I am about to finish Shackled City and would like to embark next on Rise of the Runelords. I will very probably convert 4th edition because so far what I've seen interests me (faster & easier gameplay, less prep time for the GM, more dynamic combats....) and I might as well do it when I change campaign. Has Paizo given any thought about publishing an additional booklet for the conversion to 4E?
I guess you could publish something that basically tells you that for this and that encounter add/subtract X number of goblins whose characteristics are now as follows…
Chief Technical Officer
|
I am about to finish Shackled City and would like to embark next on Rise of the Runelords. I will very probably convert 4th edition because so far what I've seen interests me (faster & easier gameplay, less prep time for the GM, more dynamic combats....) and I might as well do it when I change campaign. Has Paizo given any thought about publishing an additional booklet for the conversion to 4E?
I guess you could publish something that basically tells you that for this and that encounter add/subtract X number of goblins whose characteristics are now as follows…
At this point—having not yet been given the rules—we have no idea what's even possible, but we'll evaluate such things when we can.
I am about to finish Shackled City and would like to embark next on Rise of the Runelords. I will very probably convert 4th edition because so far what I've seen interests me (faster & easier gameplay, less prep time for the GM, more dynamic combats....) and I might as well do it when I change campaign. Has Paizo given any thought about publishing an additional booklet for the conversion to 4E?
I guess you could publish something that basically tells you that for this and that encounter add/subtract X number of goblins whose characteristics are now as follows…
So, here is one of the many things I absolutely love about 4th Edition: you'll find it pretty easy to convert adventures from 3.x to 4th. Right now I am running sections from Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk as my paragon-tier playtest game, and I play in a lunchtime Pathfinder game. There, we just converted out characters to 4th. The DM is running The Hook Mountain Massacre, converting to 4e as he goes. We are the last leg of our mission to become the new owners of Fort Rannick.
Sure, my Hellknight knight/fighter became a paladin multiclassing into fighter, but the character has not lost its essence and has abilities not so dissimilar that it feels weird. Linaiius constantly berates the wizard, kicks down doors when the rogue is done with them, and make sure the toughest bad guy fights him—he's the important one—and when they do they always die (come on, he's a Hellknight!).
Pathfinder is a great campaign with an interesting story, some very memorable encounters, and some really good challenges. I’ve really enjoyed playing it, and I look forward to reading my copies cover to cover when my campaign ends. Lucky for all of us, 4e has enough flexibility on the DM side to allow that DM to craft all sorts of challenges and stories…even the ones from older editions.
I swear I'm not being a company shill, either. :-)
Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Developer guy
I'm confused. If it's so easy to convert then why did WotC suggest that people begin new campaigns?
Also, it would seem that converting NPCs would not be as simple as you are suggesting. Therefore NPC foes in published adventures would be hard, if not impossible, to convert "on the fly".
Finally, there are several thousand monsters available for 3.5, while there will be only a few hundred for 4E for a couple of years. Simply using a 4E version of a 3E monster may not be possible for quite some time.
Am I missing something?
|
So, one of the first piece of data WotC gave, was that the switch from 3.X to 4E was so complex and imprecise that it was bordering on the impossible, or to sum it up "end your current campaign and be prepared to start up a brand new one".
Now, playtesters say that switching from the "old" (AH!) ruleset to the new one is so easy they're doing it almost on-the-fly.
Mmmmmhhh...
|
So, one of the first piece of data WotC gave, was that the switch from 3.X to 4E was so complex and imprecise that it was bordering on the impossible, or to sum it up "end your current campaign and be prepared to start up a brend new one".
Now, playtesters say that switching from the "old" (AH!) ruleset to the new one is so easy thay're doing it almost on-the-fly.
Mmmmmhhh...
I'm a little confused myself. SRM, if you say that's how it is, then cool. But do you know why WotC would have said the above statement if your experience is wholly otherwise?
I know that there were a lot of complaints about the conversion guidelines from 2E to 3E. That was the stated reason why no guide was coming out. (Rodney may find it easier as a pro to grasp the essential points of the characters anyway.)
