I was skeptical of 4E when it came out, but after running my second session of Age of Worms in 4E last week, it became apparent that this is actually quite a good game.
My players are all quite experienced in 3.5 D&D, or some other incarnation. No newbs here.
Why do we like it? There are a few reasons that I noticed, but I'm going to talk about the DM side of things for now.
1. Monsters are easy to run and keep track of and stick around just long enough to do something. The one elite monster actually felt like 2 monsters and it felt tougher to the players than a regular one. Haven't used a solo or minion quite yet, but they are coming up.
2. Options options options! I noticed my players constantly communicating and interacting with each other. Sometimes they would shout out advice to each other such as "if I use power X, you can use your power Y and take out that beetle over there". I never saw this in older editions where players were always focussed just on what they alone could do. At no time did a player simply say "I can't do anything" or "My attacks are useless against that thing". Every single turn for every player had some kind of action or roll to keep the suspense going, even if it was a death saving throw.
3. Game flow. Holy crap this game flows well! My players completed 1 hard encounter, then 3 standard encounters at 1st level without a single extended rest! This makes way more sense to me than back in 3.5 when a regular group would have had to take an 8 hour rest at least once after the first or second encounter. They loved the challenge of going for the next milestone and using their action points. The group is still pressing on this week to the next encounter without taking an extended rest. That's right, encounter number 5!
The downsides of 4E can be apparent at times though. This does feel a lot more like a "game" and lacks a lot of realism that other systems can offer, but IMO a game should feel like a game. Power names can be silly at times, or not match up to what the power actually does, but this is a minor complaint. Finally, yes the monsters and PC's do get more hit points, but I still saw cases where a monster was almost taken out in a single hit....and this was NOT a minion. A barbarian with a 3d12+4 encounter power is not to be taken lightly.
I had pretty much the same experience. The "gamist" approach took me a while to get my head around, but once I did I really appreciated 4e. I have a few minor quibbles (wizards should be better controllers, need more rituals, etc.), but for the most part I'm quite happy with the system itself.
If you haven't done so already, I'd look at getting some sort of markers for showing conditions on the battlemat (assuming you use one).
|
I think you can improve the "game" feel and the silly power names by encouraging narration by your players. If they creatively describe what they are doing in combat, it can help to keep that "in character" feel.
Things I like as a player:
1. There are no bad classes or overpowered classes. A few feats have come up that tend to feel like "must haves" but mostly everything is playable.
2. There are no must-have classes in a party. You want to cover the roles, but there are any number of ways to do that. The best example is that in 3.5, for the most part you need a cleric. Other classes can heal, but none do it as well. In 4e, any leader will do.
3. Spellcasters don't spend copious amounts of time referencing long and confusing spell descriptions, and their turns tend to go a lot faster than they did in previous editions. On the other side of that coin, melee characters have a lot more flexibility. No more "5-foot step and full attack" every round.
4. The way resistances and immunities are handled for monsters makes it a lot less likely that any character will feel useless in an encounter. In previous editions, for example, focusing on one energy type may be thematic, but you'd find yourself sitting out entire encounters. In 4e, there are paragon paths and class features that let you overcome these resistances, so these character concepts are very possible.
That's off the top of my head. I'm still dreaming of the world where the Paizo writers are writing up material for the 4e ruleset. That would be a match made in heaven...
If you haven't done so already, I'd look at getting some sort of markers for showing conditions on the battlemat (assuming you use one).
I would like to second that thought. We use colored braces rubber bands and it works well and is cheap. :)
That's off the top of my head. I'm still dreaming of the world where the Paizo writers are writing up material for the 4e ruleset. That would be a match made in heaven...
You and me both. I'd like nothing more than to be able to buy first rate adventures for 4E. Heaven knows WotC isn't putting them out...
Kobold Press
|
I'll just point out that the 4E Halls of the Mountain King patron adventure has two Paizo writers and an ex-Paizo editor involved: me, Tim Connors, and Mike McArtor.
