Café de Nuit

Danke, Alhoon. I figured it would be a bit of a chore to convert. 2 to 3E wasn't TOO bad, i thought.

Over the course of all my campaigns, the system has become less and less important and the story more and more. They system only seems to come into play when creating a character. THough my players will NEVER know this, I usually just let combat go on as long as it is interesting; that way we can get back to the reason we are playing, which is of course my EXPERTLY designed campaigns with the interlacing plotlines. Either that, or getting back to the PCs trying to pull each other's pants down with psionics......

Well, 4th edition will help you VERY much with this. Combat is more interesting and the system so easy for the DM that you can focus on the story.
And if you want, you can have the PCs level without ever bying a weapon. Skill challenges will make up for combat.

The convertion rules seem to be enough to convert 3rd edition warrior types to 4th edition. They need more than a little twinking on druids and bards though and they seem to not captivate the feeling of the class.

So far in reading through the PHB, I'm liking what I see.

Would people say 'Keep on the Shadowfell' is worth getting?

Yes! It comes with 7 nice maps Coan.

The adventure isn't great but it's not bad either. The rules are clear, solid but a bit boring to read actually.

Actually I'm more happy with my Keep of the Shadowfell purchase than with my 4th edition purchase.

Huh. Maybe instead of re-engineering Ravenloft for 4E, we should be re-engineering adventures like KotS for (3E) Ravenloft....


I'm starting to think that it wouldn't be a bad move to use the 4E rules for combat encounters only, then revert to 3.5 as soon as the blades stop swinging. So far, most people seem to find 4E fights enjoyable when they're actually in progress, yet to be disappointed with the new edition's skimpy treatment of everything else.

Rotipher of the FoS wrote:I'm starting to think that it wouldn't be a bad move to use the 4E rules for combat encounters only, then revert to 3.5 as soon as the blades stop swinging. So far, most people seem to find 4E fights enjoyable when they're actually in progress, yet to be disappointed with the new edition's skimpy treatment of everything else.

Combat is succinct, crisp and clean and balanced. Everything you'd expect for a system mechanically styled off an mmo.

The new skills system has a *lot* of promise, it's just skeletal.
I think a very minor expansion of the skills list could bring back part of what people feel they lost.

Nikolas of the Mists wrote:The new skills system has a *lot* of promise, it's just skeletal.
I think a very minor expansion of the skills list could bring back part of what people feel they lost.

Too true. The three core rulebooks are heavy on mechanics but lacking in fluff of all types. I find it hard to get excited about something when I'm given six or seven pages of powers and one paragraph of backstory and personality. The same can be said for the skills; tons of potential, but no one has bothered to even try and point any of it out.

The really sick thing is that WizKids is doing the exact opposite for Shadowrun--books that are all fluff and no mechanics. They've hit on a golden idea with that.

Nikolas of the Mists wrote:Combat is succinct, crisp and clean and balanced. Everything you'd expect for a system mechanically styled off an mmo.

The new skills system has a *lot* of promise, it's just skeletal.
I think a very minor expansion of the skills list could bring back part of what people feel they lost.

I don't think expanding the skill list works for multiple reasons.
1) It just forces people to make more choices with limited skills.
2) It forces people to choose between being good at combat or being good at an out-of-combat skill.
3) It dilutes the list with redundancy

And I'm not sure I'd say MMO's are "succinct, crisp and clean and balanced". They're the latter now, after 6+ years but they started out bad and most games only carefully maintain balance after years and years of patches and tweaking.
And most of the combat systems are 3x as complicated as anything D&D has every done, it's just all done beneath the surface.
WoW has weapon skill ranks that vary from 0-300+, which also vary depending on race. There's armour rating and block chance and dodging. Plus weapon speed, and varying damage, and energy resistances, spell resistance, etc. Both enemies and allies have multiple combat-long buffs and an array of special powers of varying duration tied to class and race and talents.
There's a heck of alot going on in a MMO with much higher numbers (since random chance is typically a % not 1-20). Plus the level range is more than double and there's also more races and classes.
When you look at how the system works, MMOs are really, really, really busy.