But Wizards recommending new campaigns? Come on. I'm not going to do what they say because they want me to, but it just makes sense. You want your customer base to switch and start using the game right away.
I swear I'm not being a company shill, either. :-)
Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Developer guy
Whether you are or not, we appreciate your presence and sharing some insight. Good to have you with us.
I'm confused. If it's so easy to convert then why did WotC suggest that people begin new campaigns?
Also, it would seem that converting NPCs would not be as simple as you are suggesting. Therefore NPC foes in published adventures would be hard, if not impossible, to convert "on the fly".
Finally, there are several thousand monsters available for 3.5, while there will be only a few hundred for 4E for a couple of years. Simply using a 4E version of a 3E monster may not be possible for quite some time.
Am I missing something?
I believe what they said was that it would be impossible to give a one-for-one conversion chart for changing stuff from 3rd edition to 4th. But since creating monsters is easier in the new edition (I think that is what has said, there are guidelines in the DMG). The same for NPCs since characters take less time to create (again, that is what I think has been said) the conversion there is reletively quick, with the small problem that you may have to reimagine the character in 4ed because several of the classes,feats, and spells are not there.
So conversion possible, a conversion guide is impossible. Creating the monsters and NPCs in 4th edition is faster and easier as well. Once again from what I've seen people in the know say.
I'm confused. If it's so easy to convert then why did WotC suggest that people begin new campaigns?
Also, it would seem that converting NPCs would not be as simple as you are suggesting. Therefore NPC foes in published adventures would be hard, if not impossible, to convert "on the fly".
Finally, there are several thousand monsters available for 3.5, while there will be only a few hundred for 4E for a couple of years. Simply using a 4E version of a 3E monster may not be possible for quite some time.
Am I missing something?
Trust me I understand the confusion. And, just to create a little more confusion, I submit that both are true. You probably should restart a campaign with the release of 4e and it is easy to convert older adventures and it is possible to convert exiting campaigns.
Okay, before you beat your head in frustration, hear me out.
The game is different enough that it’s a very good idea to start a new campaign upon release. There’re enough differences it behooves any DM or player to start with the basics and work up from level 1. It’s also impossible to take an “X”-level character and rebuild it in 4e terms if your measure for a rebuild would be absolutely equivalent abilities at each level. You can convert rather satisfactorily if you measure is more loose; more about tone than detail.
For instance, my Rise of the Runelords Hellknight is a tank who challenges his foes and layers the smack when needed. He doesn’t have the same exact feats, the same class features, the same equipment, but he does have the rules items in 4e that allow him to do what he is famous (at least in my own gaming group) for doing.
In essence he’s the same character. His mechanics are not identical…just similar enough where I feel like it’s the same character. Keep in mind, he’s not the most complicated character in the world, but the other players have been able to convert their characters with similar results.
On the other side of the fence, I would hate to try to convert Living Greyhawk characters. That would just be an utter charlie foxtrot, as too many people who wouldn’t be happy with the conversion. That campaign is just too rich, deep, and played for a tonal conversion.
On the DM side, when building tools for the DM, Stephen Schubert (the ever-lovable, Shoe) created interesting ways to express game assumptions that grant a tremendous amount of flexibility on the DM’s part for creating and modifying challenges. Those revelations make it easier for DMs to tell stories while still supplying the gamist challenges that the majority of D&D players crave. I find it easier for a DM to create adventures in 4e and it is also easier to convert. As for particulars, I’m afraid you are just going to have to wait for the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Now, here’s my big caveat to this. If you are a DM who uses or wishes to use the D&D rules for a physics of the world, where monsters and players always live by the same rules and building monsters and NPCs is a rigorous and time consuming as building PCs, the ease may make you feel a little queasy at first. The truth is, it’s just a heck of a lot easier to create monsters and NPCs, because you build them enough for the role they are designed to play in the plot and in the game. And we really latched on to this philosophy in monster, NPC, and adventure design. Like characters in a movie or play, they are fleshed out as much as they need to serve the story—in this case the adventure.