I only started to game at the end of the 3.5 cycle and have never played WoW so when 4.0 came out I liked it immediately and couldn't understand why so many people heaped so much derision on it. Unlike 3.5 you could play the character you wanted from the beginning and not have to wait a few levels so you can switch to prestige class to get what you wanted. Also spell casters never run out of spells and with retraining at higher levels means you never run out of effective spells, in 3.5 after 9th level most spells below level 4 are useless in a fight (sleep, color spray, command, etc.). Fighters never have to become the walking magic store to stay relevant at higher levels and the best part of 4.0 is that every character no longer needs to carry around gallons of healing potions just so they can stay in a fight.
|
I'll just point out that the 4E Halls of the Mountain King patron adventure has two Paizo writers and an ex-Paizo editor involved: me, Tim Connors, and Mike McArtor.
Ah, that's where Mike's been!
Quick, rename the thread before [CenSored] sees it! Name it something boring that won't attract attention.
Quick, rename the thread before [CenSored] sees it! Name it something boring that won't attract attention.
Oh how subtle, so now it's okay to make digs at other Paizo posters?
Oh how subtle, so now it's okay to make digs at other Paizo posters?
My apologies, my post was make in jest and is now derailing the thread. Please disregard and continue on.
I had pretty much the same experience. The "gamist" approach took me a while to get my head around, but once I did I really appreciated 4e. I have a few minor quibbles (wizards should be better controllers, need more rituals, etc.), but for the most part I'm quite happy with the system itself.
If you haven't done so already, I'd look at getting some sort of markers for showing conditions on the battlemat (assuming you use one).
Our wizard hasn't gotten to that point yet, he's still 1st level after all, but he's doing an excellent job of controlling enemies, pushing them back towards the melee fighters, etc. He has even used a light spell on a rock and dropped it down a hole to see where the bottom was. Its been done before, but it goes to show you the important stuff is still in 4E for most of the classes.
We use a huge battlemat (8 feet by 4 feet) all the time, and we use coloured glass beads at the moment for marking stuff. Usually when stuff is bloodied the players will ask or can remember, they don't need tokens for that.
3.5 was an interesting game, but IMO didn't end up being quite as fun for our group when we did savage tide. We got halfway through and then the encounters started to get either really boring, really long, or just way too complicated. Big boss fights were over in 1 or 2 rounds sometimes, such as the ones with Vanthus. Don't see that happening in 4E, so we are quite happy :)
That's off the top of my head. I'm still dreaming of the world where the Paizo writers are writing up material for the 4e ruleset. That would be a match made in heaven...You and me both. I'd like nothing more than to be able to buy first rate adventures for 4E. Heaven knows WotC isn't putting them out...
Yeah, I know. But for the most part the paizo adventures are done well enough that converting bits and pieces to 4E is quite easy.
Now that the MM2 and PHB2 are out, there is almost always a 4E monster/class/race that can be swapped in or tweaked to have an encounter play out like it was supposed to in 3.5.
The problem with WotC 4E adventures I have seen is that they try to cram too much into 1 encounter. Like why would 8 azer warriors be fighting alongside a wyvern, and crazy stuff like that. Paizo encounters tie all the monsters together and explain why they are there and how they behave. That is important info for DM's to know, and also makes the encounter easier to swallow for players.
The problem with WotC 4E adventures I have seen is that they try to cram too much into 1 encounter. Like why would 8 azer warriors be fighting alongside a wyvern, and crazy stuff like that. Paizo encounters tie all the monsters together and explain why they are there and how they behave. That is important info for DM's to know, and also makes the encounter easier to swallow for players.
My problem with them has been the lack of setting/story. They seem like little man than a pretense for a string of tactical encounters.
The problem with WotC 4E adventures I have seen is that they try to cram too much into 1 encounter. Like why would 8 azer warriors be fighting alongside a wyvern, and crazy stuff like that. Paizo encounters tie all the monsters together and explain why they are there and how they behave. That is important info for DM's to know, and also makes the encounter easier to swallow for players.
Holy crap the boards are having issues...
Anyway, my biggest problems with WotC's 4E adventures is the lack of setting and story. They seem like little more than pretense for a string of tactical encounters.
Anyway, my biggest problems with WotC's 4E adventures is the lack of setting and story. They seem like little more than pretense for a string of tactical encounters.
