4E Ravenloft--Back into the Crypt for Now

[Paladyn]

If the game was supposed to be like Gamm World, it would have it's own rules section (d20 4th edition, not the different ones) as well as character creation, advancement, monsters and world's description. What worried me was an option to play creatures of darkness. I would not hope to see new material, only revisiting places we know and visited many times before: Darkon, Barovia, Kartakass etc. What I was afraid, it would turn Ravenloft Roleplaying Game: Twilight edition.

Only way of worthy contributing to Ravenloft in my opinion is expand and continue Gazetteers we received from Arthaus.

[Mortavius]

I wouldn't fret too much - Ravenloft never needed as many extra rules as other campaign settings.

Funny, because Ravenloft had as much, if not more, rules than other settings. Fear, Horror, Madness. Powers Checks. All the changes to spells and abilities. Just to name a few off the top of my head.

Like I say, at least as many as most of the other settings out there.

[Tenebris]

From the official liveblog of the 2011 D&DXP Product Spotlight Seminar:

19. Q: Nothing about Ravenloft Campaign Setting?

1. A: We announced it at GenCon
2. A: We have decided to put it on the shelf, as we feel it isn’t ready yet.
3. A: Very experimental - want to try and decide a better focus for it.
4. A: Don’t expect it to show up soon.

Given the very little information we had about this, I'm finding it hard to get upset.

I'm using the Pathfinder system rather than 4E (much better for roleplay imho) and manually updating everything. It's a huge task for someone with my work and family schedule but sadly I bet I'll be finished before we see any official product.

[Tenebris]

I'm with Jadeite - at least we have Paizo's Carrion Crown setting this year, which sounds well concieved and could easily be tweaked into an Ravenloft cluster

http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/carrionCrown

Pazio have produced some excellent horror-setting adventures (Hangman's noose, the Skinsaw murders etc) that can easily be slipped into a Ravenloft campaign and I have great hopes. Plus try as I might, I haven't warmed to 4E for my games, so I'm I ploughing my hard-earned bucks into the new Pathfinder setting subscription.

You've read my mind! I plan to incorporate Carrion Crown into my revamped Ravenloft setting. We already plan to use Pathfinder anyway as we like it a lot more than 4E, which feels more like tabletop World of Warcraft than an RPG.

[Jester of the FoS]

I wouldn't fret too much - Ravenloft never needed as many extra rules as other campaign settings.

Funny, because Ravenloft had as much, if not more, rules than other settings. Fear, Horror, Madness. Powers Checks. All the changes to spells and abilities. Just to name a few off the top of my head.

Like I say, at least as many as most of the other settings out there.

One of the selling features of Ravenloft I always bring-up is it's modular nature; you can just drop it in an existing campaign or adventure or setting for an adventure or an arc or a tier. Even if you're playing the Forgotten Realms there might still be something for you in a Ravenloft book. Unlike any other campaign book.
It would be a nice product to emphasis their Despair Deck (from the Shadowfell boxed set), possibly with expansion cards. It could also add firearm rules and class powers to 4e.

[alhoon]

I'm using the Pathfinder system rather than 4E (much better for roleplay imho) and manually updating everything.

Why not just use 3rd edition? Updating to pathfinder is too much work for little gain IMO

[Tenebris]

I'm using the Pathfinder system rather than 4E (much better for roleplay imho) and manually updating everything.

Why not just use 3rd edition? Updating to pathfinder is too much work for little gain IMO

Updating to Pathfinder rules-wise isn't as much work as tweaking the RL narrative to make it more consistent, and restatting Darklords so their abilities better match their stories. As for 3E vs. Pathfinder, a lot of balance issues were rectified, Pathfinder puts out top quality content, and I fully intent to support them for preserving D&D. 4E is an abomination, more akin to tabletop World of Warcraft than an RPG in my humble opinion.

[Strahdsbuddy]

4E is an abomination, more akin to tabletop World of Warcraft than an RPG in my humble opinion.

Let it be known that Tenebris and I have never met and this opinion was not transmitted to him by me in any way whatsoever!

(Yes, Tenebris, that was my opinion of it as well.)