So basically, I think it’s best to restart so that you and your players can get to know the rules and how they work in a holistic way. This doesn’t mean you can’t run Pathfinder, Temple of Elemental Evil, Age of Worms, or Sunless Citadel as part of your first campaign, and supply the same story and challenges that those classics provide. Of course, H1 Keep on the Shadowfell is pretty fun too, so you may just want to start with that one. Anyhow, as a DM, your gaming world in 4e is pretty open.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Developer dude.
Whether you are or not, we appreciate your presence and sharing some insight. Good to have you with us.I swear I'm not being a company shill, either. :-)
Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Developer guy
Happy to be here.
Stephen
My thoughts were that it would always be possible to convert games to 4th Edition, but not in a direct way. If you were playing an illumian truenamer, for example, you would have to settle with either entirely homebrewed rules or for a "style" adaptation (like, maybe a human wizard as a basis).
My plans are running Savage Tide in 4th Edition, just replacing monsters with their equivalents (or something close enough and retaining appearance-only), adding or removing them as necessary to be a challenge. Other stuff might be more difficult, but I'm aiming to try it anyway and see how it goes.
My plans are running Savage Tide in 4th Edition, just replacing monsters with their equivalents (or something close enough and retaining appearance-only), adding or removing them as necessary to be a challenge. Other stuff might be more difficult, but I'm aiming to try it anyway and see how it goes.
As an aside, I've been planning on doing the same thing with Green Ronin's spectacular Freeport adventures, at least the original trilogy plus Crisis in Freeport, which I helped write but have never had a chance to run. I've been kind of casually working on some conversions, and so far so good, but admittedly I'm not very far into it.
Stephen - Thanks so much for posting this explanation. It's really good to know that we'll be able to convert 3.5 Pathfinder to 4th Edition so smoothly.
I'm in the pro-4E camp, and as much as I love the Paizo adventures, I'll admit I've been feeling some guilt for buying 3.5 adventure paths when I know I'll be converting soon, and might never get to use them. It's extremely good to hear that nothing will be wasted...
So if I understand correctly, converting adventures is pretty easy, but converting PCs is harder - although both are easier if you keep a concept/tone in mind, rather than specific ability benchmarks, when converting? This leads to pure speculation on my part, but it sounds as if adventure design and world design are staying very open-ended, but player character abilities are more hard-coded and may even seem somewhat inflexible?
Of course, D&D's level-based system has always been inflexible compared to point-based systems like Hero or GURPS. And I, personally, don't want D&D to go point-based. I'm just curious if 4E feels to you like it's more, or less, flexible in PC design than 3E?
|
I'm confused. If it's so easy to convert then why did WotC suggest that people begin new campaigns?
Also, it would seem that converting NPCs would not be as simple as you are suggesting. Therefore NPC foes in published adventures would be hard, if not impossible, to convert "on the fly".
Finally, there are several thousand monsters available for 3.5, while there will be only a few hundred for 4E for a couple of years. Simply using a 4E version of a 3E monster may not be possible for quite some time.
Am I missing something?
Don't forget that Pathfinder is OGL, so you start from a much more 'stripped back to basics' position. They were also only a couple of chapters in, so the PCs probably weren't loaded down with prestige classes and too many diverse feats.
Trying to convert high-level characters from a campaign where the players are using a dozen or more supplements would be a totally different story, I guess.
I understand that monsters and characters work differently in 4E (even if I'm not privy to how this works).
Design should be easier (which is undoubtedly appealing to the designers), but I can't help feel that the payoff just won't be there in regards to converting adventures. And converting on the fly would seem impossible, if, say, you had a frost giant sorcerer 11.
I mean, yeah, you can have the same plot in 4E that you had in any 3E adventure and substitute every encounter with a 4e equivalent (as you could also do using a different system like GRUPS or anything else), but such NPC complexity will apparently be gone in 4E. Some see that as a feature.
I see it as a loss.
|
|
I understand that monsters and characters work differently in 4E (even if I'm not privy to how this works)...I see it as a loss.
I too, think that one of the greatest improvements of 3rd Ed was the decision to describe monsters in the same terms as the PCs.