Agreed, all the published encounters have this feel when they place each room on it's own page rather that the dungeon as a whole. It gives you the sense that they are just a book of crossword puzzles that need solving.
What I do is either make my own adventures or covert old adventures to the new rules (we just finished A1-A4, The Slavers from AD&D).
Anyway, my biggest problems with WotC's 4E adventures is the lack of setting and story. They seem like little more than pretense for a string of tactical encounters.
Agreed, all the published encounters have this feel when they place each room on it's own page rather that the dungeon as a whole. It gives you the sense that they are just a book of crossword puzzles that need solving.
What I do is either make my own adventures or covert old adventures to the new rules (we just finished A1-A4, The Slavers from AD&D).
Having each tactical encounter on its own one- or two-page spread was something that was widely requested back in 3.5, implemented in 3.5, and largely well-received. It deals with the age-old problem of flipping back and forth between sections of a book during combat pretty nicely, I think.
Having each tactical encounter on its own one- or two-page spread was something that was widely requested back in 3.5, implemented in 3.5, and largely well-received. It deals with the age-old problem of flipping back and forth between sections of a book during combat pretty nicely, I think.
I agree completely; I like having everything on one spread.
But I think the lack of story/background is a separate issue. When it comes to flavor, backstory, and setting, I've not been terribly impressed with the WotC adventures I've purchased (H1, H2, H3, P1). I haven't purchased the last few, so I can't comment on those.
Having each tactical encounter on its own one- or two-page spread was something that was widely requested back in 3.5, implemented in 3.5, and largely well-received. It deals with the age-old problem of flipping back and forth between sections of a book during combat pretty nicely, I think.
Okay, I'll buy that. Perhaps my feelings come from the first time I played 4e with the intro adventure. The DM took apart the map after each room and built the next room with no roleplay involved. It felt disjointed to me, perhaps it as just a poor DM who didn't bother telling a story and just concentrated on the encounters.
Since that time I have played non-WoTC adventures and had a much better time, though I don't think it was ALL the DM's fault.
|
The "gamist" approach took me a while to get my head around, but once I did I really appreciated 4e.
That I think is the secret, play 4e like 3.5e and you will have issues and be disappointed. Play 4e like 4e and it works fine. I will say that I do agree about the encounter followed by encounter "feel" of the WotC adventures, the format while great for combats does little to promote the feeling of a "story" happening. Previously I have said that 4e feels like a "combat where a story breaks out (if you are lucky)". This statement was based on the first WotC adventure, the one they edited and released for free - and I stand by it. But as luck would have it Scott has a fantastic site that translates Paizo in 4e really well. I hope he will continue after RotRL with some others <hint, hint>.
I'll add briefly that 4e is good in that you don't need to spend nights awake planning your character from level 1-20 dreading making that "feat" mistake. So 4e is really low stress, and any options you take at level X that don't quite work out you can change at level X+Y. Again, a game for gamists - nothing wrong with that.
S.
Having each tactical encounter on its own one- or two-page spread was something that was widely requested back in 3.5, implemented in 3.5, and largely well-received. It deals with the age-old problem of flipping back and forth between sections of a book during combat pretty nicely, I think.Okay, I'll buy that. Perhaps my feelings come from the first time I played 4e with the intro adventure. The DM took apart the map after each room and built the next room with no roleplay involved. It felt disjointed to me, perhaps it as just a poor DM who didn't bother telling a story and just concentrated on the encounters.
Since that time I have played non-WoTC adventures and had a much better time, though I don't think it was ALL the DM's fault.
This may have been an issue with the DM, or with a particular section of the adventure, but let's be honest: there are dungeons (or other adventure environments) out there that do feature sections of rooms linked together without an opportunity for meaningful roleplaying between. If there are monsters in one room and monsters in the next room, the opportunities for the DM to insert roleplaying between those two encounters is extremely limited. If the players want to take things into their own hands and talk amongst their characters before approaching the next encounter, that's excellent. I would shy away from the expectation that the DM should insert roleplaying opportunities in every room. There should be a story linking everything together, but in past experience that story has often been frontloaded or backloaded on the dungeon, with perhaps allusions to the plot scattered throughout the dungeon itself.