To say nothing about crafting and harvesting, which make up a really big part of the game. There's alot to do out of combat in MMOs.

Rotipher of the FoS wrote:Huh. Maybe instead of re-engineering Ravenloft for 4E, we should be re-engineering adventures like KotS for (3E) Ravenloft....


I'm starting to think that it wouldn't be a bad move to use the 4E rules for combat encounters only, then revert to 3.5 as soon as the blades stop swinging. So far, most people seem to find 4E fights enjoyable when they're actually in progress, yet to be disappointed with the new edition's skimpy treatment of everything else.

I would respectfully disagree with you and Jester here.
I like the way skills are handled in 4E but I don't like the limited choices in battle 4th edition shows, nor the skimpy wizards that can't outdo a fighter in damage, or the 10th level characters doing about +6- 10 damage with their encounter abilities than 1st level characters.

But Skill challenges are very, very good. OK, the numbers need fixing if the party doesn't assist the lead character but it's an easy and straightforward system to use.

Jester of the FoS wrote:I don't think expanding the skill list works for multiple reasons.
1) It just forces people to make more choices with limited skills.
2) It forces people to choose between being good at combat or being good at an out-of-combat skill.
3) It dilutes the list with redundancy.

Honestly, you always did have to choose between being good at combat or being good at other stuff between feats and skills.

Certain classes became especially cookiecutter because despite the fact you do have a number of skill points to spend, you could maybe scrounge up one nonstandard or crafting skill without gimping yourself in the system.

Taking a look at skills that are gone (and probably shouldn't be outright) I think there really isn't a lot that was lost.

The number one thing that got removed in my eyes was what I like to call the Trade Skills - Craft, Perform and Profession. The worst part about these skills was that in 3.5 they were most often included as requisites for prestige classes just to force people to actually take them. Trade skills are a significant investment of time and learning. While your fighter is running around killing baddies for gold, the blacksmith or minstrel is making a living doing this single skill. That the few weeks between adventures that your fighter could hope to maintain an even footing with that same blacksmith always seemed ridiculous to me. While you may have been a blacksmith before you started adventuring, you simply can't keep up with the guy that does it for a living. I think this is one way that you could effective incorporate tradeskills into the game. If you want one of them that is useful you have to pay for it, either with a skill slot expenditure, or a Feat to get the extra skill slot.

The knowledge skills largely got moved around to their respective skills. While I liked the knowledge skills initially in 3rd, I think they blossomed a little out of control by 3.5 with all the extra material and as such I didn't mind the trim.

Speak languages got changed in 4e, and not necessarily for the better. Languages have always been the weakest link in game systems. 4e's failing with languages is that they assume everyone speaks common, and their racial. After that you have to expend a Feat to learn additional languages, and you get three (3!) of them. In contrast to the 3.5 where everyone is a polyglot (yes I had issues with the languages system back then too), languages are simply too prohibitive and expensive. Worlds with a high diversity in languages and linguistics wouldn't work with that new system.

"Oh damn, I have to move to Korea for my job. What other 2 languages do I want to learn at the same time as Korean? "

After those three areas of consideration, I really feel there are but four skills, all highly focused in nature, that got the axe -- Decipher Script, Ride, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope. Decipher Script and UMD were pretty interesting (rogues were my favourite class in 3.5, so I feel that loss more than some would), but were never handled well mechanically I felt. Ride became irrelevant -- anyone can ride a horse in 4e, it's the age of the horse, and if you want mounted combat you take a feat. Use Rope was always the weakest link in the skill system from 2nd Ed on, being so niche that I think I used it myself maybe 5 times in 15 years of gaming.