Opposed tasks became so much easier to rule, with ability scores and skill points provided. Previously, any attempt to wrestle a goblin or bluff an ogre had been down to the DM's whim, which was fine if it ended in the player's favour, but could lead to some very tedious debates if it didn't.
Chaosium managed to do it with Runequest (1980?), and related games (Call of Cthulhu). I remember seeing D&D3E, and thinking "Cool! Only took them 20 years to incorporate that!".
Stephen - Thanks so much for posting this explanation. It's really good to know that we'll be able to convert 3.5 Pathfinder to 4th Edition so smoothly.
I'm in the pro-4E camp, and as much as I love the Paizo adventures, I'll admit I've been feeling some guilt for buying 3.5 adventure paths when I know I'll be converting soon, and might never get to use them. It's extremely good to hear that nothing will be wasted...
So if I understand correctly, converting adventures is pretty easy, but converting PCs is harder - although both are easier if you keep a concept/tone in mind, rather than specific ability benchmarks, when converting? This leads to pure speculation on my part, but it sounds as if adventure design and world design are staying very open-ended, but player character abilities are more hard-coded and may even seem somewhat inflexible?
Of course, D&D's level-based system has always been inflexible compared to point-based systems like Hero or GURPS. And I, personally, don't want D&D to go point-based. I'm just curious if 4E feels to you like it's more, or less, flexible in PC design than 3E?
I believe that 4e is more flexible in character creation as 3.x is; it’s just that sometimes the flex points live in slightly different spots.
My Hellknight character has lots of hit points, high defenses, and debuffs foes. He doesn’t do the most damage in the party, but he hits when it counts and makes sure the big beaters are focused on him most of the time. I can also do things that I couldn’t do as a 3.x character, like heal my allies, buff their AC for a short time, and switch places with one via divine magic. In short, I can do all the things my 3.e character could do and more. I could have also made very different choices with my character and do other things, while still fulfilling my role as the group’s defender. My human paladin is very different than my friend Chris’s paladin in my playtest game, and very different than my friend Jesse’s fighter who multiclassed into paladin.
Because you have more choices in character design, character design is far more complicated than NPC and design. You have more choices, more ways to tweak, and that’s the way it should be. Players want to make and advance their own characters and they want to choices to help define their character from other characters. Roleplayers want to find powers and abilities that help them create the hero they have in their mind's eye and rules monkeys want to be able to weigh and argue choices in the goal for the ever-elusive “best build.” (Of course most of lie somewhere between those two extremes.)That matrix does not need exist for the support characters of the game—the NPCs and monster. They have specific goals and utility in the game, and should have simpler abilities that allow them to reach those goals. In other worlds, the building blocks between protagonists and antagonists can be different tools that talk to each other rather than the same (or very similar) tool. 1st Edition AD&D knew this; it just lacked the tools to make flexible critters. 3.x cornered the market (in D&D terms) on flexibility, but did so with often too much complexity. What 4e gives is a middle ground that I personally find refreshing and fun.
On a personal note (and so you know where I'm coming from), I’m not a fan of point-based systems. I think they can be fun with a group of very skilled and dedicated players, but their complexity and constant need to capture “realism” create barriers to the new and casual players…and I think it is important for games to be accessible to these groups while creating interesting choices and tactics that keep the more advanced players happy. I think class or template based system do that the best. Detractors may point out that real life has no such thing as class, but I don’t play D&D or any other roleplaying game to immerse myself in a “real” world. I do it to play a good game and create interesting fiction with my other players. In short it just needs to be real enough to be playable, evocative, and fun.
Stephen
I understand that monsters and characters work differently in 4E (even if I'm not privy to how this works).
Design should be easier (which is undoubtedly appealing to the designers), but I can't help feel that the payoff just won't be there in regards to converting adventures. And converting on the fly would seem impossible, if, say, you had a frost giant sorcerer 11.
I mean, yeah, you can have the same plot in 4E that you had in any 3E adventure and substitute every encounter with a 4e equivalent (as you could also do using a different system like GRUPS or anything else), but such NPC complexity will apparently be gone in 4E. Some see that as a feature.
I see it as a loss.
