Jezred's page

I have started work on converting E1 to 4E. I am converting it to suit 7th level characters, which is where the party will be when we get to it.

One of the challenges I am facing is that it is an event-based adventure. If the party attempts to take an extended rest...

Anyway, I thought I'd post a few converted monsters to get some feedback. Any comments are appreciated.

Dark Ice Brownie

Frosty Chisiler

Jack-in-the-Box

The Cold Rider

Thoughts?

Greyson wrote:

And, this would all be abundantly easier if Paizo would publish in D&D 4th Edition, too.

I wish we would drop this topic - they have made it crystal clear that this is not going to happen.

Agreed. This horse is so dead and beaten, cremation is moot at this point. That is why it is up to the fans to make it happen. :)

The adventures I plan on using are Carnival of Tears and Gallery of Evil, two great adventures that would never normally pass the 4E test for adventures. I will get to work on these probably this weekend. If anyone has information to share about their own conversions, I'd like to read about it.

I sent them an e-mail:

Dear CCF,

Sincerely,
<NAME>

Their response:

Response (L. Jackson) 10/31/2008 08:50 AM
Dear <NAME>,

We appreciate your interest in our work.

So here is the official response from the CCF. Thoughts?

I absolutely love the Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting. I plan on coverting it and several Pathfinder adventures to 4E. I see in the archives some others planning on doing the same. Has anyone started work on this? Is there a website or discussion group on the topic?

I would like to take the various kingdoms/regions in Golarion and giving them regional benefits ala Living FR. Some are fairly obvious, based on the feats given for regions. Others might take some thinking. Anyway, any discussion on this is welcome.

I would be interested in hearing some opinions about the new "Ravenloft". It was my favorite setting in AD&D. I didn't like the farming out of the product in 3E, resulting in dozens of splatbooks.

*stuff about brown dragons*

*brown dragon looks to WotC Design Team after it assigns dragon names*

Yeah, yeah, but "Mr. Brown Dragon"? That's little too close to " Mr. <CENSORED> Dragon".

I have always been under the impression that dragons are whatever color the world designer wants them to be, and they breathe whatever evil vileness the designer wants them to breathe. Sure, a black dragon is likely to live underground, a swamp or somewhere else dark. But it is likely to breathe fire or warm fuzzies as it is acid. They can also be whatever alignment, have whatever abilities, and just about anything else atypical of classic chromatic dragons.

Just my two cents.

After reading a bunch about FH, mostly from this post, I went ahead and purchased that too in PDF. I am a bit of an impulse shopper, and I had some cash sitting around in PayPal that needed spending. :) That and I like much of Goodman's work that I thought I'd give the FH a look-see, seeing how my FLGSs are less than anxious to stock 3PPs around here.

I really like the FH'd take on the bard at initial glance. I like the way the instruments work in enhancing certain powers. I like the idea of how they went with a swashbuckling build and a mystic build (which is how I would house-rule the AGP troubadour anyway). Overall I prefer FH's bard to AGP's troubadour at first glance. I need more time to look over the FH before I make a "final decision". (No more knee-jerks here.)

I think both the AGP and the FH has a lot to offer with its 'non-core' classes. My advice: get them both!!! Then you can use either, or both, or pieces of each. Perhaps get the PDFs and "frankenstein" your own book together for your playgroup's usage.

Ok, some time has passed. My opinion of the work has swung back and forth between my two posts: fairly decent and fairly bad. I think that there is a lot of potential in the book. Comparing the troubadour to the playtest artificer (i.e. another Arcane Leader), the powers seem more reasonable. Perhaps I knee-jerked a bit when I saw the "Close Blast 6; Push 6" because in my own play experience push powers are very 'strong' and useful. (I still think the Blast should be 5 and the Push distance based on WIS, but that is IMHO.)

So now that I have taken a look at things, I would say that it is a decent-to-impressive first attempt by the author at a major solo work. There are some things that I would change or tweak, but then my play experience is perhaps different than that of the author or other readers. I may have to check out the Goodman Games product and compare the two.

Anyway, if I could delete my first two posts and replace them with something more in-between, I would. That would perhaps reflect my true opinion of the APG.

I am working on a lot of conversion projects for my D&D 4E campaign. Among them, I am working on 'Ex Libris' from Dungeon 29. The main "puzzle" in this work is that many of the encounters is one monster vs. the party. I will probably need to create some sort elite or solo guardian monster that are bound to the books. I am thinking something along the lines of thing associate with Oghma, like music or poetry. Like a "living song" or "living verse" guardian.

There are a lot of other adventures I loved from editions past that I'd like to see reworked.

Wow. What a difference a day or two makes. I wish to recind my review posted above.