I am going to play around with a crafting mechanic, and see if its still possible to use the old DC targets from 3.5 in the new skill system.
Not sure how that will work out because skill progression in 4e is half of what it was in 3.5 after the initial spike of "Trained". If it still is feasible then it is easy enough to simply add the option of "Tradeskill (_____)" to every class.

Nikolas of the Mists wrote:The number one thing that got removed in my eyes was what I like to call the Trade Skills - Craft, Perform and Profession. . . . Trade skills are a significant investment of time and learning. While your fighter is running around killing baddies for gold, the blacksmith or minstrel is making a living doing this single skill. That the few weeks between adventures that your fighter could hope to maintain an even footing with that same blacksmith always seemed ridiculous to me. While you may have been a blacksmith before you started adventuring, you simply can't keep up with the guy that does it for a living. I think this is one way that you could effective incorporate tradeskills into the game. If you want one of them that is useful you have to pay for it, either with a skill slot expenditure, or a Feat to get the extra skill slot.

The problem with these is two-fold.
1) Characters had to choose between being good out-of-combat and being useful in-combat. If they tried to do both they'd likely fail at both.
If characters were given more skills to possibly be spent in OOC skills min-maxers would just add them to combat and be even better, resulting in a rapid balance and power shift where monsters and DCs increase to compensate and the OOCers are still underpowered.
2) It does not work with the 4e skill system, where you can make a roll in any skill at 1/2 your level. Suddenly, every 25th level character is a master weaver, blacksmith and basket-maker.

As a source of income the skills were useless. They had to be balanced with the ideal income of NPCs and, as such, any treasure a PC might get from even the most unsuccessful adventure quickly passed the gold that could be received from months of hard labour.
The level 10 bard with maxed-out ranks in Perform and Skill Focus earns 3d6 gp/day. So, on average, they get 10-11gp each day. Otherwise known as 4% of the average treasure earned from a level 1 encounter. By going out and having a single encounter of their level that bard should earn over 570% as much gold.

The only way to really pull it off would be an additional, literally tacked-on mechanic. A secondary skill option.
However, the time spent crafting would easily equal time spent adventuring and buying equipment: PC1 spends two days crafting new arrows, meanwhile PC2 kills some goblins far below his level and buys some arrows. So, there's no real in-game or rule benefit to the skills. It'd just be fluff. "In his off hours my PC works as a blacksmith".
So, given it's just fluff, do you need rules for crafting? Isn't it just background character stuff?

Nikolas of the Mists wrote:Speak languages got changed in 4e, and not necessarily for the better. Languages have always been the weakest link in game systems. 4e's failing with languages is that they assume everyone speaks common, and their racial. After that you have to expend a Feat to learn additional languages, and you get three (3!) of them. In contrast to the 3.5 where everyone is a polyglot (yes I had issues with the languages system back then too), languages are simply too prohibitive and expensive. Worlds with a high diversity in languages and linguistics wouldn't work with that new system.

There's no good way to do languages. I've yet to see a good, solid reliable system for languages that wasn't either a lengthy, complicated system that made knowing more than three languages physically impossible or so simple everyone knows at least two (the standard 3e system).

I'm toying with some language sub-rules for 'Loft, just because there's so many human dialects. Because there's so many and no common tongue, it's easy to make intra-party communication difficult.

Nikolas of the Mists wrote:After those three areas of consideration, I really feel there are but four skills, all highly focused in nature, that got the axe -- Decipher Script, Ride, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope. Decipher Script and UMD were pretty interesting (rogues were my favourite class in 3.5, so I feel that loss more than some would), but were never handled well mechanically I felt. Ride became irrelevant -- anyone can ride a horse in 4e, it's the age of the horse, and if you want mounted combat you take a feat. Use Rope was always the weakest link in the skill system from 2nd Ed on, being so niche that I think I used it myself maybe 5 times in 15 years of gaming.