The goal is not to make all creatures simple for the case of simplicity, but rather to make them as simple as they need to be. That frost giant sorcerer in 3.x lives for an encounter, and based on its story purpose has only number of things it needs to do. You should not have to spend an hour of build for a creature that exists for less than half an hour on the table.
If that frost giant sorcerer is an ongoing villain who lives in a number of encounters and is the impetus of a number of plot points, he deserves to be more interesting and complex, and the 4e rules will allow you to make that guy too.
Stephen
I can also do things that I couldn’t do as a 3.x character, like heal my allies, buff their AC for a short time, and switch places with one via divine magic.
I am guessing what you mean to say here is that "do things I couldn't do with my 3.5 characters build."
Because the stuff you mention can be done in 3.5 - depending on what sources are allowed.
Welcome developer guy SRM.
Thanks for posting.
I can also do things that I couldn’t do as a 3.x character, like heal my allies, buff their AC for a short time, and switch places with one via divine magic.I am guessing what you mean to say here is that "do things I couldn't do with my 3.5 characters build."
Because the stuff you mention can be done in 3.5 - depending on what sources are allowed.
Yes, I was talking about my charater and not the set of all possible characters.
Stephen
Welcome developer guy SRM.
Thanks for posting.
My pleasure.
|
|
I don't know about 4th edition, but you could convert just about anything into a 3rd edition adventure. My buddy just converted a Warhammer novel into a 3.5 D&D adventure. I ran an adventure based on the movie "Aliens" where the party fought a bunch of modified medium black dragons. You could convert Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" or The X-Men's "Dark Phoenix Saga" into a 3rd editon adventure. You just have to do a certain amount of work to figure out what level frenzied berzerker Wolverine the half-troll is, or whatever. In fact, I even remember a 1st edition adventure based on "Alice in Wonderland."
My point is that saying you can convert a 3rd edition adventure to 4th edition doesn't really say much about how close 4th edition is to 3rd. There are similar elements, in that a group of protagonists undergoes a series of trials and/or comes into conflict with one or more antagonists in order to accomplish a goal or goals. I'm sure you could convert "Rise of the Runelords" to Rifts if you wanted to (actually it would be pretty easy).
From what we've heard 4th edition D&D is a very different game from 3rd edition D&D, and being able to play the same adventure (after changing it) doesn't really mean anything.
I don't know about 4th edition, but you could convert just about anything into a 3rd edition adventure. My buddy just converted a Warhammer novel into a 3.5 D&D adventure. I ran an adventure based on the movie "Aliens" where the party fought a bunch of modified medium black dragons. You could convert Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" or The X-Men's "Dark Phoenix Saga" into a 3rd editon adventure. You just have to do a certain amount of work to figure out what level frenzied berzerker Wolverine the half-troll is, or whatever. In fact, I even remember a 1st edition adventure based on "Alice in Wonderland."
My point is that saying you can convert a 3rd edition adventure to 4th edition doesn't really say much about how close 4th edition is to 3rd. There are similar elements, in that a group of protagonists undergoes a series of trials and/or comes into conflict with one or more antagonists in order to accomplish a goal or goals. I'm sure you could convert "Rise of the Runelords" to Rifts if you wanted to (actually it would be pretty easy).
From what we've heard 4th edition D&D is a very different game from 3rd edition D&D, and being able to play the same adventure (after changing it) doesn't really mean anything.
Yes, with enough work you could convert anything to a 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e adventure (but that doesn't mean you should). My point was that it is fairly easy and pretty fast to convert older edition adventures to 4e without re-envisioning them. Or at least that's what I have found.
Oh, and EX1 Dungeonland and EX2 The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror are the 1st Edition takes on Carroll's Wonderland and parts of EGG's Castle Greyhawk complex. They are interesting adventures and I am thinking of throwing them at my paragon-level playtesters, as they are are currently in the neighborhood.
