|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
My comment about being tough to move on from greyhawk was more that it's a pretty classic and iconic world. Those that have got deeply into it seem to struggle to move on to something else, despite the lack of recent support. I find I am able to play campaigns set in other worlds but I keep coming back to greyhawk.
I suspect Lorathorn meant failed to fund (not fun)
Wotc 5e has been just Forgotten Realms, although the Ravenloft they are releasing soon is to be set on a demiplane located in the "shadowlands" (plane of shadow).
I am running my latest campaign in a non-canon greyhawk Amedio Jungle region using Cauldron as the central plot line.
I'm afraid to say that if you are a greyhawk fan you'll find it tough to move on.
Yeah, I don't really understand why it's not 1 dice for medium, 2 dice for large, 3 dice for huge and 4 dice for gargantuan. The humanoids/giants seem to follow this pattern and its seems like an easy thing to follow. I suspect I will be changing it (when my players meet a huge dragon)
Norman Osborne wrote:
I don't understand the topic question. It assumes there is a time I'm NOT going through my 1st and 2nd edition (as well as original and Basic D&D) stuff. That is a faulty assumption.
Agreed. I am and I always have.
The first 3e campaign I ran was a conversion of the 2e adventure Night Below.
My current 5e campaign uses cauldron but includes a conversion of the basic adventure Nights Dark Terror (B10) and will have Dwellers in the Forbidden City (I1).
With respect to 1e tomb of horrors it suggests if you have more than 5 or 6 players they only play one character each. That's right if you play with a group of 4 you are expected to each play two characters.
Apparently when it was first run in a 1975 tournament it was run 8 times over the weekend each with 15 players per game. They ranged from 4th to about 12th level (plenty of chance for trial and error as your party slowly died). I think people were able to play more than once. The two Friday night groups didn't get very far and the winner was in a Sunday group. IMO fascinating history of the game and miles away from the way it is now.( if interested read Increments comments in the ENworld thread "is tomb of horrors the worst dungeon of all time?" (Hint:it's not))
It seemed more player solving problems than character solving problems back then. My only issue is that after you've been playing a couple of dozen years in this style all your characters have a similar set of tactics when dealing with doors, corridors, chests etc. that's why I prefer the "my character searches the chest for traps (roll search skill)" rather than "my second level wizard who has never been in a dungeon in her life uses door opening method number 5 on this door because it's a double iron door in a decorated arch"
imo they were so concerned with making it something you don't worry about they didn't even try with the encumbrance rules. An average gnome (strength 10) can carry 3 other gnomes (40 pounds each) while fully equipped in light armour and weaponsand be just as nimble as if it didn't have his whole family literally on his back.
I find in game play carrying capacity and encumbrance inevitably becomes important and interesting for tension in a scene, but only at certain times.
- dragging a friend to safety
Currently one way a party climbs a rope is everyone just tie on to the guy with athletics and they shimmy up the rope with a bunch of PC's hanging off them - like fezzik up the cliffs of insanity.
(Except of course ropes can't hold much weight - they "burst" with a dc17 strength check so they probably can't even hold the weight of one normal unencumbered person!)
I would like some of these smaller details to have been kept simple but have had a little more thought.
I have done the "level up when I say so everyone the same level" it's a fine way to go. Especially in 3e because being even 1 level different can matter. In 5e you can play at different levels in the same group and that gives an interesting dynamic without making it suck for the lower level character IMO.
With regards to XP some people just want to play a character that is of similar level to everyone else & don't want to be penalised for having to miss a session, others want to play a character who "earns" every XP. Who am I to argue with either option.
Currently my campaign consists of running two groups of PC's (same players) and I give out XP to those who are there when the encounter happens. However I also allow the players if they have missed a bit to increase their XP to the next lowest XP in the group. I figure I am creating adventures for their fun and I don't need to adjudicate this aspect of the game - it's up to them. Let them decide what's fun for them. I'm even thinking of letting those that don't care about recording XP just link their level up to the lowest XP in the group.
(my players are all gaming veterans with 30+ years experience but I don't think this would matter)
I was nodding along while reading your first paragraph, then I saw the next two.
Do not even begin to think about going there. Just no.
It's difficult to compare editions like that.
