  Next has them in theme packages rather than a million feats.

I'm just not interested in that much customization anymore. When I'm looking at the fighting styles at first level for a fighter, what I'm basically seeing is "where do I put that +1 bean on my combat abilities." I just want to play a fighter competent with weapons. So it's not really a plus at this point for me (that may change with time, or with character concepts, or whatnot). I'm neutral if it doesn't take too much time to make these choices, and annoyed if they take some time. But I'll still play.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;6935212. Streamlined and smoother rules.  There really isn't any comparison here.  None of those funky weapon vs armor tables, no attack matrix's to look up, the same mechanic for saving throws, attack rolls, and ability checks rather than an individual rule for each.

When I started reading the Barbarian class description I had quite a shock because I haven't been looking into WotC rules books for the last few months and have been using AD&D books and reading and re-reading them for the same amount of time. You're right that there's no picture just how different the games are on that standpoint (well, if that playtest doc is anything to go by in terms of style of the final 5e rules and texts in the books, which is a stretch). It's just that reading the Barbarian and after the fighter I'm just booooored. It's all mechanics and terse 3rd grade level language. It's just so cold, impersonal, and rules focused, it just doesn't rock my boat nearly as much as the 1e PH.

I won't go over the simple and streamlined versus joyous mess of a creative toolbox, or the unified mechanics, or the attack matrixes and so on. Streamlined is a clear plus for you, apparently. It's not necessarily a plus for me.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;6935213. Advantage.  I really like this mechanic as an easy way to handle things as opposed to tallying individual bonuses or penalties.

Now that I always thought was a cool idea. That's something I'd use in my AD&D games.

Quote from: Benoist;693544OK these are your reasons and I'm totally cool with them. What I'm about to say is my take on those, and this isn't meant to challenge your approach at all. I'm just a different person. Just making it clear up front. Just sharing my own take on these.

.

No worries, we all have our preferences.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693546No worries, we all have our preferences.

Apart of the thing about the Greater Weapon fighting which made me go "huh?" I have to say though, this looks like a D&D game to me, for what it's worth. I'd play it.

Quote from: Benoist;693547Apart of the thing about the Greater Weapon fighting which made me go "huh?" I have to say though, this looks like a D&D game to me, for what it's worth. I'd play it.

The Greater Weapon thing really bugs me, too. I want to like Next, and I love the lighter ruleset, the small amount of customization, but then something like that comes along and just rubs me completely the wrong way. It's extremely meta-gamey, with no consistent, game-world referent.

As for the writing style, I haven't read the last playtest packet, but I've been assuming, up 'til now, that the style of writing was really just about it being playtest material. Let's hope that's the case, as the writing in 4E felt like it was penned by a cold, dead fish.

Quote from: Benoist;693544I'm just not interested in that much customization anymore. When I'm looking at the fighting styles at first level for a fighter, what I'm basically seeing is "where do I put that +1 bean on my combat abilities." I just want to play a fighter competent with weapons. So it's not really a plus at this point for me (that may change with time, or with character concepts, or whatnot). I'm neutral if it doesn't take too much time to make these choices, and annoyed if they take some time. But I'll still play.

What is so much different between picking DDN fighting styles versus picking AD&D weapon proficiencies?

Quote from: estar;692900The group didn't run A1 with AD&D 1st. What he is amazed at is that a AD&D 1st character 'as is' was so easily adapted to use under D&D Next rules and was useful although underpowered.

If you let them use their native attack bonuses, they'd really kick ass at higher levels.