Stephen
its really refreshing to have a civil 4e conversation on these message boards with someone in the know who is able to answer to our fears of the future of our game.
im also glad that we are reminded that it is a game. thank you srm.
i for one will be looking forward to 4e. i prolly wont play it for a while, hell, i owned alot of 2e stuff, but never really played it. of course, i thought 2e was similar enough to 1e that it could be "downplayed."
well, once again, thank you srm for posting here. there has been a noticable lack of official comment here. not that anybody official is obligated to post here, but it is nice to have somebody here with official data.
I understand that monsters and characters work differently in 4E (even if I'm not privy to how this works).
Design should be easier (which is undoubtedly appealing to the designers), but I can't help feel that the payoff just won't be there in regards to converting adventures. And converting on the fly would seem impossible, if, say, you had a frost giant sorcerer 11.
I mean, yeah, you can have the same plot in 4E that you had in any 3E adventure and substitute every encounter with a 4e equivalent (as you could also do using a different system like GRUPS or anything else), but such NPC complexity will apparently be gone in 4E. Some see that as a feature.
I see it as a loss.
The goal is not to make all creatures simple for the case of simplicity, but rather to make them as simple as they need to be. That frost giant sorcerer in 3.x lives for an encounter, and based on its story purpose has only number of things it needs to do. You should not have to spend an hour of build for a creature that exists for less than half an hour on the table.
If that frost giant sorcerer is an ongoing villain who lives in a number of encounters and is the impetus of a number of plot points, he deserves to be more interesting and complex, and the 4e rules will allow you to make that guy too.
Stephen
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Some of the greatest NPCs have grown out of my game where they survived or evolved beyond their anticipated "half-hour of existence" and became ongoing villains. And I remember the days where a "non-uniform" NPC or monster had to be converted from Yeoman Johnson to PC-capable Villain. I hated it then and I still don't like it now. And there's nothing in the 3.x paradigm that forces me to take an hour to build a character or creature today.
While I appreciate the objective WotC is working towards, I'm really getting turned off by these broad-brush swipes at 3.x. Now if you want to say, it shouldn't take new DM's an hour to create a minor NPC, fine. But if an experienced DM is taking that long, chances are it's because they want to - either because they're picking feats, spells, etc. from a myriad of sourcebooks, are working for the "optimal build", or just don't have a clear picture of the character in their mind. It ain't because the rules are broken.
While I appreciate the objective WotC is working towards, I'm really getting turned off by these broad-brush swipes at 3.x. Now if you want to say, it shouldn't take new DM's an hour to create a minor NPC, fine. But if an experienced DM is taking that long, chances are it's because they want to - either because they're picking feats, spells, etc. from a myriad of sourcebooks, are working for the "optimal build", or just don't have a clear picture of the character in their mind. It ain't because the rules are broken.
I think you are overreacting a bit. He just seemed to be saying that you shouldn't spend more time creating a NPC than the time they are going to be used. I don't know about you, but that describes practically every creature NPC that I didn't just pull from a book. I would like to have had the option to build many of them faster.
I don't think the rules weren't broken. I was able to use them and they worked for me. I do however that they could get better however.
|
its really refreshing to have a civil 4e conversation on these message boards with someone in the know who is able to answer to our fears of the future of our game.
Hear, hear. Well said. How I wish this sort of discussion and feedback from those in the know had been available and ready back in September.
Again, thanks for posting folks.
-DM Jeff
|
|
How I wish this sort of discussion and feedback from those in the know had been available and ready back in September.
Welcome, Rodney and SRM!
This is exactly the sort of feedback and discussion that we've been waiting for. You've given more insight into the themes of 4E on even this one thread, than we got from wizards.com in months.Not that I go on other messageboards much; I find them to be a bewildering mess, filled with flashing smilies, dancing avatars, page-long 'amusing' quotes at the end of each post that make me want to reach through the screen and squeeze the last breath of air from the idiots who post, and feel their trachea crack under my fingers....
And I don't fancy a taking a white-knuckle ride on the glowy green Gleemax Epilepti-tron, either. Apart from the fact that it's ugly as hell, it's immediately apparent to anyone at the far end of my office that it's not work-related, whereas I can tootle around on the calming fluffy-white Paizo cloud-pages all day, as long as I outperform my slack-jawed colleagues (not hard!).