After thoroughly reading over the APG, I have determined that this product was not play-tested, is horribly inconsistent and unbalanced, and was perhaps rushed to get to print to make a buck before WotC's Player's Handbook II came out. That is the short version of my revised review. The long version requires a lot of swearing.

A couple of examples that come to mind.

* Many of the troubadour's melee attacks target defenses other than AC. Even the melee Strikers, Defenders and other Leaders generally target AC with their weapon-based powers, as being proficient with a weapon grants a bonus to the attack. This makes the troubadour's attacks generally more accurate than even the rogue, ranger, fighter or warlord.

* One of nature priest's Level 1 Encounter Powers is a Close Blast 6 that pushes the targets 6 squares and knocks them prone (as well as having the effect of a -4 penalty to ranged attacks until the start of your next turn). This is way over-powered compared to the wizard's powers of Thunder Wave, Burning Hands, and Color Spray. A fight on a cliffside could be over with one use of this uber-power.

Being the UBER-nerd that I am, and wanting to play a bard NOW rather than in March 09, I am revising the Troubadour class to make some better sense and be in line with the other two Leader classes (i.e. the warlord and the cleric). The Inspiring Warlord beats the Troubadour as written hands down. My version will be more balanced while not being a clone of the other two classes. As I am using the AGP as a starting point, I will not share or sell my work (as much as I'd like something for my efforts).

So save your money folks and either pass on this one or get the PDF. A more balanced version of the classes will be coming soon enough. (The races within the book appear balanced enough to play, but they alone aren't worth the purchase.)

I hope future 3PP releases are of much better quality than this one.

Yesterday, I got my copy of the Advanced Player's Guide from Expeditious Retreat Press. Overall it isn't bad for a 3PP. I like what they did with the "missing" classes and races. I think, given the material that has been released for 4th, the powers need some tweaking. Some are weak compared to their core counterparts, while others are a bit strong. The book itself is softbound with black and white pages, which doesn’t bother me but might bother those expecting a hardbound full-color product for their $25.

The martial artist is surprisingly decent, if perhaps ill-suited for traditional sword-and-sorcery game play. I love some of the names of the Troubadour Spells. Many have an air of the dramatic, such as Deal With Him! Others are an homage to various sources that many gamers love, such as I Am Not Left-Handed! I like all of the classes on paper, but again I feel some powers need adjusting to bring them in line with the powers of the core classes. I feel that the races are very well done,

Anyway I like the product and the sentiment for it, but some serious play-testing needs to be done. I may do some house-ruling on some of the powers to make them more in line with other classes. There have been some corrections posted on the XRP website; be sure to check those out.

Overall, I recommend plunking down the money and getting this book. It is playable with minimal adjustments and very useful for ideas for both PCs and NPCs.

"First Edition Reborn" is the claim made by the Old School Reference and Index Compilation (OSRIC). So I printed out a copy at kinkos and began comparing it to my first edition materials...

I have played D&D for a while now... since the early 1980's red box. I thought AD&D to be an improvement over D&D, 2E an improvement over 1E, 3E and improvement to 2E, and 4E to be a great "re-imagining" of D&D reminiscent of the red box D&D. I can understand the need for nostalgia for older gamers and the need to re-create the good ol’ days for younger gamers. But I cannot see going back several steps in “evolution” to do this.

1. THACO. I had hoped this dinosaur died in 3E. This throwback to the darker times does not really need to be relived. The first thing I would do for an OSRIC game is to convert THACO to the more modern attack bonus.

2. Lack of Skills: I really like the idea of a character having skills. 2E was a flawed attempt at a skill system. 3.x Edition had a nice skill system for D&D. I prefer 4E version. The next conversion for OSRIC would be to implement a skill system. (Does anyone see where this is going?)

3. Saving Throws: I think 3E and 4E have the right idea(s) for dealing with saving throws. Rods/Staves/Spells is nebulous when compared to Fortitude. I’d have to convert the saving throws too.

By the time I go around converting all the old school AD&D to where I’d like it, I have just reinvented either 3E or 4E. As I don’t want to reinvent the wheel, I will stick with 4E. If you want nostalgia for old D&D, convert the adventures forward or purchase adventures with a 1E feel (ala Necromancer Games). If anything, OSRIC makes me better appreciate every edition that has come since AD&D 1E.

I do like D&D 4E, and my play group is enjoying the 4E experience. I am starting to run some RPGA stuff on a monthly basis as well. I have ordered and pre-ordered a bunch of 4E stuff since its release.