The "gamist" approach took me a while to get my head around, but once I did I really appreciated 4e.That I think is the secret, play 4e like 3.5e and you will have issues and be disappointed. Play 4e like 4e and it works fine. I will say that I do agree about the encounter followed by encounter "feel" of the WotC adventures, the format while great for combats does little to promote the feeling of a "story" happening. Previously I have said that 4e feels like a "combat where a story breaks out (if you are lucky)". This statement was based on the first WotC adventure, the one they edited and released for free - and I stand by it. But as luck would have it Scott has a fantastic site that translates Paizo in 4e really well. I hope he will continue after RotRL with some others <hint, hint>.
Haha, we'll see. A number of circumstances have to come together for me to invest myself in that sort of project. If I can find a stable group interested in playing a game that could take up to two years to finish, then I will absolutely do another similar project. Being able to run my material through at least one actual play experience is critical.
|
|
This may have been an issue with the DM, or with a particular section of the adventure, but let's be honest: there are dungeons (or other adventure environments) out there that do feature sections of rooms linked together without an opportunity for meaningful roleplaying between. If there are monsters in one room and monsters in the next room, the opportunities for the DM to insert roleplaying between those two encounters is extremely limited. If the players want to take things into their own hands and talk amongst their characters before approaching the next encounter, that's excellent. I would shy away from the expectation that the DM should insert roleplaying opportunities in every room. There should be a story linking everything together, but in past experience that story has often been frontloaded or backloaded on the dungeon, with perhaps allusions to the plot scattered throughout the dungeon itself.
True, but right now many, if not most, of the current WotC mods seem to be geared to "without an opportunity for meaningful roleplaying". Many of us in the local RPGA noted it in both the RPGA and published mods: interesting stories, scenes, and NPCs, have fallen to the wayside. Skill challenges, especially, have been a sore point. And these are folks who are used to slamming through 3-5 encounters in four hours!
We know WotC is capable of generating mods with more depth (e.g., 3.x mod Eyes of the Lich Queen, 4e RPGA mod Gangs of Wheloon, etc), and believe WotC is just getting its bearings on the new system as it did when 3.x was first out. (Apparently the RPGA mods were similar ala mostly combat). Until then, we're relying more on individual DMs to bring life out of the mods instead of the mods themselves.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
You should read (and have the DM read) the thread on enworld called Piratecat's 4E... hang on - here's a link. That sounds like one awesome game and shows that how much fun is system independent.
I agree about the WotC adventures being a string of tactical combats tied together with... anyway, Open Design has a great 4E adventure in Mountain King (disclosre: patron) and then there's enWorld's conversion of their adventure path, War of the Burning Sky, to 4E - available here. The 3.5 adventures are great, and I assume the 4E conversion will be good too. There are some free pdfs - players guides etc already finished, and the first few adventures have been converted. The whole campaign will go from level 1 to level 30, so if you like the free stuff, you could always subscribe.
Glad you're having fun!
From what I understand, Scott, the general complaint is not that a dungeon crawl is inherently bad, or that you need to fill RP into every single room... but rather that almost every adventure currently being released by WotC fits into that format, rather than having ones that are more story-based or avoid the 'series of rooms' dilemma naturally.
Yeah, I definitely understand that sentiment. That's one of the reasons I thought a conversion of one of Paizo's APs would be useful to the community.
|
|
And the conversion is deeply appreciated. Any thoughts of converting future APs or any of the mods?
Yeah, I definitely understand that sentiment. That's one of the reasons I thought a conversion of one of Paizo's APs would be useful to the community.
What he said. Of course no pressure Scott, may I say you have become a victim of your own success. I have seen a few on these very boards now inspired by your example and using your "blog" idea as a template for their conversion efforts. It is the efforts of people such as Scott that will bring a few more crusty AD&Ders (such as myself) around to "trying to have fun" rather than "trying not to have fun - because it's not D&D I tell you..." with 4e.
So my hat is off to you Scott and I personally hope that I see more conversions from you as they always seem careful and considered with sound reasoning and justifications.