An AD&D 1e magic user that goes from level 10 to level 11 has less hit points than a 5e one but gets the following benefits to their spell casting (I'm ignoring any save or to hit increases )
- there is other stuff as well but you get my point.
A 5e wizard gets to learn one new spell and gets a single 6th level spell. All their magic missile do 3dice and their fireball stay at 8dice. The big thing they get is their firebolt goes from 2d10 to 3d10.
At super high level(15+) a AD&D spellcaster character is much more powerful than a high level 5e one. But a low level (4-) 5e one is more powerful than a 1e one.
1-20 5e is kinda like levels 4-16 AD&D. If I was converting a level 18 AD&D wizard to 5e I would make it a level 20 spellcaster with a couple of DMG boons. (Btw I think this is why in 3e greyhawk products the previously 10th level NPC is now 15th level - it is a better representation of their personal power compared to the power of the regular warrior)
I tried to do a "how many orcs do you need to kill to get to level 15 in each edition" but iirc trolls in AD&D netted you as much exp as about 40 orcs and hill Giants got you as much as about 120 so it ended up being an interesting but not illuminating exercise. 40 orcs in 5e means the death of just about any character if they can't out run them.
But back to the point about running the slow game. I do like the relative emphasis of 5e (rapid advancement to level 3, slow a lot between 5 and 10, a bit of a speed up at 11-13 then a gentle consistent rate 14-20. I have run three quick 3e adventure paths in the last 5-6 years and they get characters to 14th level but the characters seem to lack depth. Previously my first exposure to 3e was running a 6 year 1-20 level campaign and before that I ran AD&D - a couple of 15 year 1-18 level campaigns (not consecutively) so I come from a slow advance background.
For mine I'm going to keep the exp table in 5e (for the relative level advancement) I think as my campaign gets to mid levels (it's level 3-4 at the moment) the 0.4 multiplier looks like it will not work as well. I suspect I will simply redo the exp table for each CR.
I multiply stated XP awards by 0.4. I keep the players handbook stuff the same.
What do you do?
Ps I like the idea of giving cr X hp. Have to look more closely at that.
I also find the higher cr monsters tend to give out more XP than their actual threat level. Especially once you get to CR 4 or higher.
Steve Geddes wrote:
It's clear. I had the same puzzle. We eventually concluded it was ambiguous and went with spell level (ie cure wounds is always +2). We figured they're pretty good about explicitly using 'spell slot' when that's what they mean.
1. A first level spell would be +3 (level +2), and2. I have the opposite interpretation. Note The same wording is used in the dispel magic spell.
Read the paragraph on page 201 about casting spells at a higher level it seems that if you use a 3rd level spell to cast cure wounds you have just cast a 3rd level spell.
DM Jeff wrote:
I use masterwork weapons in 5e. I decided if one damage die of the weapon rolls a 1, consider it a 2 instead. That's it.
This is what I am planning as well.
I am thinking of also having it double the short range for thrown weapons.
A possible issue with this is that in 3.x all magic weapons were masterwork (the logic being as I understand it that most magic weapons would have been crafted to masterwork level before being enchanted) and the magic bonus overwrote the masterwork bonus. Do you then in 5e say that all magic weapons have the masterwork bonus?
Do you have masterwork armour in 5e?
There's also lots of free stuff for 4th including downloadable pre-gen characters, classes, adventures, and simply buying 1 month of DDI gets you the ENTIRE system of rules, classes, races, monsters, feats, powers/spells, and adventures. You could download all the Dungeon adventures and the Scales of War AP for 1 lump price.
Is this right? I have never used DDI or 4e but I would be interested in downloading the online dungeons and adventures to read them and possibly mine them.
So, assuming I'm a noob at this stuff what would I do and what would I be able to get ?
Why are you quitting playing pathfinder?
I quit because it was too complex at levels 7+ and just kept getting more complex as it went up, over rewarded game mechanic mastery and took too long to design and play combats.
I initially switched to Savage Worlds a few years ago as a simpler system (I still like it) and now play 5e. It doesn't have any of the problems I mentioned above.
I think this is the way to look at treasure once you get past about 5th level. Up until then you are buying armour, healing potions and the like. Beyond that point those things become easy to obtain and cash becomes a narrative reward.