I can see why they dumped Decipher Script. Max ranks and by level 10 you should be able to read anything. And UMD is suddenly useless with the changes to magical items.
Ride and Use Rope were amalgamated into Acrobatics or Athletics. There's really no reason for them to be separate skills. But, as you said, Use Rope was a pretty pathetic skill, only really useful in throwing grappling hooks. A;l it ever did was slow down the game as people worried about the level 1 orc escaping from their knots.

Jester of the FoS wrote:

The problem with these is two-fold.
1) Characters had to choose between being good out-of-combat and being useful in-combat. If they tried to do both they'd likely fail at both.

Some classes always faced that situation. Bard or skill monkey rogue anyone?

Jester of the FoS wrote:

If characters were given more skills to possibly be spent in OOC skills min-maxers would just add them to combat and be even better, resulting in a rapid balance and power shift where monsters and DCs increase to compensate and the OOCers are still underpowered.

What I meant was that players that want to be a Tradesman *and* an adventurer have to sacrifice something.

Jester of the FoS wrote:

2) It does not work with the 4e skill system, where you can make a roll in any skill at 1/2 your level. Suddenly, every 25th level character is a master weaver, blacksmith and basket-maker.

Not really. That assumes that you can do trades untrained at a level to earn an income, which obviously you couldn't do. The skills listed in the book an adventurer would slowly gain knowledge of period. There are also certain uses of skills which require you to be trained.

Jester of the FoS wrote:

As a source of income the skills were useless. They had to be balanced with the ideal income of NPCs and, as such, any treasure a PC might get from even the most unsuccessful adventure quickly passed the gold that could be received from months of hard labour.

My point wasn't necessarily about income, rather skill.
An adventurer isn't made for these tradeskills. The reality is, if you wanted a the best item craftable, you would be looking for a tradesman who is not only skilled in crafting it, but would also have the equivalent of a Feat expended in Skill Focus for that skill, not an adventurer who travels the world killing monsters.
A PC better than a tradesman with a lesser degree of experience I can understand, but the people who have spent as long on their trade as PCs have been killing bad guys *should* be better than the heroes in this one field. They are NPC specialists. If a PC wants to have that degree of trade mastery on top of the skills of an adventurer, I think its only fair to make them pay in some way for this benefit.

Jester of the FoS wrote:

Given it's just fluff, do you need rules for crafting? Isn't it just background character stuff?

No more fluff than the creation of magical items in my eyes. You have rudmimentary mechanics in the PHB to enchant a sword, why not the mechanics to make the base sword you begin with?

Although I guess if you were going to mechanically follow the same route as Ritual Caster (for creating magic items), then crafting would be a Feat as opposed to a skill. A feat might not be the worst way to consider trade skills now that I come to think of it. It really isn't so bad as it sounds because you get feats so much more often in 4e.

Jester of the FoS wrote:

There's no good way to do languages. I've yet to see a good, solid reliable system for languages that wasn't either a lengthy, complicated system that made knowing more than three languages physically impossible or so simple everyone knows at least two (the standard 3e system).

I was commenting on the desire for something in between the two.
3.5 Gave you the option to spend a single skill point for an entire language (both spoken and written), and in 4e you spend a feat to get three.
While I am in favour of 3.5 over 4e for languages, the possibility of a PC Klikking and Klakking away in the tribal language of a native group deep in the desert of South east Africa simply because languages cost so little always bothered me.

alhoon wrote:Yes! It comes with 7 nice maps Coan.

The adventure isn't great but it's not bad either. The rules are clear, solid but a bit boring to read actually.

Actually I'm more happy with my Keep of the Shadowfell purchase than with my 4th edition purchase.

I learned there are some people at work who would be interested in playing a D&D game. So I think I'll buy Keep of the Shadowfell and run that for them (as they've never played D&D before). When I do I'll post up a review of how it went.

Well, I haven't thought on that. 4th is far, far simpler and they will enjoy the game.