That being said, I will not subscribe to DDI. The only thing I have enjoyed from the content is the Dragon magazine. Dungeon's adventures haven't impressed me much. The online content doesn't do much for me. I like the Dragon articles and the new options for the game they provide. But as I cannot subscribe to just Dragon, I will not subscribe to DDI. (Plus I have a WoW addiction to feed... and other monthly hobby expenditures as well.) I will also to continue to snag and convert adventures from other sources, such as Paizo and Necromancer.

Dragonne--one of my favorite monsters.

'old school' Elementals--bland, but useful in multiple adventures

Frost Giants--my favorite giant

I am sure a lot of these will see print in the future, via Manual of the Planes, MM II, etc.

After wading through all of these so-called fixes, I became frustrated with such nubbish attempts of fixing the game. Here are the rules we use, which are the CORRECT INTERPRETATIONS of the rules:

1. The knights capture all pieces that they are adjacent to at the end of their moves, regardless of color.

2. The black-square bishop is Shadow Specced, while the white-square bishop is Holy Specced. Disciplined Specced bishops are banned under the DCCI floor rules as of 07-2008.

3. White has been errated to go second instead of first, as it was too OP.

4. Rooks can only take the two-weapon build; ranged build rooks are twinkish at best.

5. Kings can still only move one square, but you can tap two spades and three clubs to give them an extra move during your turn.

AND

6. You cannot apply piece kits from the Complete Pawn book to pawns except for the drunken pawn kit, but they may not take maneuvers from lists 2 or 3.

These are the best rules to play with, and all others are full of PHAIL-SAUCE!

(BTW: Love the thread.)

Crimson Jester wrote:

So what these articles are saying is that these financial disasters have happened before and we were , to dumb not to do it again?

Dumb, arrogant, corrupt, lazy, politicized, zealous, all of the above... Take your pick.

I prefer the theory proffered by Lewis Black: economists are trying to keep us ignorant about how the economy really works.

"I took an economics course, but it was taught at 8:00 in the morning. You can't learn anything out of one blood-shot eye. So I went up to the professor and asked, 'Are you trying to keep this **** a secret?!?'"

*awesome stuff*

I loved your post, and thanks for mentioning my other post. I agree with you for the most part. I agree with one exception. I would say that the new rules set "easily creates the perception that" everything is codified and rigid. I think a lot of the perceptions of 4E are just that: perceptions. The rules are clear and well laid out, which is nice change from prior editions and other RPGs. But don't let the rigidity of the core rules discourage improvisation. PCs can still do zany things that aren’t clearly spelled out in the rules. The DMG encourages us DMs to “reward the player’s creativity”. You can still assign a DC and let them roll for it, or just rule that whatever they are attempting are within the realm of their ability and let it happen. And just because there are skill challenges with fixed goals and DCs doesn’t mean you can’t cut the PCs a break if they role-play the scene well.

It may feel like WoW, but you can still play it on a “RP server”. (Like I do.) :)

I am currently working on a 4E conversion for Temple of Elemental Evil.

I have the moathouse completed. It is done for 7th level characters, which is where my party will be when we run it. I combined "elements" from ToEE and RttToEE to convert the moathouse. I think it is balanced and has much of the feel of the original moathouse.

The problem I run into is the original temple. It is a mass of winding corridors and tiny rooms with single monster encounters abound. There are plenty of large chambers for 4E style encounters, but I am not sure what to do with the rest.

What is your favorite feature of 4e? It can be a new rule, some new fluff or even just an enjoyable experience using 4e.

I love the overall streamlining of the game. In 3E, combat would take forever because people were constantly looking up something. In 4E, combat takes the same real time but represent more in-game time because actions were easy to remember and rules much simpler (plus both the PCs and the bad guys are more durable).

My other favorite point is the balance in power between DM and PCs. I was reading Bart Carroll's article about the balance of power across editions. ( Original article.)

First Edition, in many ways, placed the power of the game in the hands of the DM. “Can I do this…?” and “What happens if I…” were essentially questions posited by the players to be answered by the DM. Not quite sure how a rule worked? Wondering what actions your character can perform? In the First (and largely Second) Edition campaigns I played, these were all questions that often needed answers from the DM. That was the relationship. You tell the DM what you want to do, the DM tells you if you can, you roll some dice, and the DM provides the result... Third Edition shifted this relationship, in my opinion, into the players’ hands. The DM still ran the game and mediated the story. But as far as the rules went, the players had much greater power in how they built their characters and what they could pull off. Pun-Pun is an example taken to the extreme, but min-maxing characters was commonplace, often limited only by the players themselves. In several campaigns, I witnessed the tension this caused between experienced players looking to build the most powerful character they could, and newer players using the character they were most comfortable with—usually, a simpler, less tricked-out character.