So welcome back Rodney (I believe you used to run an Age of Worms game, am I right?) and SRM!
Reject the Dark Side!
Step into the light!
The two statements that jumped out at me:
My human paladin is very different than my friend Chris’s paladin...
Plenty of choices for players to make, even within the parameters of a single character class. Yes!
The goal is not to make all creatures simple for the case of simplicity, but rather to make them as simple as they need to be. That frost giant sorcerer in 3.x lives for an encounter, and based on its story purpose has only number of things it needs to do. You should not have to spend an hour of build for a creature that exists for less than half an hour on the table.
If that frost giant sorcerer is an ongoing villain who lives in a number of encounters and is the impetus of a number of plot points, he deserves to be more interesting and complex, and the 4e rules will allow you to make that guy too.
So if you have a bad guy in one scene, you make what you need for that scene. If the bad guy gets away and you need to develop him into a more complex, recurring villian, the tools are there for making that recurring villian. Yes!
Good news all 'round. Now if someone would just leak info about 4E's magic system... (grin)
While I appreciate the objective WotC is working towards, I'm really getting turned off by these broad-brush swipes at 3.x. Now if you want to say, it shouldn't take new DM's an hour to create a minor NPC, fine. But if an experienced DM is taking that long, chances are it's because they want to - either because they're picking feats, spells, etc. from a myriad of sourcebooks, are working for the "optimal build", or just don't have a clear picture of the character in their mind. It ain't because the rules are broken.
I agree. I never DMed D&D (any edition), but I have GMed other games. After a few months experience I was whipping out NPCs that were going to only last the one battle in like 5-15 minutes. I didn't worry if they had the appropriate number of points spent on abilities, or if i gave them ranks in climb or diplomacy, or should they have cold iron arrows vs silver arrows (or rather the equivilent of all the above for that game). All I did was assign them the "to hit" number that I wanted them to have, as well as other stats that might have been critical in that battle, and what equipment they had on them that I wanted the players to get. If I needed something more, then I made it up on the fly based on what made sense for that character.
|
|
And I don't fancy a taking a white-knuckle ride on the glowy green Gleemax Epilepti-tron, either. Apart from the fact that it's ugly as hell, it's immediately apparent to anyone at the far end of my office that it's not work-related, whereas I can tootle around on the calming fluffy-white Paizo cloud-pages all day, as long as I outperform my slack-jawed colleagues (not hard!).
OK, that was hilarious. :) I, too, hate Gleemax. It's nigh unuseable.
In any case, I think that part of the "NPC creation time" dilemma comes from *inexperienced* DMs if they complain about it. As someone else said... if a DM is taking an hour to make an NPC, it's because he wants to (because of using lots of other sources, etc). There is no reason, in 3.x, that you can't simply say, "OK, I need a dock-hand thug. AC 13, +4 to hit with a club doing 1d6+3 damage, 1d10 HP, and... hm... +1 to init, Will+0, Ref+1, Fort+2. I guess that's all I need."
There, that took me 15 seconds to type. Now if I want the King of the Pirates who is hidden in one of the warehouses and the PCs are going to take him on, though I expect him to escape and come back to harass them later... well, I would probably build that NPC just like a character.
It should be geared to the actual life expectancy and function of the NPC. Heck, you could even, as the DM, make up 3 or 4 sets of stat blocks at various levels, and just describe them differently each time you need them. Today's dock-hand thug is tomorrow's trail bandit is the next day's town bully.
The players need to build characters that are adaptable and need to expect different situations. As the DM, if your dock-hand thug needs to make a balance check to run along the rail of a ship to avoid the PCs, then give him a reasonable balance check based on his level on the fly and make the roll.
Anyway, I'm not saying that SRM isn't exactly right that it can be done in 4e easily, but unless a DM feels that he *must* be a slave to the character creation rules when creating NPCs that's not something that was "fixed" for 4e, just carried over with some official language in the DMG.
It is good to hear, as well, that there is someone able to do this conversion almost on the fly. It does turn previous claims of its impossibility on their head, but it bodes well for the future of Paizo customers.