Café de Nuit

4th edition was controversial. Everybody knows that. It was an edition that wasn't afraid to make a clean break from the past and start over. But, despite what some say, it was still an edition where the writers cared about their work, and tried to make something that would be enjoyable from the result. Whilst their efforts at converting the Forgotten Realms were highly controversial, thanks to a combination of it being their first converted setting and thus saw them making mistakes that would have been ill-received even by fans anyway, they did learn from their mistakes. The 4e conversion of Eberron was regarded as being handled much better, and the 4e conversion of Dark Sun was actually a huge hit amongst Dark Sun fans, who generally regarded it as far better than the Revised Edition that TSR officially left them with.

Which of course raises the question... what would an official 4th edition conversion/update of the Ravenloft setting have looked like? Since we now have the...less than warmly received... official 5e Ravenloft for comparison, I thought it might be interesting to consider how the Dark Fantasy D&D setting might have fared under the 4e team, using what they did for 4e Dark Sun as our base example.

Personally, the starting point would have to be figuring out whether or not they would have made a 4e Ravenloft setting in the first place, since the basic idea behind the Domains of Dread was already melded into the Shadowfell. For the sake of the exercise, I'm going to presume 4e would have eventually done so, had it not been for its unfortunate demise.

As a 4e setting, Ravenloft would still have been made up of the Core as we know it. Whilst the similarities to the "generic" World Axis Domains of Dread would have been acknowledged, I think the Ravenloft setting would still have been portrayed as unique - demiplanes are a thing in the World Axis, so nothing stops the Demiplane of Dread from being its own piecemeal world, complete with its own Feywild and Shadowfell connections. That said, the 4e Ravenloft would still be a planar aberration - for example, I think the Shadow Rift would have taken the place of the traditional Feywild, and escaping into the wider multiverse would still be all but impossible.

I don't know if WotC could have directly borrowed from White Wolf's efforts in Ravenloft 3e. There might be legal issues. But at the very least, I think 4e Ravenloft would have come to resemble the 3e version largely through convergent evolution, with an intentional effort to downplay the setting's origins as a Weekend in Hell collection of villains taken from other settings in favor of presenting it as a fully-fledged world to run prolonged campaigns in.

That said, neither of these aspects precludes some domains being changed. 4e was, to a large extent, built on looking at older D&D lore and asking "Is this actually fun? Can players and/or DMs actually get meaningful use out of it? No? Then out the window with it". They literally rebuilt Dark Sun from the ground up to expunge the notoriously awful lore of the Revised Edition. So I think the domains would have been up for revision or even excision to varying degrees - Forlorn, for example, probably wouldn't have stayed as just as a giant empty wilderness, even if the goblyns still would have been in control of most of the woods.

Whilst 4e wasn't afraid to add setting unique challenges, such as creating the mechanic of Survival Days to get across the importance of wilderness survival in Dark Sun, it also was generally opposed to "DM dickery", so that raises questions as to how it would have handled a lot of the traditional mechanical tinkering that Ravenloft does with D&D mechanics. On the other hand, 4e itself already changes a lot of its underlying mechanics in ways that remove the basic rationale behind Ravenloft's tinkering. Summonings are inherently short-lived and lack the game-breaking exploits of older editions, so there's no need for the traditional "summoned creatures stay behind and want to kill you" angle. I can definitely see 4e Ravenloft retaining some rules that make divination rituals less reliable, but the teleportation rules aren't really needed anymore (except the Plane Shift family nullifying ones), simply because long ranged teleportation is no longer something that 4e supports.

I don't think they'd have kept Dark Powers Checks. I mean, traditionally, these don't really come up that often for players and even for NPCs, they're kind of pointless, since DMs will corrupt NPCs to whatever extent they feel is story relevant. At most, I think they'd have gone with the idea from late in 4e's life cycle of using Themes to represent individuals who have been cursed or mutated by the touch of darkness, but who haven't yet succumbed to evil entirely, and so they have at least a hope of using their powers to fight the darkness.

Races... well, given 4e was when WotC said a very firm NO to the traditional Vistani lore and reconceived them as less "inherent outsiders", I think the Half-Vistani would have been gone in favor of treating the Vistani as a faction. I'd like to imagine that WotC would try to revive calibans and make them into something more than just reflavored half-orcs. Other big races I'd see being presented in 4e Ravenloft would be vrykola, revenants, dusk elves and maybe even dhampyrs.