S.
PS: No I'm not a memeber of the Scott Betts fan club, but I do think praise should be given when deserved.
Having each tactical encounter on its own one- or two-page spread was something that was widely requested back in 3.5, implemented in 3.5, and largely well-received. It deals with the age-old problem of flipping back and forth between sections of a book during combat pretty nicely, I think.
It worked for some things didn't work for others, in part, because while it kept the tactical elements closer by putting them together at the end of the chapter, it still separated the tactical bits from how the encounter fits in the flow of the adventure. I remember the reviews being fairly mixed for those reasons.
I was told that WotC did a better job of it with KotS, but I haven't pursued looking into that one myself.
|
|
Having each tactical encounter on its own one- or two-page spread was something that was widely requested back in 3.5, implemented in 3.5, and largely well-received. It deals with the age-old problem of flipping back and forth between sections of a book during combat pretty nicely, I think.Anyway, my biggest problems with WotC's 4E adventures is the lack of setting and story. They seem like little more than pretense for a string of tactical encounters.
Agreed, all the published encounters have this feel when they place each room on it's own page rather that the dungeon as a whole. It gives you the sense that they are just a book of crossword puzzles that need solving.
What I do is either make my own adventures or covert old adventures to the new rules (we just finished A1-A4, The Slavers from AD&D).
I've never been a fan of the delve-style lay-out. It sounded a good idea at the time but the execution means that the adventures are effectively unreadable as a sit-down activity. I don't know about you guys, but the main reason I buy adventures is actually to read them rather than necessarily play them - I have way more adventures than i could ever play. But a good adventure is a fun read and can be mined for ideas. But the delve format breaks up the flow of the adventure, and makes a read through pretty difficult and frustrating - that involves A LOT of page flipping. And it doesn't help that in the basic area descriptions they often don't tell you what is going on, just that there is an encounter there of some sort. Given the DM needs to read the thing through before he decides to actually run the adventure, they ought to make it friendlier for that purpose too, since it won't get played at all if the DM throws it in the corner in frustration and never picks it up again.
That said, I do accept the delve format is easier to play. However, it also imposes limitations about what sort of encounters you actually get, since it generally has to fit on a two page spread (plus map) (although I think I have seen a three pager in one of the adventures). And it doesn't help that the encounters tend to be a colourless too in the WotC adventures. But mainly, I just dislike the dicontinuity when you are trying to familiarise yourself with the actual adventure.
And the conversion is deeply appreciated. Any thoughts of converting future APs or any of the mods?
Yeah, I definitely understand that sentiment. That's one of the reasons I thought a conversion of one of Paizo's APs would be useful to the community.
What he said. Of course no pressure Scott, may I say you have become a victim of your own success. I have seen a few on these very boards now inspired by your example and using your "blog" idea as a template for their conversion efforts. It is the efforts of people such as Scott that will bring a few more crusty AD&Ders (such as myself) around to "trying to have fun" rather than "trying not to have fun - because it's not D&D I tell you..." with 4e.
So my hat is off to you Scott and I personally hope that I see more conversions from you as they always seem careful and considered with sound reasoning and justifications.
Haha, well, here's the story.
I'm finishing up my bachelor's degree right now. I will have graduated by this time next year. I have a number of options at that point, but I'm eventually looking towards law school. Unless I decide to attend the new law school that has opened at my university here, that will involve moving and leaving my current gaming groups behind. Wherever I end up, I'll definitely hunt down a D&D game or two. If it turns out that I feel comfortable running a long-term campaign for a group while there, I will convert another adventure path (it would be a difficult choice between Shackled City and Curse of the Crimson Throne). So, ultimately, it's going to come down to purely real-life factors.
But for right now I'm focused almost entirely on Rise of the Runelords. I'm only halfway through the campaign. I've also mentioned wanting to convert The Seven Swords of Sin, which would be a much smaller side project (probably nothing but a series of encounter conversions) I may do at some point in the near future.
Thank you for the encouragement, though.