This means you have to allow it to be used in the narrative. Give the party the chance to gain some information, reputation, help out a friend, live well etc if they have cash.
That's really interesting that 11th level 5e = 14th level pathfinder. Partly because I would have said 14th level pathfinder = 16th level 3/3.5e. Maybe I could actually run Rappan Athuk to the end.
I am running pre 5e adventures converted to 5e as well (just started). I would imagine that the treasure has been filleted a bit to fit with the 5e approach to magic.
What magic items do you have at 11th?
I have multiplied the amount of exp earned for defeating a monster by 0.4 which means you have to defeat 2.5 times as many creatures to level up. I do give some quest exp
Other house rules:
Rules 1-3 above and the slow exp is partially to stretch out the time taken in game.
Most crucial thing to remember is that 5e is a different game.
I think a major point of 5e limiting feats and making them have greater effect was to follow the principal of giving characters less stuff but making it bigger so a feat is special. It would not be unusual for characters will reach 12th level before even taking a feat. I think giving them all these extra feats works against that intention.
The reason the AC is what it is has to do with bounded accuracy, if you in essence just give all armour wearers +1 AC you simply increase the defence of all characters except those that don't wear armour. The biggest difference this will make is to the heavy armour, shield using defence based fighter who will gain a fair bit from it, and monks, wizards etc who will lose. The reason they lowered them was because 5e is a different game.
I considered flanking but favoured ditching the +2 bonuses for simplicity. With the reduced attacks of opportunity it's easy to flank. My players appreciated not having to gang up in the right squares to get a bonus.
I allowed a max of 2 inspirations - no one ever got there. I still don't have a handle on giving them out.
As for the stat bonuses an extra 1 point won't make a difference - except to humans I guess. I made my players roll up their characters (stats in order, no rearrange) because I wanted that old school feel. Initially they were grumpy about but after about 30 hours of play and 1 death (new character rolled up) they like it.
My anecdotal experience is the same as Tormsskull's.
IMO The hydrophobia sufferer who crosses the water to get a more powerful item, then justifies it as "character development" is wrapping their optimisation in roleplaying fluff (that is not hard to see through), rather than actually roleplaying.
Often optimisation and roleplaying can walk along the same path. The relevant question is what do you do when optimisation says go left and roleplaying say ago right? If you pay no heed to following the optimisation path this is an easy decision.
Where did your campaign get up to?
Nicolas Logue wrote:
High level thread necromancy required....
Did this sequel ever happen? Did it get converted into something else?
I am looking for monk/monastery adventures
Jzadirune is a real grind because at low level you have little resilience, I don't plan to let the players go I to it until they are 2nd or maybe 3rd level. Big dungeons at low level are just repetitive as progress is so slow.
But for that encounter as you described the issue was more the DM than the dungeon.
Meh pick and choose different recipes but can't as easily learn about history or how to animal handle.
My primary suggestion would be to Play a bard, especially a knowledge bard Or maybe a rogue, a knowledge cleric or a champion fighter. They all get a bit of skill boost along the way. Multiclass into rogue, ranger or bard if you want to skill up later on.
IMO If you want to play a skills generalist, they exist. You just can't be a skills generalist and a class that doesn't focus on skills. This is a feature of the game, not a bug. Skill granularity leads more toward skill min maxing (ie focussing on the more commonly used and in game valuable skills than the more esoteric skills) than generalisation.
The house rule I would offer as GM would be to let you freeze a proficiency at 5th and add the bonuses to another skill if that's what you wanted (I.e. when you go up to 5th you don't go up in it but you can add it to something else).
One way of looking at the system in a 3e way is that say you get 5 skills at +2 at first level, they go up to +3 at 5th so that means you get 10 points to distribute at 1st level (maximum bonus +2) and another 5 skill points to distribute at 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th. If your class picks up an extra proficiency you get extra points. You may need to come up with some sort of class skill mechanism ( like a lower max for non class skills etc). My view is this would likely lead to the 3e min,max on skills - with perception athletics and acrobatics being maxed for the wizard.
It's hard to put a finger on it.
For me I always felt that forgotten realms was similar in its generic fantasy trope but is trying too hard to be "better than Greyhawk". Like everything Greyhawk has it tries to have one, but better. That doesn't work.