...I've kind of run out of thought-steam here, so this is where I'll leave off. All in all, I think 4e Ravenloft would have been a different beast to its predecessors, but not necessarily a bad one, even if it would slide its Dark Fantasy scaling up. At the very least, it probably would have been handled with more respect than 5e has shown the setting.

If the system behind the changes doesn't mess well with established previous material and as important, if there are changes just to make changes, the end result wouldn't be good I am afraid. Thus, 4e was doomed in my opinion. Limiting Strahd or Ankhepot etc to 3-4 different powers instead of the vast versatility the original D&D system provided would be very problematic in my eyes.

4e is good for a chill afternoon of fun, to be used as a board game after you divide the insane amount of hp the enemies have by 2.
As a note: hp/2 means you should treat them as 2 levels lower for XP purposes and encounter building.

But: 5e can be used as effectively for that too, if you use pregen characters.

alhoon wrote:Limiting Strahd or Ankhepot etc to 3-4 different powers instead of the vast versatility the original D&D system provided would be very problematic in my eyes.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about with this sentence. Even beyond the fact that 4e monster statblocks explicitly focus on what they do in combat and DMs are advised to let NPCs have whatever plot-relevant utility abilities they need, there is an official 4e statblock for Strahd, whose combat options are:
1: Crippling Strike (melee attack that does necrotic damage + slows for 1 turn) + shift 1-2 squares, at-will
2: Blood Drain (damage and Weakens target, Strahd heals 20 HP), at-will
3: Dominating Gaze (Strahd controls a player character, who after breaking free is dazed and takes ongoing psychic damage), at-will
4: Strahd's Choking Fog (creates a zone of poisonous mist), 1/encounter
5: Animal Form (become a Wolf or a Swarm of bats), at-will
6: Mist Form, 1/encounter
7: Second Wind (Strahd heals 1/2 his HP and gains +2 to all defenses for a turn), 1/encounter

He also has the passive combat traits Scent of Blood (gains Combat Advantage against living, bloodied foes) and Indestructible (when reduced to 0 HP, automatically assumes Mist Form and retreats to his coffin, cannot be hurt in this state).

Consider that list with the versatility of Strahd that can change his spells.
Strahd 5e has 25+options in combat and he has the versatility to change the spells for the day, to have a different set of 25+ options.

Strahd in the 4e example cannot cast chain lighting or lighting bolt or delayed blast fireball or magic missile or invisibility or protection from fire or [dozens of spells].
That Strahd there is a melee combatant without spells, with just one ability to deal with people at range.

I did a rules conversion of Ravenloft for 4e, which should still be available at the Library section of this site.

Had they done a version of Ravenloft for 4e I think they would have focused on the Core and presented it as they had at the end of 2nd Edition, tweaking and revising like they did with other setting (but less so than the total revision for 5e).
It would likely be less on the horror and more on the monster hunting. You wouldn't be expected to be afraid or frightened, as brave monster hunters.

It would also likely focus on corruption. Like the Dark Gifts in 5e but turned up to 11 with the heroes constantly fighting against succumbing to their dark side. 4e had a lot of board game inspiration, so framing this struggle as a mini-game that resumes each session would likely be the route they went, gaining darkness points as you're confronted with horror and madness that wears away your humanity until you can rest and reset.

You'd probably see shifting in focus for Ravenloft, to individual set piece encounters rather than overall adventures- the individual set piece encounters seems to be the meat and potatoes that 4e is built on. So probably building upon anticipation/excitement in individual encounters in the moment as opposed to longer lasting lingering dread. And perhaps some mechanical rules on recovering from fright etc. as well as investigations and other elements of monster hunting via skill challenges.

The world would probably be less xenophobic (unless the DM chooses) as WotC has always been big on allowing players to use most of the options presented in the various game supplement books. I think there'd be less of a focus on corruption beyond the cosmetic, as that might seem to interfere with how a character functions. By contrast, judging by their post 3e endeavors, the world design would be more openly dark, being infused with the darkness of the Shadowfell. There would be a lot less of the captivating natural beauty, for example, that leads one to lower their guard down. (Like in Curse of Strahd, where rats and other repulsive/frightening animals have overrun squirrels and other less repulsive/frightening animals in the wilderness ecology.)

The Lesser Evil wrote:You'd probably see shifting in focus for Ravenloft, to individual set piece encounters rather than overall adventures- the individual set piece encounters seems to be the meat and potatoes that 4e is built on. So probably building upon anticipation/excitement in individual encounters in the moment as opposed to longer lasting lingering dread. And perhaps some mechanical rules on recovering from fright etc. as well as investigations and other elements of monster hunting via skill challenges.