I've never been a fan of the delve-style lay-out. It sounded a good idea at the time but the execution means that the adventures are effectively unreadable as a sit-down activity. I don't know about you guys, but the main reason I buy adventures is actually to read them rather than necessarily play them - I have way more adventures than i could ever play. But a good adventure is a fun read and can be mined for ideas. But the delve format breaks up the flow of the adventure, and makes a read through pretty difficult and frustrating - that involves A LOT of page flipping. And it doesn't help that in the basic area descriptions they often don't tell you what is going on, just that there is an encounter there of some sort. Given the DM needs to read the thing through before he decides to actually run the adventure, they ought to make it friendlier for that purpose too, since it won't get played at all if the DM throws it in the corner in frustration and never picks it up again.
That said, I do accept the delve format is easier to play. However, it also imposes limitations about what sort of encounters you...
I think a combination of the two would make for much better adventures. If I ever get around to doing a T1-4 coversion, that's the format I'll use.
One of the other problems with the new style of layout they're using for adventure's at wizards is that it doesn't leave much room for artwork. All the two page encounter spreads require individual maps, and all those encounter maps end up eating up space that the art would normally go in. The pictures is part of the draw of an adventure for me so not having those is a put off. I haven't really tried to use one yet because I just can't get all that excited about them.
Fighters never have to become the walking magic store to stay relevant at higher levels
This part I'm still a bit skeptical about. Especially considering that most magic items now give you what amounts to a power. I'm kind of inclined to see a little more of this aspect.
Having each tactical encounter on its own one- or two-page spread was something that was widely requested back in 3.5, implemented in 3.5, and largely well-received. It deals with the age-old problem of flipping back and forth between sections of a book during combat pretty nicely, I think.I agree completely; I like having everything on one spread.
I can't stand it myself. Drives me banana's. I actually use the old Paizo dungeon guidelines when making adventures. Translates between editions with little trouble.
I also think that the 2 page spreads are at least a little responsible for some of the plot issues. It creates a different focus when writing the material - a very tactical modular focus while the older system was much more holistic.
A modular approach is likely to focus on interesting tactical encounters while a holistic process focuses the attention on the overarching story and explaining why things are where they are. Hence your, in some sense, trading off overarching plot and consistency within the environment with for better, more innovative, tactical encounters.
In theory you can, of course, have both using either style but so far as how an author's focus during creation effects a product I think that this is what you'll tend to find. This might be especially so because the modular nature makes dealing with change more difficult. In a holistic adventure if I know where all the inhabitants are and what they are doing its not that difficult to deal with what takes place if the alarm is raised or if the adventures attack - then leave and then come back three days later. In a modular adventure you tend to be trying to keep things more static so that you can actually make use of that 2 page spread.
|
|
Haha, well, here's the story.
I'm finishing up my bachelor's degree right now. I will have graduated by this time next year. I have a number of options at that point, but I'm eventually looking towards law school. Unless I decide to attend the new law school that has opened at my university here, that will involve moving and leaving my current gaming groups behind. Wherever I end up, I'll definitely hunt down a D&D game or two. If it turns out that I feel comfortable running a long-term campaign for a group while there, I will convert another adventure path (it would be a difficult choice between Shackled City and Curse of the Crimson Throne). So, ultimately, it's going to come down to purely real-life factors.
I vote Crimson :-)
But for right now I'm focused almost entirely on Rise of the Runelords. I'm only halfway through the campaign. I've also mentioned wanting to convert The Seven Swords of Sin, which would be a much smaller side project (probably nothing but a series of encounter conversions) I may do at some point in the near future.
Thank you for...
7SoS? Definitely an excellent candidate for conversion. Among Paizo's mods, it's definitely the most "dungeon-crawly".
Hoo boy am I excited....I've gotten used to quietly creeping around the Paizo forums on occasion and trying hard to pretend like I don't know 4E, even though I love it and run the game twice a week, so your post was an amazing moment...I feel like I can come out of the 4E closet all of a sudden...
