4e monster cpnversion

[wynteriii]

I'm trying to convert this monster from 4E to BF but I'm having trouble, it has no hit dice, just HP.
Do I divide by D8, or take the HP as is, or what ever else would make it usable.

[Steveman]

First and foremost, conversion from games is an art, not a science.

Second, 4e Monsters have way too many hit points to be converted directly.

That said, pay more attention to the type and level. It's a level 14 Solo. So it should be whatever hit dice a serious threat for a 14th-level party should be, so probably something in the 14-16 zone.

[SmootRK]

I know so little about 4e mechanics and don't really care to learn much about them, that I doubt I could offer a lot of advice about direct conversion. My best advice would be to simply take the idea of the creature in general into your mind, then put the 4e books away... then simply write up the creature in terms of BFRPG mechanics without trying to directly convert mechanics for mechanics. Make it tougher/easier as you see fit, make up stuff when necessary, and otherwise make the creature your own.

I would not be surprised that in the future, folks will refer to 4e as the lost edition of d&d... especially when things come full circle back to systems that are closer to the game's roots (such as BFRPG and other clone games).

[dymondy2k]

Yeah the tough part is the HP as 4e creatures were overloaded with them.. I think I would take Smoots recommendation and just wing it, take the flavor and build it from there. DId I mention we fought a Kobold shaman with 240 hit points in 4e.. yeah 2-4-0!

[Joe the Rat]

The main thing you want to consider is what do you have in 4th ed that is not an update of something from 3rd-or-less edition? Anything that existed in earlier editions can be converted from there - and it is a more direct shift. The place where the magic happens is in whatever new monsters 4th added, and in converting unique creatures. The best way to approach the latter is to compare the unique beastie to its closest "standard", note the differences, and recreate those based on the standard version in BF (or back to 3rd, and convert from there). Then you have to translate fea- er, powers into appropriate abilities - and know when to ignore powers that are simply part of the big numbers milieu. yeah, a lot of eyeballing will be involved.

The examples from the WIP are for a unique creature and a subtype of dracobolds*. The dragon looks something like a pyrohydra (fire-breathing hydra), or maybe better classed as a dragon with hydra traits. How much tougher than a "standard" red of appropriate age is she? use that to adjust HD. As an individual, you also assign the appropriate HP - it's okay to put her at the high end of the appropriate HD (or low for a higher HD if she deserves the extra BAB and better saves). Base changes on proportions rather than straight numbers. Use the hydra rules for adding a head. Multiple heads also means each must be targeted separately for stuns, holds, and the like - or she's flat out immune. Sweet Howard, she can bite and breathe fire in the same round. That's awesome.

The d-bolds look like they'd deserve a full HD or two (befitting their sort-of-elite and magical nature), and get to add a point of fire damage to their attacks (as if they had flaming weapons). Whether this is an innate power, or a feature of their equipment depends on how magic or technically minded you want them to be. Their listing suggests 3-4HD creatures, but if you want to go that way you are really stepping away from being kobold-like (small and squishy) - perhaps build some sort of draconian humanoid.

*- they're not old school kobolds, and need a distinct name for discussion.

[xBlackWolfx]

Not that im saying that basic fantasy is a bad game (I honestly do like it), but i think 3.x is the best out of all editions, bc it allows the most customization. my biggest gripe about 4th is that it removed multi-classing. i do like the fact that it simplified the game and made everything a bit quicker, but the removal of multi-classing and ECLs simply reduces the variety of characters that you can play.

so if i like a game with a variety of options to choose from, then why do i like basic fantasy? bc its quick and easy, both to learn and to play. something that 3.x is severly lacking in btw. infact, the only retroclone i know of for 3.x (its called pathfinder if you care to look it up) actually adds two extra stats just to simply the various combat manuvers in 3.x, something that ppl always struggled with; there's like 10 steps to the process of simply grabbing someone, grappling is by far the most infamous of the combat manuevers in 3.x, and the rules for each of the various manuevers is completely different from the others. in patherfinder however, everything from grappling to bullrushing, works just like attack and AC, d20+stat vs 10+stat (i cant remember the names of the two stats, but basically one stat improves your chances of successfully doing a combat manuever, and the other improves the chances of you resisting someone's combat manuever against you, just like the relationship between attack bonus and AC)

[Dimirag]

PF its not a retro-clone, its the next step of 3.X, and is based on de d20OGL (and is one of the reason behind the existence of 4Ed)
BTW 4Ed PH2 adds something like multi-classing.
Back to the topic at hand: I agree with that if the monster exist in one of the "retro-rules" (original or "clone") its easier and faster to convert.
3.X, 4Ed, and other games should be approach only if in need of new, exotic creatures...

[Steveman]

A Retro-clone is a Simulacrum Game.
A Simulacrum Game is not necessarily always a Retro-clone.
Pathfinder IS a Simulacrum Game.

That said, I would be much obliged of we could please keep edition bias out of discussion here.

When converting monsters from any game, pay attention to when in the campaign it is supposed to be encountered, and what roles it has in combat. The raw numbers are the least important part of monster conversion.

Edit

3.X, 4Ed, and other games should be approach only if in need of new, exotic creatures...

Why?
Why should one avoid popular new games, be them mediocre or bad, when they have a plethora of good ideas inside them for the people to find if they go looking?

[Dimirag]

I said that because if the monster already exist in a game with mechanics resembling BF it makes an easier conversion. If you have the same monster both in C&C, OSRIC, OD&D or similar and in other fantasy game such as 3.5, 4ed, palladium, etc its easier to take the first description. I'm speaking in values related terms, if you know the monster description you don't really need to converting, just create it as you think it should be.

To me the term "retro-clones" is linked to games pre-3.X (mostly D&D). I've read in several forums people saying that a game that mechanically emulates 3.X its not a "retro-clone" per-se. Sorry if my definition of "retro-clone" doesn't consider the "simulacrum".

As for the monster conversion: You can:
1 - Compare the XP of other monster between BF & 4ed. and then create it using the XP table as a guideline.
2 - Use the monster level.
3 - Use a Hydra-Dragon for template and work for there.
4 - Just go with your instinct and make a couple of variants to see which "feels right".
5 - Use 1 to 4.

[dymondy2k]

Don't use the monsters from Pathfinder... They are mean I think they only edition bias you are going to find here might be from 4e, not to say the creatures aren't cool.. The zombie that tears pieces of itself off to throw at you, that's kind of badass. But it really would be hard to nail down what would work in earlier editions using the 4e monster template. I think your better off taking an existing BFRPG creature and tweaking it to get the creature you want.