The world would probably be less xenophobic (unless the DM chooses) as WotC has always been big on allowing players to use most of the options presented in the various game supplement books. I think there'd be less of a focus on corruption beyond the cosmetic, as that might seem to interfere with how a character functions. By contrast, judging by their post 3e endeavors, the world design would be more openly dark, being infused with the darkness of the Shadowfell. There would be a lot less of the captivating natural beauty, for example, that leads one to lower their guard down. (Like in Curse of Strahd, where rats and other repulsive/frightening animals have overrun squirrels and other less repulsive/frightening animals in the wilderness ecology.)

Thank you for taking this topic seriously!

I hadn't considered the idea of skill challenges being used to handle the investigation and research aspects of a traditional Ravenloft adventure, but, now that you bring it up, it really does make a lot of sense on multiple levels.

As for adventures being built around set pieces... well, if you stop and think about it, the high lethality and lack of "encounter-breaking" via nerfs to most utility spells in older editions actually geared Ravenloft adventures in general towards very "story-centric" battles, rather than the typical hack-and-slash dungeon crawls of other settings. Pretty much all the DM encounter building advice basically pushed you into a "set up - investigation - final confrontation" loose model. So it's not that much of a change, but I think it would better with a system that was more designed towards more "cinematic" combat in general.

I don't know if I'd quite agree with the world being more openly dark, I think they'd try and balance it out; there's still beauty and light in the Demiplane of Dread, but the shadows run really deep. Although I will admit that Ravenloft has always had a bit of a mixed record with how overtly gloomy and miserable it actually comes off as in practice.

Hell_Born wrote: As for adventures being built around set pieces... well, if you stop and think about it, the high lethality and lack of "encounter-breaking" via nerfs to most utility spells in older editions actually geared Ravenloft adventures in general towards very "story-centric" battles, rather than the typical hack-and-slash dungeon crawls of other settings. Pretty much all the DM encounter building advice basically pushed you into a "set up - investigation - final confrontation" loose model. So it's not that much of a change, but I think it would better with a system that was more designed towards more "cinematic" combat in general.

In my view, there's a difference in that the advice before was managing the overall flow of an adventure as a whole experience (each encounter need not be memorable on its own) as the post 3e approach where each encounter placed for its own thrill in the moment. The former is more holistic, the latter is more atomistic.

I don't know if I'd quite agree with the world being more openly dark, I think they'd try and balance it out; there's still beauty and light in the Demiplane of Dread, but the shadows run really deep. Although I will admit that Ravenloft has always had a bit of a mixed record with how overtly gloomy and miserable it actually comes off as in practice.

I'm just basing my speculations of what they'd do based upon my perceptions post-2e/3e era efforts (or more specifically, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and thereafter efforts) in Ravenloft and Ravenloft-esque designs. There tends to be a less occluded, more what-you-see-is-what you get in relation to post 3e designs, whereas there seemed to be more mixed in the traditional Ravenloft setting. All of the Shadowfell domain designs (both in 4e and in the revised 5e domain designs) seem to be pretty openly horrible places to live (with the possible exception of less xenophobia/prejudice theme). It could be different if they turned Ravenloft embraced the Core again or designed a replacement. However, I've not seen convincing evidence indicating they would try to balance out darkness with a little more light.

The Lesser Evil wrote: I'm just basing my speculations of what they'd do based upon my perceptions post-2e/3e era efforts (or more specifically, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and thereafter efforts) in Ravenloft and Ravenloft-esque designs. There tends to be a less occluded, more what-you-see-is-what you get in relation to post 3e designs, whereas there seemed to be more mixed in the traditional Ravenloft setting. All of the Shadowfell domain designs (both in 4e and in the revised 5e domain designs) seem to be pretty openly horrible places to live (with the possible exception of less xenophobia/prejudice theme). It could be different if they turned Ravenloft embraced the Core again or designed a replacement. However, I've not seen convincing evidence indicating they would try to balance out darkness with a little more light.

Solid point. Like I said in my opening post, I believe that if WotC's 4e team had gotten around to doing a Ravenloft 4th edition, they would have brought back the Core and focused on it as a contrast to the "generic" Domains of Dread stated to exist elsewhere in the Shadowfell. They might have changed things to further downplay the parts of it that were lifted from other settings, but I feel like if they were able to make it happen, they wouldn't have doubled down on the Weekend in Hell aspect the way 5e has done. But that's still just my personal opinion, and frankly more than a little hope.