Sigh. Another D&D 5E conversion thread?

[Whiplash]

I really just want opinions on a fairly narrow subject. Unless, of course, someone has some great system for conversion already in place...

D&D mechanics:
roll to hit vs. AC that determines whether you hit or not.
roll attack damage to inflict hit point damage on the target.

M&M mechanics:
roll to hit vs. Parry or Dodge to determine whether you hit or not.
roll attack damage against toughness to inflict "damage" on the target.

To me, this says that D&D AC is actually equivalent to the Dodge or Parry score, regardless of whatever armor they are wearing, and that their hit points somehow is more equivalent to the Toughness.

Does this make sense?

[SeeleyOne]

You are correct as that is how armor has always been treated in D&D.

You are also correct about how Toughness can be compared to hit points.

[Kimera757]

I really just want opinions on a fairly narrow subject. Unless, of course, someone has some great system for conversion already in place...

D&D mechanics:
roll to hit vs. AC that determines whether you hit or not.
roll attack damage to inflict hit point damage on the target.

M&M mechanics:
roll to hit vs. Parry or Dodge to determine whether you hit or not.
roll attack damage against toughness to inflict "damage" on the target.

To me, this says that D&D AC is actually equivalent to the Dodge or Parry score, regardless of whatever armor they are wearing, and that their hit points somehow is more equivalent to the Toughness.

Does this make sense?

Pretty much.

Touch AC = Parry/Dodge
HP = Toughness
Flat-footed AC = Toughness

Generally when doing a conversion, I treat hit points as Defensive Roll (there's no standard formula) while natural armor becomes Protection. (So Conan, whose 1e version has lots of hit points, would have many ranks in Defensive Roll. A dragon would have a high Stamina score and Protection. Indeed, a dragon would have Impervious Protection to some degree.)

This isn't the "right" way, just my way

[jmucchiello]

I would not do conversion numerically. I would do it based on performance. How does a rogue in leather "perform" compared to a fighter in plate. And then pick the M&M numbers that get you there. Converting the numbers via formula will miss a lot of nuance.

[SeeleyOne]

I would not do conversion numerically. I would do it based on performance. How does a rogue in leather "perform" compared to a fighter in plate. And then pick the M&M numbers that get you there. Converting the numbers via formula will miss a lot of nuance.

I agree with this. Another thing to consider is that a formulaic conversion has one false assuption: that the original source was created with some sort of formula in the first place. The math has never been formulaic in D&D games. Granted, my experience with them does not include 4th edition or later, so maybe I am quite wrong and that someone has come up with a formula when designing all of the published classes.

I can remember trying to apply a formula to 2nd edition AD&D. There was even a class creation option in the Dungeon Master's Guide for 2nd edtion. However, you could not make the core classes with it as the math was flawed.

3rd edition and Pathfinder could have *really* benefitted from a formula, but alas there was none. All classes were somebody's subjective idea.

The way to convert is to ask yourself "what do I want this to do or what rating do I want?", use the original source as a very rough guidline based on how it compares to the source system, and then just give it what you want it to be. There are too many variables that can get lost in translation.