Converting AD&D/D&D3.5 to BRP

[Shadowdragon]

I'm converting the War of the Lance campaign from D&Ds Dragonlance setting so we can play it using the BRP rules. Since I've only even used BRP for Call of Cthulhu I'm having some trouble figuring out how powerful characters will be in a more high fantasy setting. I know how fragile characters are in CoC, so I may have gone overboard on making characters tougher for the War of the Lance campaign. I had the players make their characters using the Heroic settings, the Skill Category Bonuses, and the CON+SIZ rule for HP (villains and major monsters will also get frull CON+SIZ for HP, but everything else will still only get the average). Am I making the characters too powerful for a campaign that starts at 5th level in D&D? Should I remove the Skill Category Bonuses and use the regular average of CON+SIZ for characters? Of course, I also want the characters to be strong enough to survive the level 20 encounters at the end of the campaign. How much do BRP characters advance during a campaign? Should I tone down the later parts of the campaign, or even make it so the entire campaign is about the same power level?

Edited June 27, 2009 by Shadowdragon

[Harshax]

Just run with it. You and your group will determine if the characters feel tough enough.

As to rate of experience gain. That's something I feel more comfortable talking about. BRP characters can improve very rapidly, depending on how often you allow skill increase rolls. Characters with low skills will increase faster than characters with high skills. Players who attempt many different skills through a session will increase many skills faster than players who do not attempt different skills. Some GMs like to limit the number of skill roll increases possible during the experience gain routine. This is often done in games where the GM feels that characters should specialize. I've seen players purposely try alternate skills after they have already earned their skill checks for the session. eg. Warriors using an axe instead of their sword, because they already earned a skill check in sword.

For small groups, I think it is ok to let characters earn as many checks as possible. For larger groups, this may not be ideal.

I'm converting the War of the Lance campaign from D&Ds Dragonlance setting so we can play it using the BRP rules. Since I've only even used BRP for Call of Cthulhu I'm having some trouble figuring out how powerful characters will be in a more high fantasy setting. I know how fragile characters are in CoC, so I may have gone overboard on making characters tougher for the War of the Lance campaign. I had the players make their characters using the Heroic settings, the Skill Category Bonuses, and the CON+SIZ rule for HP (villains and major monsters will also get frull CON+SIZ for HP, but everything else will still only get the average). Am I making the characters too powerful for a campaign that starts at 5th level in D&D? Should I remove the Skill Category Bonuses and use the regular average of CON+SIZ for characters? Of course, I also want the characters to be strong enough to survive the level 20 encounters at the end of the campaign. How much do BRP characters advance during a campaign? Should I tone down the later parts of the campaign, or even make it so the entire campaign is about the same power level?

[soltakss]

It doesn't sound too powerful/over powered.

As Harshax says, suck it and see. You'll soon find out if there are problems or if the PCs are walking every encounter.

Don't make all the encounters the same strength. Throw in some weak encounters at the start to make the players comfortable, then throw in a few tougher ones. As the party improve then throw in tougher and tougher opponents, as well as a few weaker ones to make them feel good.

One thing I like to do is to throw a tougher foe at them at the start of the campaign, then throw the same unchanged encounter at them later on and see how easy they deal with the encounter. Then point out to the players how far they have progressed.

Don't worry about the Level 20 encounter at the end of the campaign. In my experience, a well-organised party who help each other out is a match for very powerful foes, especially if the party has magic.

[frogspawner]

Characters will always be more vulnerable in BRP than in D&D. A lot will depend on what magic you make available to patch them up after any "accidents".

As a very rough rule of thumb, I'd say 5th level would be about 70% in main skills, i.e. 10% per level + 20%, perhaps?

Improvement over a campaign? How long is a piece of string?

You're on the frontier of knowledge with this though, so... Good Luck!

[Shadowdragon]

What's a good rule of thumb for converting D&D skills to BRP skills? I tried just x5, but I got very low BRP skills. Would x5 + base work better, or maybe some other way? Or is this more of a "whatever I think the creature should have" kind of thing?

[frogspawner]

I've not had occasion to convert from 3.x in practice. Base should definitely be in the formula, and you may well be right about Rank x5 coming out too low.

Does Base + Rank x10% seem better?

[Harshax]

I would ignore direct mappings of Skill Rank to %. Look at page 48 of the BRP book "Measuring Skill Ratings". If the character has maxed out his skill rank in a class skill, I would set their BRP Skill Level between Professional and Expert. If they've taken feats that give them further bonuses to the skill, I'd bump the % up to the master level. If the character is over 6th level (meaning they would get multiple attacks, and have greater than 9 ranks), I'd push them into the low master. I'd add an additional 100% for levels 11 and 16. Halve this for cross-class skills. This rating is for skills with max rank only.

Now if the character has only dabbled, I'd give them a percentage of the max percentile.