=D
Anyway, as a DM I find 4E to be alarmingly user-friendly and I really appreciate the massive reduction in prep time to actual play time. I'm not an obsessive nut about stats (well, maybe I am) but I found too often that my 3.5 games were bogged down in statistical details that were irrelevant, ultimately, to the course of play. 4E has certainly changed that. But I have to agree with many others that the WotC published 4E adventures are less than stellar, and Paizo modules, even with some conversion work, are far superior. Glad to hear that the Wolfgang will be on the upcoming boxed set, though! That's going to be great.
|
the beauty of 4e is that it's pretty plug and play. If you don't like the 4E offerings as far as adventures go, then convert old ones. the design of the monsters makes substitution of 4E monsters for their 3.5,etc equivalents pretty easy.
I'm running the 3.5 module Shadowdale still in 1374 DR, and have been able to use the encounters pretty easily, substituting appropriate level encounters but easily keeping with the monsters and themes as written, with a few twists here and there. (lvl 13 Paragon).
I also ran Steelheart (2nd ed. Dungeon adventure), and was running the group through encounters in the Hillsafar chapter in Mysteries of the Moonsea.
Fighters never have to become the walking magic store to stay relevant at higher levelsThis part I'm still a bit skeptical about. Especially considering that most magic items now give you what amounts to a power. I'm kind of inclined to see a little more of this aspect.
In 4e your limited to one magic weapon which might give a bonus effect or boost a power but it is the fighters powers that allows him to keep pace with other classes unlike 3.5 were is is the magic weapon/cloak/bracers/rings/potions/etc. plus every buff you can wrangel out of your spell casters just to deal damage equal to a fierball.
In 4e your limited to one magic weapon which might give a bonus effect or boost a power but it is the fighters powers that allows him to keep pace with other classes unlike 3.5 were is is the magic weapon/cloak/bracers/rings/potions/etc. plus every buff you can wrangel out of your spell casters just to deal damage equal to a fierball.Fighters never have to become the walking magic store to stay relevant at higher levelsThis part I'm still a bit skeptical about. Especially considering that most magic items now give you what amounts to a power. I'm kind of inclined to see a little more of this aspect.
Yes.
In 4th Edition, all classes are equally reliant (or not reliant, depending on your frame of reference) on magic items. Spellcasters need magic items just as much as martial characters do.
...But for right now I'm focused almost entirely on Rise of the Runelords. I'm only halfway through the campaign. I've also mentioned wanting to convert The Seven Swords of Sin, which would be a much smaller side project (probably nothing but a series of encounter conversions) I may do at some point in the near future.
Thank you for the encouragement, though.
(edited, reworded)
I am not a 4E gamer (either Player or GM), and I frequently differ from many of your posted opinions, but I can respect the effort you're making in both drafting a Rise of the Runelords conversion and in getting it into shape for presentation on the internet.If you're looking for another adventure path for future conversion, whilst Curse of the Crimson Throne might have its moments, and Second Darkness be a big 'drow' path, I would have to recommend Legacy of Fire for attention, first and foremost. I feel the opening adventure, by Erik Mona, which sets the scene, is almost pure genius. And then the goodness continues... dungeon crawls, merchant negotiations, genies....
And then there are the little 'side trek' adventures, too, which can be 'detached' and run separate from the main path and might be useful for DMs looking for one-session games. (Admittedly Second Darkness features these also.)Now if you'll excuse me, but I'm off back to my older editions... ;)
I'm anxious to try all of the adventure paths - every one of them has something new to offer, I think. Unfortunately, the desire to convert all the paths "in order" is very strong. I'm keenly aware that there is no foreseeable way for me to tackle all the adventure paths, as there are three Dungeon paths and three Pathfinder paths already published that I haven't tried out (and one more that I'm only halfway through converting), and each of those would take me about two years to run a group through. I'd have to run four concurrent campaigns in order to keep up with Paizo's release schedule (and god forbid I tried to convert all their non-path modules as well), and even then I wouldn't make any headway on already-released material. And, of course, by the time I finished even the paths already released in a decade, the next edition of the game would probably be out. It's a losing fight, to be sure.
I'll consider all my options when the time comes.
|
|
I would have to recommend Legacy of Fire for attention, first and foremost. I feel the opening adventure, by Erik Mona, which sets the scene, is almost pure genius.
