tylermalan
First Post
That's excellent news! CR 2 was much too low.
Pathfinder 1E Expedition to Castle Ravenloft in Pathfinder
Walking Dad
First Post
They added no ability mod to the HP.
This could be automatic, if this version of Strahd has many class levels, as all player classes got a boost.
It is CR 3 since 3.5. CR 2 was 3.0. And it was a big mistake IMHO.
Ryltar
First Post
I'm currently playing in a PF Ravenloft Campaign. Some of the changes my DM has introduced:
- PC abilities only work on undead within a certain HD range (e.g., +/- 4 difference from the PC's level). No smiting Strahd.
- No spells that require planar connections to work.
- Detect evil, detect lies, zone of truth etc. are banned.
- Categories such as the 'undead' type or 'evil' alignment are removed, and all abilities that play off them are modified. For example, you can't select bane or favored enemy (undead) anymore, but have to specify a certain type of monster you have already encountered (e.g. skeletons). Protection from evil and the like only work within a certain HD range.
- Channel Energy only allows the players to heal, and can't be used to damage undead.
To balance some of the above 'losses', out-of-combat healing is automatically maximized.
We felt that these changes were necessary to preserve the setting flavor, which is notably different from standard settings (2e materials are really your best bet if you want to read up on Ravenloft any further). 21 sessions in so far, and we haven't had any balance problems; not having access to the D&D standard of information gathering has in fact increased the fun we've had in playing.
Also, may I strongly suggest that you don't DM Expedition to Castle RL as written? It's really quite horrible in part
(insofar as Strahd does not make any sense in it, and IMHO, Ravenloft adventures should not be about killing Darklords anyway).
- PC abilities only work on undead within a certain HD range (e.g., +/- 4 difference from the PC's level). No smiting Strahd.
- No spells that require planar connections to work.
- Detect evil, detect lies, zone of truth etc. are banned.
- Categories such as the 'undead' type or 'evil' alignment are removed, and all abilities that play off them are modified. For example, you can't select bane or favored enemy (undead) anymore, but have to specify a certain type of monster you have already encountered (e.g. skeletons). Protection from evil and the like only work within a certain HD range.
- Channel Energy only allows the players to heal, and can't be used to damage undead.
To balance some of the above 'losses', out-of-combat healing is automatically maximized.
We felt that these changes were necessary to preserve the setting flavor, which is notably different from standard settings (2e materials are really your best bet if you want to read up on Ravenloft any further). 21 sessions in so far, and we haven't had any balance problems; not having access to the D&D standard of information gathering has in fact increased the fun we've had in playing.
Also, may I strongly suggest that you don't DM Expedition to Castle RL as written? It's really quite horrible in part
(insofar as Strahd does not make any sense in it, and IMHO, Ravenloft adventures should not be about killing Darklords anyway).
Last edited:
Ryltar said:I'm currently playing in a PF Ravenloft Campaign. Some of the changes my DM has introduced:
- PC abilities only work on undead within a certain HD range (e.g., +/- 4 difference from the PC's level). No smiting Strahd.
- No spells that require planar connections to work.
- Detect evil, detect lies, zone of truth etc. are banned.
- Categories such as the 'undead' type or 'evil' alignment are removed, and all abilities that play off them are modified. For example, you can't select bane or favored enemy (undead) anymore, but have to specify a certain type of monster you have already encountered (e.g. skeletons). Protection from evil and the like only work within a certain HD range.
- Channel Energy only allows the players to heal, and can't be used to damage undead.
To balance some of the above 'losses', out-of-combat healing is automatically maximized.
We felt that these changes were necessary to preserve the setting flavor, which is notably different from standard settings (2e materials are really your best bet if you want to read up on Ravenloft any further). 21 sessions in so far, and we haven't had any balance problems; not having access to the D&D standard of information gathering has in fact increased the fun we've had in playing.
Also, may I strongly suggest that you don't DM Expedition to Castle RL as written? It's really quite horrible in part
I find some of your changes odd though they appear to work for you. the favored ament or smite changes seem to deliberately weaken specific classes. yes they would do well unchanged but still would likely leave these classes weaker than say wizards. similarly the ability to channel to harm undead useful on clerics other than against incorporeal undead where I fully admit it is useful it is usually better to channel to heal anyways.
Volaran
First Post
So (for example) a 10th level Paladin's smite would not work on Strahd, but also would not work on a common zombie or skeleton? Is that to sort of preserve the threat level of the 'massed hoard' of low-level undead?
Also, I'm curious as to whether your DM allows more traditional Turning (as per the feat), since he does not allow offensive positive energy channeling.
That said, it sounds like some pretty interesting changes. For a full horror-themed campaign (rather than just a few sessions out of a larger campaign), some rules-changes do seem in order.
tylermalan
First Post
Those changes seem really drastic, though I'm open to the possibility that they might be necessary for a game like this.
With EtCR... I've actually run it twice before, and never got all the way through. One of my current players was in the group that I ran it for about 4 or 5 years ago, and he's DYING to play it again. I have a feeling he would like a "standard" Ravenloft game just as much as EtCR, though, so I might change it up.
Edit: And, I should say, both groups that I ran it for in the past loved it. I'm not really sure what the normal gripes are about it, though.