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Let's try to cut back on the 4e-bashing, please. It's not my favorite either, but like it or not, it's the future of the D&D brand. Any future Ravenloft-related releases will be 4e, not Pathfinder. You can play Ravenloft in 4e, either straight 4e, or with Jester's (or your own) tweaks. I've done it. The Shattered City campaign in the Cafe does it. Many others have too. Some folks have already expressed reluctance to share 4e Ravenloft stuff with the community for fear of unfair criticism just because it's 4e. I for one don't want to alienate anyone who is producing Ravenloft related material. We all know that Ravenloft goes beyond any one rule system, and that it's easy enough to adapt what we like from any of them. So let's all just try to tone it down a bit.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

I'm using the Pathfinder system rather than 4E (much better for roleplay imho) and manually updating everything.

4E is an abomination, more akin to tabletop World of Warcraft than an RPG in my humble opinion.

See, I just don't get this. I was a big, big 2nd Ed holdout when 3rd Ed came out, and I was dubious about 4th Ed. But then I played it and, guess what? It's fun!

Yes, there is a cut back skills list, but do you really need to have Knowledge (Fine Wines) or Craft (Tables) as a skill? Isn't it easier just to say, "My character knows fine wines because of his father's collection," or "My character was apprenticed to a carpenter and was great at making tables,"? And the MMORPG comparison is off. Yes, you have a more limited selection of powers now, but at least a level 10 fighter is as balanced as a level 10 wizard, and, no, in 3rd Ed they aren't balanced. A quick comparison off the top of my head; a level 10 fighter with a BAB of +10/+5 and a strength of 18 can attack 2 enemies. If he is using a long sword, he gets +4 to damage; maximum damage out put 24 points of damage to each enemy, a total of 48 points in a round. A level 10 wizard casts fireball. At level 10 it has a 20 foot radius, emcompasing 40 squares, a potential of 40 medium sized targets. Maximum damage out put of 30 points to each enemy, a total of 1200 points in a round. Why would you not want to play a mage, who with the right spells, has a comparable AC and saves to the same level fighter? 4th Edition balances it so a 10th level fighter and a 10th level wizard have different abilities that do a comparable effect to the combat. A wizard will disable a number of foes, whilst a fighter will make sure the foes are wanting to face him instead of the squishy wizard.

I would agree that 4th Ed is probably a little too heroic for a Ravenloft campaign. I'm only planning on running House of Strahd in 4th, but I'm considering changes I'd make to the system if I wanted to run a full campaign. I'm not sure if you've tried 4th Ed, so this isn't directed at you, but for people who dismiss it out of hand because it's new and different, suck it up and try it out. You might be suprised. 4th Ed is not 3rd Ed, but it is still, at its core, Dungeons and Dragons. It still feels the same. It still has the same recognisable features, it's just different.

[Strahdsbuddy]

Apologies, Gonzoron, feel free to remove my post. (and this one as well) I was just surprised to see someone else echo my thoughts from three years ago. I would also like to encourage the sharing of homebrew Ravenloft material regardless of edition. We will convert to suit our needs and be thankful for the creativity of others. As I've stated before, my need for a combat system in Ravenloft is minimal, it is almost meaningless to me. I liked the expanded skill system of 3rd, and also the logically clipped system of Pathfinder (move silently and hide in shadows were obnoxious as separate skills even in 2nd edition) because it suited my style more.

My only rebuttal to Drinnik is that if a player is basing his character choice solely on what he can do in combat ("why wouldn't he play a wizard") it sounds a little bit like we are playing different games. I played World of Warcraft for about 6 months, right after the release of 4e; the similarities between the two startled me a little. In a MMO I think class balance is important because combat is such a major part of the game. Absolutely if one class was better than the other, or some race/class combination min/maxed to the point of being head and shoulders above the rest, it would need to be balanced. In a role-playing game like D&D, the guy who cannot deal 1200 points of damage in a round still has a use. My troll hunter without Arcane Shot in WoW is useless to a raid group in levels 70-80; but in pnp role-playing, his reasoning for not using it could be what define his character, which is much more important in that particular game. One is not better than the other, but the fact that one essentially replaced the other rubbed many of us the wrong way.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

And 3rd Ed replaced 2nd Ed, and people moaned (myself being very, very vocal). 3.5 and 4th are as compatible as 2nd and 3rd. It's possible, but takes a lot of work. But The MMORPG analogy does break down. The pcs get a utility power at level 2 that is pretty much exclusively a non-combat power. My level 2 ranger, for example, has a power that lets him reduced the DC of climb checks by making a ladder of arrows, the warlock in the party has a power that lets him use an arcane check in place of a diplomacy, bluff or intimidate check.

