So, I'm getting ready to run a 5e game, and I'm planning to use a Pathfinder Adventure Path. When thinking on conversions, I was having a bit of a brainstorm on how to handle Skill DCs.
Here are my thought processes:
Any conversions should use a nonfocused but trained character as their baseline. So in d20/PF a character who buys a rank in the skill every level, in 5e someone who is trained. Expertise from 5e and Race/Feat bonuses from D20/PF should be a bonus, and an "almost always succeed" not the baseline for skill checks.
Any conversion should be simple to do on the fly. Using a chart is a possibility, but not needing it all would be preferred.
The two start off similar, +2 vs +4 from training for 5e vs PF. There can be differences from stats, but those are the same across both (though the PF stats can grow more from magic items and such, but we will get to that).
The major difference is GROWTH rate. In 5e that character will end up with +6 from training, The PF character will end up with +23. A difference of 17 at level 20.
Proposal
Take the suggested DC from the Adventure Path, and subtract the expected level from the DC.
At level 1, this would give the equivalent 5E character a -5% chance of success on the equivalent roll. At 20th level it would give +15% chance of success on the equivalent roll. Adventure Paths end at ~level 15 though, where the difference is only +10%.
Also, Pathfinder has more ways to boost skills (+2 Racial, Feats, backgrounds), and more plentiful magical items, so the late game +10% for a 5e character doesn't actually seem as much really.
While I could develop a more accurate conversion with a chart, on the fly, subtracting the expected level of the adventure from the DC seems to be much much faster and "good enough".
Quote from: Emperor Norton;804782While I could develop a more accurate conversion with a chart, on the fly, subtracting the expected level of the adventure from the DC seems to be much much faster and "good enough".
In theory both d20, Pathfinder, and 5e use the same scale for DC with d20 having one more higher level at DC 40.
See Page 58 of the Basic 5e Players PDF
and see this at this link
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm
Interestingly the Pathfinder SRD doesn't replicate that chart.
I used the Pathfinder Chase Cards and found that subtracting 5 from the DC seems to be good enough.
I find that while in theory that is the case, in practice its a bit absurd. The difference between a trained character in the two systems at high levels is a BROAD difference.
5e 20th Level, Proficiency + 14 stat: +8
PF 20th Level, 20 Ranks + 14 stat: +25
5e 20th Level, Expertise + 20 stat: +17
PF 20th Level, 20 Ranks + 20 stat + Racial bonus, + Trait Bonus, + Feat Bonus: +34.
Actually reading through the adventures closer now looking at the DCs, I would say there might need more adjustment than I thought, because it looks like they really EXPECT +racial+background+feat characters. I mean, there are regular 30 and 25 DC checks in the first adventure, which doesn't seem to have an expectation of "trained" but specialized to even have a chance at hitting those numbers.
You might be better off just eye balling the situation and assigning a DC on the fly.
I got a couple of PF books last year because I thought the material made for good adventure. I forgot how heavily 3.x relied on skill/ feat bumps.
It made my head hurt until I just decided to drop in the appropriate monster with OSR/Original (BECMI) stats and judge any sort of skill based challenge on an appropriate attribute check.
Maybe this will be of a little help, but ymmv I guess.
If we start at 50% (10 either way), here are the odds ratios - whether for or against, to 1on the other side - with each point of difference:
11/9 = 1.22
12/8 = 1.50
13/7 = 1.86
14/6 = 2.33
15/5 = 3.00
16/4 = 4.00
17/3 = 5.67
18/2 = 9.00
19/1 = 19.00
I would start to approach the matter by coming up with benchmarks - probably based on examples in 5e - for "difficulty classes" in a rather literal sense of broad classes or categories of undertaking.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;804793You might be better off just eye balling the situation and assigning a DC on the fly.
I'd go with this. I actually regularly do this when running 3.5 with published material: Too many adventure designers went with "let's just make the numbers bigger" instead of actually modeling the difficulty of whatever was being attempted.
I'm now just going through the adventure and looking at about what a untrained, trained, and focused player would have and just going "how hard should it be for each of these types of characters" and ignoring the original DC altogether.
There are tons of practically impossible checks in PF Adventure paths it seems. "I have +4 training, +4 stat, +3 feat, +2 race, +1 trait, I have a 25% chance of succeeding". Like seriously, at that point, why even write it into the adventure. "Oh if you happen to have a player who blew EVERTHING at first level on being good at one skill, here is something they could succeed at, but not likely".