I considered running Caverns of Tsojcanth in 4e, but the Lv6 players would be creamed by the now Lv17-9 Fomorians if they ran afoul of them. In my experience, elaborate statblocks in 3e, different hp and damage scales in 4e, and dramatic tiering of defenses, modifiers, and attacks in both were the main contentions in using them with other editions. Note that I have never yet played D&D above level 12.
5e monster math is currently being flattened; I expect any shifts in power to be not so forbidding. Despite small differences, I may be able to stop at "Dragon's Breath = Dexterity, etc" and "20 - descending AC = ascending AC," but who knows at this point?
You do know that you don't have to use the stats from the same monsters listed, don't you? As long as you describe it as a Fomorian, and try to pick a lower level monster that is mechanically close, description should carry most of the weight.
Or just lower the levels of the 4E-equivalent creatures, which is fully supported. Automated if you have DDI.
Yes, that too. I keep forgetting about DDI. I'm still more book oriented than tech oriented.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
Why did you have to redesign every encounter? Why did you HAVE to create skill challenges? Why can't you give your 4E party a Wand of Wonder that works just like it did in the past?
Well unless you haven't noticed 4e encounters are very different than previous editions. As far as the 4e design paradigm goes encounters need terrain, minons, hazards, etc. 3 skeletons in a room doesn't cut it anymore. You also can't just pull out the Derro and use them as is without whiping out your party (the levels have changed).
Now, you are correct I can ignore the 4e rules and pull out my 2e PHB and use the flesh to stone spell from the wand on the party, but would I be playing 4e if I did that?
What about the symbol of death on the wall in room 27? Should I just follow the 2e rules and make everyone save for die? Would I be playing 4e if I did that?
AbdulAlhazred and Kalnaur gave good answers on page 2; I'll add my own thoughts. Why should the "design paradigm" limit you as a DM? You are not beholden to it. The design is something made by the devs that will serve as a baseline. It is based on what they feel is fun and what they (I'm guessing) feel the majority of gamers will also feel is fun. So, they decided that most gamers enjoy a fight that is a bit more complex, a bit more tactical. Adding in terrain, hazards, etc. helps with that. Minions are a separate thing; they are a way to have the PCs encounter what would be low level threats without having them never hit the heroes.
But again, you as the DM are free to design encounters any way you want. Why do you say, "3 skeletons in a room doesn't cut it anymore"? "Cut it" for who? The only people for which this should matter are you and your friends. If your players enjoy the occasional (or frequent) fight against 3 skeletons in a bare room, there is no reason why you should avoid using it. And yes, obviously if the level of a monster has changed you will have to do some work as the DM. But lowering monster level is quick and easy. I guess if you aren't willing to do any level of work, you should simply pick the edition you like best and stick with it. But I don't find it to be much work at all, and lets me use fun old adventures.
I don't know what you mean when you ask if you should, "ignore the 4E rules". Where in the rules does it say that the DM can't make up new stuff? And yes, you would still be playing 4E even if you gave the party a wand of flesh to stone (or used it on them). There is nothing in any of the books that says a monster or power can't turn things to stone with just a hit (no save allowed).
Like any edition of D&D I have ever played (2nd on), 4E allows for any level of customization. You can make up anything you want and still be following the rules and playing the game. Just read some of the Dungeon Master Experience articles by Chris Perkins. He has, off the top of my head, used instant death mechanics (an exploding dragon egg), turned a player into a Pit Fiend, and sent his party back in time.
Game mechanics change over time, but the important aspects of an adventure stay the same. And that is why, no matter what D&D Next looks like when it is released, you will be able to use any old adventure module. You might have to do a bit of work, but the important parts are all there for you (the framework of the adventure). The exact monsters used in a fight don't really matter.
I considered running Caverns of Tsojcanth in 4e, but the Lv6 players would be creamed by the now Lv17-9 Fomorians if they ran afoul of them. In my experience, elaborate statblocks in 3e, different hp and damage scales in 4e, and dramatic tiering of defenses, modifiers, and attacks in both were the main contentions in using them with other editions. Note that I have never yet played D&D above level 12.
5e monster math is currently being flattened; I expect any shifts in power to be not so forbidding. Despite small differences, I may be able to stop at "Dragon's Breath = Dexterity, etc" and "20 - descending AC = ascending AC," but who knows at this point?
You do know that you don't have to use the stats from the same monsters listed, don't you? As long as you describe it as a Fomorian, and try to pick a lower level monster that is mechanically close, description should carry most of the weight.
That doesn't really work because you still have to do alot of work to insure that the monster still has some of the same abilities. Giants are easy to reskin but the process of finding an appropriate monster on the spot isn't easy. Many of these classic modules like CoT have random encounter tables as well. If you have any desire to play the module as is, you're looking at basicaly writing your own monster manual for the module.