Example:

6th level fighter.

Weapons - no more than 110%

Intimidate (9 ranks, class skill) - 110%

Swim (9 ranks, class skill + Skill Focus) - 135%

Move Silently (4.5 ranks, cross class) - 55%

Jump (4 ranks, class skill) - 48%

EDIT: I don't really recommend converting characters. If you insist, I don't recommend you spend too much time coming up with exact formula. I don't think it can be done. The above guidelines were thought up in about 30 seconds, and seem to give adequate results.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Harshax

[Shadowdragon]

Oh, sorry, I was just wanting to convert monsters and NPCs. The characters will be built from scratch.

[Harshax]

Oh, sorry, I was just wanting to convert monsters and NPCs. The characters will be built from scratch.

My bad. The guidelines from my previous thread aren't suitable for monsters. Monsters should be measured in turns of threat. Mooks, listless guards, or rabble usually have a 30% to do things. Dangerous opponents are in the 60 - 90 rank. Heroic monsters are masters and above.

[Atgxtg]

What's a good rule of thumb for converting D&D skills to BRP skills? I tried just x5, but I got very low BRP skills. Would x5 + base work better, or maybe some other way? Or is this more of a "whatever I think the creature should have" kind of thing?

Since D&D is based on around a 50% (actually 55%) success chance for an unskilled character to hit AC 10 or made a DC 10 skill test, I would say it coverts over to around 50%+5% per rank.

This means that a 5th level character with 8 ranks in a skill would translate to a skill rating of 90%! IF the character had any bonus for a high characteristic, making a DC10 check would be automatic.

This does make D&D characters more skilled than starting BRP characters. but that is the nature of the system. It is also offset somewhat by the fact that D&D character don't have training in that many skilled in comparison to a BRP character.

[Shadowdragon]

Oops, I forgot human INT averages at 13, not 10. I've been converting creatures based on a human average INT of 10. I guess I can't just use convert D&D INT directly into BRP INT. Why is INT 2d6+6 instead of 3d6 anyway? There are humans dumber than INT 8.

[Mechashef]

Oops, I forgot human INT averages at 13, not 10. I've been converting creatures based on a human average INT of 10. I guess I can't just use convert D&D INT directly into BRP INT. Why is INT 2d6+6 instead of 3d6 anyway? There are humans dumber than INT 8.

RQ1 & 2 had INT (and SIZ) of 3D6.

I think the reason for changing twofold.

First, there are some creatures that have intelligence much less than humans. An INT of 2D6 gives an average of 7, but you would still get quite a few humans with an INT of 7 or less. The maximum of 12 would be higher than the human average. By making human INT 2D6+6, it makes creatures with sub-human intelligence really sub-human.

Second, in RQ3 there is the concept of fixed INT. Some creatures have a fixed value for INT. Typically these are animals and ones like worms might have an INT of 1. Sheep have 4, dogs 5 and chimps 7. Though RQ3 points out that fixed INT is not the same as normal sentient INT, it is nice that the dumbest human still has a higher rating than a dog (Obviously the authors never met my cousins).

[Mechashef]

There is a table in RQ3 (I think) that converts between 3D6 and 2D6+6.

[Al.]

Oops, I forgot human INT averages at 13, not 10. I've been converting creatures based on a human average INT of 10. I guess I can't just use convert D&D INT directly into BRP INT. Why is INT 2d6+6 instead of 3d6 anyway? There are humans dumber than INT 8.

In BRP you can have human characters with INT of 5 (by rolling the minimum of 8 and then using the optional rule of transferring 3 points to another characteristic).

The discussions on this topic have been many and varied. I shall (unusually for me) resist the temptation to hold forth on my views and why my alternative rule which addresses the same issues is far superior and leave you to trawl through the archives.

There is a table in RQ3 (I think) that converts between 3D6 and 2D6+6.

Its in Elric! as well. If no one else beats me to it I shall post it here at some point this weekend.

Al

[frogspawner]

If no one else beats me to it I shall post it here at some point this weekend.

I posted it recently in another thread, here.

[Al.]

I posted it recently in another thread, here.

Ta muchly, saves me the embarassment of posting a table full of typos!

Al

[travellingbeetle]

I think INT as a characteristic is pointless when considering non-sentient creatures. It's only with SIZ I really see the point of having a roll with a high minimum score.

SGL.

[frogspawner]

Same here. I'd stick with the traditional 3-18 scale for INT, and carry it over unchanged from D&D. Your conversion is easier that way, too!

For a quick-and-dirty conversion of SIZ, I'd say SIZ = HP x 2

(AD&D HP that is. Not sure if the 3.5 variety would work so well. Obviously, that's the HP due to biggness, of course - ignore that component of D&D HP which comes from "fighting skill" or "luck" or whatever...)