I agree with his assertion that 4E tempers the balance in power. Both the players and the DM have equal parts to play in the game. Some things can be done by the PC by virtue of the rules, but the DM still has authority over other aspects. The DM is encouraged to reward the ingenuity of the players, and the PCs are encouraged to respect the authority of the DM. Both sentiments are built into the rules set. And the rules set helps even the playing field between newer gamers and experience gamers.

Personally, I rather liked H1. The hook to get the characters involved and working together was the weak point, mainly because no one had a backstory to go with. But the characters spent a lot of time RPing in town, gathering information and getting into some trouble (blame the curious halfling rogue on that one). But they also managed to RP with some of the fiends on the road and inside the dungeon. I played up Kalarel as the megalomaniacal devotee, and he died like all good masterminds died: with no witnesses.

I see potential for H2, which my friend is running us through now. There is a lot of potential for RP within the Seven-Pillared Hall. We have already had some with the halflings, the eccentric drow merchant and the local duergar. (I'll admit, much of the duergar RP was hurling of insults, eventual combat, and me putting their heads on the horns of the Dragon Door). We've even interacted with the mages that run the place (and not been splattered all over the cave walls... so far).

I had high hopes for H3, but upon review I think it is the most boring of the three. It is a forced dungeon crawl, and the factions within the pyramid are so hostile that there would be little chance of RPing with them and coming out ahead. I suppose one could add some flavor to the module and make some of the factions reasonable with which to negotiate.

I am planning on reimagining some of my older modules for use in 4e; Temple of Elemental Evil and Against the Giants come to mind. Those should be fun.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080924

I really was happy about Dragonkin being in the new edition, as I am a huge draconophile. But after reading about the gnolls who are in tune with their hyena nature... I think gnolls have a new place in my list of D&D favorites.

Gnoll Rangers, Gnoll Rogues, Gnoll Fighters, Gnoll Warlocks... heck, gnoll anything has some great potential. Still not as cool as dragonkin, but a close second to be sure.

...If I had to guess it probably has to do with pre-game prep. He's old school. He prefers to print out a one page single-sided sheet, like you could back in 2E. The 4E sheet overwhelms him. He jokingly likened his inability to acclimate himself to the new rules to a "General Protection Fault" error.

Most of my gaming group agree that the WotC PDF character sheet is [CENSORED]. Less than desirable is a nicer way of putting it. And don't get me started on the purchasable character sheets.

Being schooled in Office, I got my character sheet condensed to one-page landscaped and some power cards I made in Word. I then folded it in half; one side for combat and the other for generally non-combat stuff. That worked for the first few levels, but it started to get more difficult to keep it to a single page and still be readable. I then found an Excel spreadsheet with lots of formulas and drop-downs for ease of use. I combined that with my homebrew power cards, all printed in color, and it is going very well. Most of my players are using that spreadsheet.

WotC maybe needs to readdress its character sheet layout and clean it up a bit.

From my personal gaming table experience... I love the 4E wizard. We have 7 people, and the role of DM is rotated between myself and another. The party has seven characters.

Marilee Steelgirdle--Dwarf Fighter
Brandall--Halfling Rogue
Tarakos--Tiefling Warlord/Wizard
Dalron--Eladrin Wizard
Gort--Human Wizard
Max Danvers of Highmoon--Half Elf Fighter/Wizard
Two-fer--Warforged Ranger

Recently we were busting into a room of 5 hobgoblin soldiers and 1 warcaster. Initiative was on our side, for the most part. Between the two wizards, the warlord and my fighter we turned that room over the course of two rounds into an "oven" (as Jim Darkmagic of the New Hampshire Darkmagics would say... loved that podcast). The 5 soldiers were bunched together to hold a phalanx line. So were proceeded to blast them with every AoE spell we had: force orb, burning hands, color spray, scorching burst, thunderwave, etc. By the time the other fighter and I started "tanking", most of the front line were well below the bloodied line in HP. This made getting to the warcaster and putting him down much easier. The strikers could then focus on downing the wizard as fast as possible.

I think 4E wizards are great for their role as controller. They do what they are currently designed to do: control the action. I really love the chessboard analogy used above. The frost spells are great: one wizard used icy rays to pin down the rear rank of some duergar later on in that same adventure exampled above. They can turn a bad situation into a manageable one with only a couple of spells. And if you are faced with lots minions, almost half of the encounter's XP allotment could be blown up with one or two spells.

If you want an arcane caster that blows stuff up, you can build a wizard that focuses on the higher damage spells or go with a warlock. Every class shines in their roles in this edition; they just shine in different ways.

BTW: I also miss illusions and summonings, much like I miss my bards and druids. But I am sure that eventually we will see them all in some form or another. (I have already preordered XRP's Advanced Player's Guide and WotC's PHB II.)