I do think it is fairly easy to convert between 1e,2e,3e,PF. It still requires a conversion and in some cases it can be a challenge. In most it is fairly simple.
4e is an order of magnitude harder if you want to keep the same exact flavor. If you lighten up though and just pick some monsters that are close then it's not too hard either. Traps of course are problematic and if it is a trap heavy module I can't imagine why you'd want it in 4e.
yes, I don't mind having a cheat sheet as there will always be something that will need to be converted. But when every single thing must change (spells, monsters, traps, hazards, etc...) the game is just not compatable at all.
That doesn't really work because you still have to do alot of work to insure that the monster still has some of the same abilities. Giants are easy to reskin but the process of finding an appropriate monster on the spot isn't easy. Many of these classic modules like CoT have random encounter tables as well. If you have any desire to play the module as is, you're looking at basicaly writing your own monster manual for the module.
It didn't require any conversions when I ran Temple of Elemental Evil in 4e. I just used the 4e monster manual stats. If a room had, say, 4 gnolls, simply flip to the gnoll section, choose maybe 2 huntsmen and 2 clawfighters, let the players figure out if the fight is too hard for them or not. Sure the Umber Hulk would have trashed them had they choose to fight it, but they wisely choose not to. Worked just fine.
I considered running Caverns of Tsojcanth in 4e, but the Lv6 players would be creamed by the now Lv17-9 Fomorians if they ran afoul of them. In my experience, elaborate statblocks in 3e, different hp and damage scales in 4e, and dramatic tiering of defenses, modifiers, and attacks in both were the main contentions in using them with other editions. Note that I have never yet played D&D above level 12.
5e monster math is currently being flattened; I expect any shifts in power to be not so forbidding. Despite small differences, I may be able to stop at "Dragon's Breath = Dexterity, etc" and "20 - descending AC = ascending AC," but who knows at this point?
You do know that you don't have to use the stats from the same monsters listed, don't you? As long as you describe it as a Fomorian, and try to pick a lower level monster that is mechanically close, description should carry most of the weight.
Or just lower the levels of the 4E-equivalent creatures, which is fully supported. Automated if you have DDI.
I've tried that, but what you have to understand is that all these things add up and take time. Sure you can use a computer to aid you, but doesn't that say something negative about the system if you need a computer?
IMO, even with the aid of a computer it still takes too much time to just run the module as is and convert things on the fly. With 4e that can't be done because the encounters in 4e are far to intricate and have a completely different design structure. I just hope 5e isn't like that.
I considered running Caverns of Tsojcanth in 4e, but the Lv6 players would be creamed by the now Lv17-9 Fomorians if they ran afoul of them. In my experience, elaborate statblocks in 3e, different hp and damage scales in 4e, and dramatic tiering of defenses, modifiers, and attacks in both were the main contentions in using them with other editions. Note that I have never yet played D&D above level 12.
5e monster math is currently being flattened; I expect any shifts in power to be not so forbidding. Despite small differences, I may be able to stop at "Dragon's Breath = Dexterity, etc" and "20 - descending AC = ascending AC," but who knows at this point?
You do know that you don't have to use the stats from the same monsters listed, don't you? As long as you describe it as a Fomorian, and try to pick a lower level monster that is mechanically close, description should carry most of the weight.
That doesn't really work because you still have to do alot of work to insure that the monster still has some of the same abilities. Giants are easy to reskin but the process of finding an appropriate monster on the spot isn't easy. Many of these classic modules like CoT have random encounter tables as well. If you have any desire to play the module as is, you're looking at basicaly writing your own monster manual for the module.
I would hope that one isn't trying to adapt material to a new edition "on the spot." Regardless of edition, that seems rather impractical to me.
Also, unless we're talking about abilities that don't exist in 4e (like level drain or stat damage/drain), I'm finding it difficult to contemplate how reskinning monsters is so difficult. Heck, you can even tack-on an SoD to a creature's existing attack if you want to.
As for the random encounter tables, there's no reason you can't just modify the table instead of "basicaly writing your own monster manual for the module."
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
You can't play D&D without putting SOME effort into it. Take a look at the first few pages of any module, and right there it tells YOU the DM to read through the entire adventure and make changes appropriate to your players.
The fact that "You" don't have the time that "You" did back in high school isn't a problem with any system. It's the reality of "Your" life.
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!).
It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity....
In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously.
For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
I considered running Caverns of Tsojcanth in 4e, but the Lv6 players would be creamed by the now Lv17-9 Fomorians if they ran afoul of them. In my experience, elaborate statblocks in 3e, different hp and damage scales in 4e, and dramatic tiering of defenses, modifiers, and attacks in both were the main contentions in using them with other editions. Note that I have never yet played D&D above level 12.