With EtCR... I've actually run it twice before, and never got all the way through. One of my current players was in the group that I ran it for about 4 or 5 years ago, and he's DYING to play it again. I have a feeling he would like a "standard" Ravenloft game just as much as EtCR, though, so I might change it up.
Edit: And, I should say, both groups that I ran it for in the past loved it. I'm not really sure what the normal gripes are about it, though.
tylermalan
First Post
Are there any horror-ish modules or adventures for Pathfinder that anyone knows of?
Ryltar
First Post
@ MojoRat & Volaran:
The reason for said changes was that the group as a whole felt some of the standard PF rules would detract from the setting. Ravenloft is all about horror and mystery; it's an athmospheric setting first and foremost. One in which the characters are not so much in control of their destiny as they are (quite often) pawns of larger forces, e.g. unwittingly doing something that furthers the interests of one of the Darklords et al.
That being said, we felt that it would not work well if the GM - for example - tried to describe a spooky athmosphere as the party explored a certain graveyard in a certain village, then dramatically introduces shambling forms coming out of the darkness or breaking out of their coffins ... and then the cleric channels energy and destroys them all in one action. Bye, athmosphere, it sure was nice meeting you.
Or, picture one of the classic Ravenloft tropes, the characters being told by person X to do something for them that seems beneficial to their cause, but that turns out to bite them in their backsides later on. If you allow the Inquisitor's class abilities, or the Zone of Truth spell, or any similar ability in this situation, you can forget about this plot, as any self-respecting player would have that ability active when talking to a 'important' and possibly shady NPC.
Same thing with the other changes. When you start a Ravenloft campaign as a player and you haven't been living under a rock for the past few years, you know that 90 % of the enemies you are about to face are either a) evil, b) undead, c) demons, or any combination of the three. Now imagine the ranger starting the campaign with undead as his favored enemy - instant bonus damage in nearly every fight. Or the paladin's smite evil: it's designed in the same way as the ranger's favored enemy, insofar as that is intended to give you a boost in some of the fights against specific enemies; it's not part of class balance to have them working as a (factual) flat bonus active almost all the time.
Now, we are aware that banning certain abilities leaves said classes "below" standard power level. That is why we have introduced certain benefits, such as maximized out-of-combat healing (very powerful). I can only say that with the way we run our game, it has served very well to preserve the setting's athmosphere, and I haven't heard any of the other players complain once that they felt their characters were now powerless as a result. In fact, the few times that Smite Evil et al. do work, it's a much more satisfying feeling.
I hope this helps to understand the reasoning behind the changes a little bit.
The reason for said changes was that the group as a whole felt some of the standard PF rules would detract from the setting. Ravenloft is all about horror and mystery; it's an athmospheric setting first and foremost. One in which the characters are not so much in control of their destiny as they are (quite often) pawns of larger forces, e.g. unwittingly doing something that furthers the interests of one of the Darklords et al.
That being said, we felt that it would not work well if the GM - for example - tried to describe a spooky athmosphere as the party explored a certain graveyard in a certain village, then dramatically introduces shambling forms coming out of the darkness or breaking out of their coffins ... and then the cleric channels energy and destroys them all in one action. Bye, athmosphere, it sure was nice meeting you.
Or, picture one of the classic Ravenloft tropes, the characters being told by person X to do something for them that seems beneficial to their cause, but that turns out to bite them in their backsides later on. If you allow the Inquisitor's class abilities, or the Zone of Truth spell, or any similar ability in this situation, you can forget about this plot, as any self-respecting player would have that ability active when talking to a 'important' and possibly shady NPC.
Same thing with the other changes. When you start a Ravenloft campaign as a player and you haven't been living under a rock for the past few years, you know that 90 % of the enemies you are about to face are either a) evil, b) undead, c) demons, or any combination of the three. Now imagine the ranger starting the campaign with undead as his favored enemy - instant bonus damage in nearly every fight. Or the paladin's smite evil: it's designed in the same way as the ranger's favored enemy, insofar as that is intended to give you a boost in some of the fights against specific enemies; it's not part of class balance to have them working as a (factual) flat bonus active almost all the time.
Now, we are aware that banning certain abilities leaves said classes "below" standard power level. That is why we have introduced certain benefits, such as maximized out-of-combat healing (very powerful). I can only say that with the way we run our game, it has served very well to preserve the setting's athmosphere, and I haven't heard any of the other players complain once that they felt their characters were now powerless as a result. In fact, the few times that Smite Evil et al. do work, it's a much more satisfying feeling.
I hope this helps to understand the reasoning behind the changes a little bit
.I understand the reasoning and it seems to work for your group. but ravenloft has existed with some variation of these abilities since their inception so it just struck me as weakening it for this inception of the game as odd. a number of this problems exist in the game in general and seem to be worked around with out trouble. the zone of truth etc.
based on my own experience with channel to injure is a poor way to hurt undead though it works really well on incorporeal having it do half again would probably keep the horror there.
based on my own experience with channel to injure is a poor way to hurt undead though it works really well on incorporeal having it do half again would probably keep the horror there.
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
What Are The Changes In Pathfinder Remastered?