I am just about to start a 5e campaign. I will return to Greyhawk after 6 years in Golarion. Shackled City with a bucketload of extras to make it a sandbox with an adventure path spine. I am setting it around the time of the 3e era gazetteer and am looking forward to the influence of the battle between the Scarlet Brotherhood and the Sea Princes spilling over into Cauldron.
Oh, and yes I would love some 5e greyhawk ( any non massive adventure path 5e really - WOTC doesn't make small adventures I can fit into my Greyhawk)
I would think that Triel is the most charismatic of the three leaders and with her gone the alley bashers and hill folk would pull out. Really once their hidden lair has been found they best leg it.
Iirc the reason for stealing the wands was to ransom them back for money. Once they are found they should go and hide again. This probably means the party will fail to recover enough wands.
This is a disappointing way for the adventure to end so perhaps Tarkilar could stay in the ruins and some of the dead could be brought back to assist him? Skaven can live to fight another day.
I read a more interesting reason for the bad guys wanting the wands which was along the lines that they were using them to drain the water from the ruins to discover something within the lake. I can't recall exactly what it was down there. But if you follow that motivation they might have a reason to stay.
Yes. I modified the "Cauldron and Environs" map to reflect plantation locations. It's not very complicated but it helped me describe what the players saw as they took various trips outside the city. If you have an email address, I'll send it to you for use however you see fit.
Thanks Greystaff. It'sThomashobday at hotmail dot com
I'm not familiar enough with Greyhawk to give recommendations for that setting. Generically you could have them as the routes to the various mines and plantations that are mentioned in the various installments but never specifically placed on the maps.
Did you use them when you ran it?
I suspect there is no canon for this. I am looking for ideas for expanding the area. I am thinking of having Port Shaw from Razor Coast set up some distance to the South so the Hollowsky road could go there.
Yeah, but the guardians if the galaxy movie wasn't premised on a big comic book following to sell tickets was it? IMO It was just a story turned into a film - using a bit of goodwill from Marvel, from space films etc
I would have thought getting the D&D brand a bit of a spit & polish would be all that Hasbro would need ( I certainly wouldn't think the rpg was anymore than a small plank in their intellectual property plan) then they could make a Drizzt movie riffing off the books, the recent warm fuzziness toward the game ( including cprg's , board games etc ) and 'magic/fantasy' films like LOTR, hobbit, harry potter. They could then see if they have got the Marvel style movie franchise they dream of.
( of course this means they need some sort of control of the D&D film licence - what happened to that?)
For me and most of my group it wasn't the complexity of character build that was a major contributor to making 3.x popular.
It was that it had a robust system for a tactical level combat. Things like flanking, attacks of opportunity, 5' step, straight line charging, miniature scale movement etc all were new for d&d. We had rarely used mini before because combat didn't really benefit from it. AD&D was more about resource management - combats were simpler - fighters at the front, magic users at the back hand wave the rest.
Suddenly 3.x added a tactical combat game to the roleplaying, adventure, storytelling game that had always been D&D.
Now I agree that the character build part was initially fun too but that side of it became more and more like homework. The imbalance between characters, problems that were created by things going slightly wrong, the maths to check each round based on buffs and the like became frustrating. But having been exposed to the added tactical element for my group we couldn't go back totally to the hand wave tactics of previous editions - not when playing D&D. I mean, we could do it a bit, but those tactical combats were fun.
So if 5e can be a roleplaying, storytelling, adventure, tactical game without making any part too complicated I am in.
Oh and I am 47 and started with the basic set in 79.
Well yes but I think the point is that if the way you deal with a class, or spell or whatever is by having a bunch of " you can't do that " things then you are already conceding you have a problem that "normal" rules don't solve.
It's like designing a river crossing problem for a 6th level party then saying there is some magic preventing you from flying.
Btw you look way over there, in the distance , you can see the point of this thread : )
Pathfinder is awesome for those that like it, same for 5e.
Has anyone played 5e to high level yet? How did that compare ? ( I haven't but I have given up on trying to run 3.x/pathfinder above 15th)
This is an interesting result, I would have thought they would be a decent threat in 5e, especially with their ranged attacks and pack tactics/martial advantage. I can certainly understand AoE being a crucial part of such an encounter. I hadn't really picked up that 5e allowed copious in combat healing.