5e monster math is currently being flattened; I expect any shifts in power to be not so forbidding. Despite small differences, I may be able to stop at "Dragon's Breath = Dexterity, etc" and "20 - descending AC = ascending AC," but who knows at this point?
You do know that you don't have to use the stats from the same monsters listed, don't you? As long as you describe it as a Fomorian, and try to pick a lower level monster that is mechanically close, description should carry most of the weight.
Or just lower the levels of the 4E-equivalent creatures, which is fully supported. Automated if you have DDI.
I've tried that, but what you have to understand is that all these things add up and take time. Sure you can use a computer to aid you, but doesn't that say something negative about the system if you need a computer?
No, it just means that the Monster Builder makes it easier. I never said you needed a computer, I said it's automated.
You can't play D&D without putting SOME effort into it. Take a look at the first few pages of any module, and right there it tells YOU the DM to read through the entire adventure and make changes appropriate to your players.
The fact that "You" don't have the time that "You" did back in high school isn't a problem with any system. It's the reality of "Your" life.
Sorry, but if you are expecting 5E to me the rosetta stone of all editions, you are going to be very disappointed.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Why did you have to redesign every encounter? Why did you HAVE to create skill challenges? Why can't you give your 4E party a Wand of Wonder that works just like it did in the past?
Well unless you haven't noticed 4e encounters are very different than previous editions. As far as the 4e design paradigm goes encounters need terrain, minons, hazards, etc. 3 skeletons in a room doesn't cut it anymore. You also can't just pull out the Derro and use them as is without whiping out your party (the levels have changed).
Now, you are correct I can ignore the 4e rules and pull out my 2e PHB and use the flesh to stone spell from the wand on the party, but would I be playing 4e if I did that?
What about the symbol of death on the wall in room 27? Should I just follow the 2e rules and make everyone save for die? Would I be playing 4e if I did that?
AbdulAlhazred and Kalnaur gave good answers on page 2; I'll add my own thoughts. Why should the "design paradigm" limit you as a DM? You are not beholden to it. The design is something made by the devs that will serve as a baseline. It is based on what they feel is fun and what they (I'm guessing) feel the majority of gamers will also feel is fun. So, they decided that most gamers enjoy a fight that is a bit more complex, a bit more tactical. Adding in terrain, hazards, etc. helps with that. Minions are a separate thing; they are a way to have the PCs encounter what would be low level threats without having them never hit the heroes.
But again, you as the DM are free to design encounters any way you want. Why do you say, "3 skeletons in a room doesn't cut it anymore"? "Cut it" for who? The only people for which this should matter are you and your friends. If your players enjoy the occasional (or frequent) fight against 3 skeletons in a bare room, there is no reason why you should avoid using it. And yes, obviously if the level of a monster has changed you will have to do some work as the DM. But lowering monster level is quick and easy. I guess if you aren't willing to do any level of work, you should simply pick the edition you like best and stick with it. But I don't find it to be much work at all, and lets me use fun old adventures.
I don't know what you mean when you ask if you should, "ignore the 4E rules". Where in the rules does it say that the DM can't make up new stuff? And yes, you would still be playing 4E even if you gave the party a wand of flesh to stone (or used it on them). There is nothing in any of the books that says a monster or power can't turn things to stone with just a hit (no save allowed).
Like any edition of D&D I have ever played (2nd on), 4E allows for any level of customization. You can make up anything you want and still be following the rules and playing the game. Just read some of the Dungeon Master Experience articles by Chris Perkins. He has, off the top of my head, used instant death mechanics (an exploding dragon egg), turned a player into a Pit Fiend, and sent his party back in time.
Game mechanics change over time, but the important aspects of an adventure stay the same. And that is why, no matter what D&D Next looks like when it is released, you will be able to use any old adventure module. You might have to do a bit of work, but the important parts are all there for you (the framework of the adventure). The exact monsters used in a fight don't really matter.
So ignore the 4e design paradigm and you're good to go? It sounds like a lame excuse to me, especially for a system that upholds balance and tactical combat at it's core. I doubt most 4e players would appreciate a DM who uses his AD&D PHB spells and energy drains them. In fact, I'm sure many would cry foul.
But that's my entire point, if you are usually referring to previous editions for spells and magical items then why play the system in the first place?
I'm just wondering what system 5e will be the most backwards compatable with. Hopefully it won't be 4e and it will be more compatable with pre-4e systems. That shouldn't be a big issue for the 4e crowd here because most of them don't seem to think backwards compatibility is important at all.