Agreed on. I even asked Erik if he had written the opening scene and the cloister encounter with the pugwampis with 4E in mind as they seemed to shout "Skill Challenge" and "Dynamic Encounter" right in my face. He denied this to be the case but they're still shouting ^^
I'm anxious to try all of the adventure paths - every one of them has something new to offer, I think. Unfortunately, the desire to convert all the paths "in order" is very strong. I'm keenly aware that there is no foreseeable way for me to tackle all the adventure paths, as there are three Dungeon paths and three Pathfinder paths already published that I haven't tried out (and one more that I'm only halfway through converting), and each of those would take me about two years to run a group through. I'd have to run four concurrent campaigns in order to keep up with Paizo's release schedule (and god forbid I tried to convert all their non-path modules as well), and even then I wouldn't make any headway on already-released material. And, of course, by the time I finished even the paths already released in a decade, the next edition of the game would probably be out. It's a losing fight, to be sure.
I'll consider all my options when the time comes.
You are perhaps a victim of your own success here Scott. My only advice would be to play/convert whatever feels right for you and your group(s). The stellar work you have done with your RotRL conversion has inspired others to begin converting other Paizo APs, so you shouldn't (and I suspect you don't) feel compelled to try and do it all yourself.
IMHO, the fact that you've inspired others by showing that a conversion of this type can be done well is outstanding. There is a larger community out there who are starting to do what you as a single person cannot (i.e. keep up with Paizo's output).
I'm anxious to try all of the adventure paths - every one of them has something new to offer, I think. Unfortunately, the desire to convert all the paths "in order" is very strong. I'm keenly aware that there is no foreseeable way for me to tackle all the adventure paths, as there are three Dungeon paths and three Pathfinder paths already published that I haven't tried out (and one more that I'm only halfway through converting), and each of those would take me about two years to run a group through. I'd have to run four concurrent campaigns in order to keep up with Paizo's release schedule (and god forbid I tried to convert all their non-path modules as well), and even then I wouldn't make any headway on already-released material. And, of course, by the time I finished even the paths already released in a decade, the next edition of the game would probably be out. It's a losing fight, to be sure.
I'll consider all my options when the time comes.
You are perhaps a victim of your own success here Scott. My only advice would be to play/convert whatever feels right for you and your group(s). The stellar work you have done with your RotRL conversion has inspired others to begin converting other Paizo APs, so you shouldn't (and I suspect you don't) feel compelled to try and do it all yourself.
IMHO, the fact that you've inspired others by showing that a conversion of this type can be done well is outstanding. There is a larger community out there who are starting to do what you as a single person cannot (i.e. keep up with Paizo's output).
I sincerely hope so. The real test will be seeing if any of us manage to see a path's conversion through to completion.
|
|
I'm anxious to try all of the adventure paths - every one of them has something new to offer, I think. Unfortunately, the desire to convert all the paths "in order" is very strong. I'm keenly aware that there is no foreseeable way for me to tackle all the adventure paths, as there are three Dungeon paths and three Pathfinder paths already published that I haven't tried out (and one more that I'm only halfway through converting), and each of those would take me about two years to run a group through. I'd have to run four concurrent campaigns in order to keep up with Paizo's release schedule (and god forbid I tried to convert all their non-path modules as well), and even then I wouldn't make any headway on already-released material. And, of course, by the time I finished even the paths already released in a decade, the next edition of the game would probably be out. It's a losing fight, to be sure.
I'll consider all my options when the time comes.
You are perhaps a victim of your own success here Scott. My only advice would be to play/convert whatever feels right for you and your group(s). The stellar work you have done with your RotRL conversion has inspired others to begin converting other Paizo APs, so you shouldn't (and I suspect you don't) feel compelled to try and do it all yourself.
IMHO, the fact that you've inspired others by showing that a conversion of this type can be done well is outstanding. There is a larger community out there who are starting to do what you as a single person cannot (i.e. keep up with Paizo's output).
I sincerely hope so. The real test will be seeing if any of us manage to see a path's conversion through to completion.
Yeah, that's the toughie. I've read few groups complete any AP like the Shackled City or Savage Tide regardless of the system. Interest basically fades. Here's hoping your group does it.