Was this against 4pcs?
I guess some of my assumptions may turn out to be incorrect.
Maybe I'm wrong about how 5e will play out.
Maybe my perception of 3e/pathfinder is coloured by most campaigns I have been in or run in the last 14 years being adventure paths ( I ran a converted Night Below from 2000-2006 before Paizo started producing them). Maybe it's partly because most published adventure paths seem to use the "to help the party be tough enough to face the next encounter have them beat up this side quest" trope. Or maybe because when we played 3e we went up levels so much faster than when we played 1e so if you met a threat that was too tough a legitimate solution was to leave it alone, go up a few levels, then come back & kill it.
I guess in the 1e games I ran it felt like a bad guy was almost like a terrain feature. Everyone knew the evil summoner lived in the hills which are infested by ogres - but he had lived there for years and no-one could do anything about it except thwart his plots when he sent his minions into the kingdom. In 3e he would be a threat for about 2 months until the party hit 10th level.
But this is probably more a speed of levelling up effect, and it doesn't really look like the default speed of levelling up has changed so this will still be a feature. It does look like numbers matter a lot more. So if a tribe of orcs rules an area it will be tougher to just run them out when you reach 8th level.
I guess I am looking forward to more intractable foes in the campaign world that aren't uber level.
How do other perceive it will play out compared to pathfinder?
I haven't played much 5e but to me what looks like a difference in style of game between 5e & pathfinder is that pathfinder seems to suit the epic adventure path style of game and 5e a more sandbox style.
A pathfinder adventure path often involves events which are essentially a way to gain levels to allow you to trouble a BBEG. The difference between a 3rd and a 15th level character is enormous. So adventure design tends to lean towards a linear adventure progression. You don't want the 4th level characters stumbling into the 9th level adventure because that's a TPK waiting to happen. So you fight goblins, then ghouls, then ogres, then giants etc you don't want to meet a couple of giants when you should be fighting ghouls!
5e seems to have a less steep improvement curve, meaning that at 4th level if you wander into the 9th level dungeon you can survive ( probably only long enough to get out). So this means you can make the world a bit more sandboxy, let the players find their own way. Now maybe this will just lead to the players having a false sense of their ability to defeat a big threat.
Now that I look back on it when 3.0 came out I started running essentially much more linear adventure path style campaigns. I like the story element of the game anyway. Maybe now I will try a bit more sandbox.
Like I said I admit I haven't had much experience with 5e but that's my thoughts .
Yep, if a player gets the best protective magical items in the game, and take the right class options and spells, they have a really high Armour Class and are hard to hit - same as it ever was.
(Off topic 1: I recall from one edition the write up of Grazzt was that he could hit any Armour Class on a natural roll of 13 or higher, I thought it was a cool ability to get past the uber munchkin AC fiends)
( off topic 2: GWL - what do you consider are the most crucial elements of 4e style play ( or any other edition) that are not replicated, or able to be replicated in 5e? - I don't know 4e well but for mine:
As for the list of info from the DMG it is too scarce to influence me one way or the other - but the PHB and MM have been enough to make me look forward to the DMG.
I don't agree that that is their stated plan. Their plan as I understand it is to release 2 stories a year - with some support for each story. That doesn't mean once a story is released they will not touch the setting again, or that they will not allow 3pp to do so, or that there will be no other source of new adventures for that setting.
But, hypothetically, if they released a Spelljammer story - with the support they have referred to and only that - nothing more & all 3pp support or future module support for that setting prohibited into the future. I would be less interested than if they produced a swathe of new material. But if it was a good enough story & I wanted to run it I might buy the background stuff. It's pretty good value.
But that wasn't my point - my point was in response to you saying they are planning to "start" a setting then abandon it. They ain't starting any of those settings, they are adding stories to settings that already exist, the settings already have stories. If you liked the old ones you can convert them to 5e and here are some new stories - some new support for an old setting.
During the time of 4e iirc the old settings weren't available online. Now they are. That makes a difference as to what WOTC need to do with a setting. Then they needed to entirely explain and support the setting. Now they just need to add to a setting. It's already there.