And 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed were just as combat focused as 4th Ed. 4th Ed just makes combat interesting. A fighter in previous additions basically went, "I hit it with my sword" every round. Now, they have a variety of attacks. Take a look at the spells in 3.5, over two thirds of them are based in a combat environment. The same in 2nd Ed, hell, there's a spell in the Spell Compendium called "Turtle Soup" which can create a nourishing turtle-based soup or a solid projectile to be used in combat!

But 4th ed has Skill Challenges which actively promote roleplaying, the DMG is one of the most useful "This is how to run an RPG" books I've ever read. The game itself is geared towards having fun and breaking down the DM vs Player mentality that 2nd Ed and, to a lesser extent, 3rd Ed fostered. 4th editions rules are designed to be swift, simple and easy to understand. It is a game designed to encourage new players, unlike 2nd and, again to a lesser extent, 3rd Ed and 3.5. I'm not saying it's a better experience than 3rd Ed, but it is a different one and a more varied one.

And it's a metric guanoload of improvement over 2nd Edition, a system that after playing Skills and Powers/Spells and Magi/Combat and Tactics character-designed game recently, I will never, ever play again.

[Tenebris]

Let's try to cut back on the 4e-bashing, please. It's not my favorite either, but like it or not, it's the future of the D&D brand. Any future Ravenloft-related releases will be 4e, not Pathfinder. You can play Ravenloft in 4e, either straight 4e, or with Jester's (or your own) tweaks. I've done it. The Shattered City campaign in the Cafe does it. Many others have too. Some folks have already expressed reluctance to share 4e Ravenloft stuff with the community for fear of unfair criticism just because it's 4e. I for one don't want to alienate anyone who is producing Ravenloft related material. We all know that Ravenloft goes beyond any one rule system, and that it's easy enough to adapt what we like from any of them. So let's all just try to tone it down a bit.

My apologies, my intent was not to offend I was merely stating my reasoning for my preference for and support of the Pathfinder system. I'm old, set in my ways, and occasionally gruff I suppose. No offense intended and those who do enjoy 4E more power to them and I wish them all the fun in the world with their campaigns. As for myself I will be using Pathfinder as the basis for any and all Ravenloft content I run, and if any Ravenloft content is realized, it will be duly converted by yours truly. That being said I never meant to offend the sensibilities of anyone else in the community and would be more then happy to see and enjoy any content development they are working on, be it 1e,2e,3e,4e, CoC, GURPS, Pathfinder or any other system.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Thanks to all involved for taking that request in the spirit it was meant. I won't be deleting any posts at this time, but let's leave this thread for discussion of the 4e Ravenloft product and its cancellation/shelving. If anyone wants to do a (civil and respectful) debate on the merits of the different editions (for the millionth time. ) go ahead and do so in the Roleplaying Games forum.

[alhoon]

Some folks have already expressed reluctance to share 4e Ravenloft stuff with the community for fear of unfair criticism just because it's 4e.

I think I've heard that before and Joel became quite incistent on finding out who was terrorizing people.
It was quite easy to understand it was Dru however, but I think Joel just didn't dare face her, so he went for easier victims.

a level 10 fighter with a BAB of +10/+5 and a strength of 18 can attack 2 enemies.

Ehh... no. I'm pretty sure that according to the rules, he can't attack two enemies. His attacks go to ONE enemy, he can't split the attacks.

And to get on topic:

I would agree that 4th Ed is probably a little too heroic for a Ravenloft campaign.

That. 4E is a nice game, but it's too heroic for Ravenloft. Paladins with their at will "bzzzt, my sword is now radiant energy" attacks are a bit off.