Burning Sky System Choice

[Rugult]

With my own Burning Sky campaign on a bit of hiatus for schedules to gel and the final adventure to be released, I've found I have been running my other games in different systems. Most recently I've become quite enamored with Pathfinder, and have been really enjoying what the system has to offer.

This has me thinking... If I could 'restart' the Burning Sky, what system would I run it in? Obviously there are a lot more choices now then when the setting was originally created.

So what do people out there think? For those who have started, would you change to a different ruleset, or have you already? For those who have not started the Burning Sky but are interested; what rules do you plan on using?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I would like to change to 4e.. but two main issues:

1> a major PC in the campaign is a bard...so we have to wait for PHB2

2> Conversion. I don't have the time or knowledge {yet} to do a broad conversion. I did start up a wiki site in the hopes that a collaborative effort could do a better job than I can on my own

 

[Orryn Emrys]

Interestingly enough, I converted the second adventure, The Fire Forest of Innenotdar, to 4E and ran it straight through. We had just recently started the campaign when 4E came out, so it seemed like a cool way to try it out and give me an idea of its inner workings. I was fortunate enough to have seven PC's with classes already written up in the 4E PHB.

It's certainly possible to convert to 4th, but it's a lot of work. Obviously, a Pathfinder conversion wouldn't be much of a conversion at all. As it is, I've taken some of the ideas from Pathfinder and used them to inspire additions and changes to my house rules. We're now into the third adventure, and back to 3.5.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Orryn, would you be kind enough to post your version of Module #2 on the Campaign Conversion Wiki Page ?

That would be very cool

 

[Angel Tarragon]

If I could choose multiple choice I'd go with 3.5 and Pathfinder. Since I can only choose one I voted Pathfinder.

 

[Zinovia]

I'll be converting it to 4E, but haven't started yet. Things have been super busy and we haven't had a chance to finish up our 3.5 game yet. I'm hoping to start in a month or two.

 

[jeffh]

With things like Monks being hard-wired into the storyline, I don't know if Burning Sky would be my choice to convert to 4E at present. (Rise of the Runelords, for example, strikes me as potentially working a lot better.) It's a good system but it is not all things to all people.

I certainly don't recommend converting an already-established 3.5 game to 4E in mid-stream.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Unless you have a PC monk, there shouldn't be a concern on that front. I plan on converting mid-stream as the game is simply easier to prep for and run....even tho that means working with others here on the board to convert the modules

But then again, my campaign is a once a month game and a lot less strict on rules than some folks games...

 

[Morrus]

With things like Monks being hard-wired into the storyline, I don't know if Burning Sky would be my choice to convert to 4E at present.

As PS says above, that only matters in 4E if you have a PC monk. NPCs and opponents are made the same way as monsters in 4E, so you don't need a character class, just a couple of monkish sounding powers for the stat block.

 

[RangerWickett]

I will say, I would have much preferred writing WotBS under 4th ed rules. I liked coming up with new stuff, and it's much easier to balance things in 4e. I could just have statted inquisitors with a special counterspelling power, instead of having to rejigger the whole framework of the cleric class to make it work. Now mind you, I ultimately like how things turned out in the current version of WotBS, and it feels very lush to me, very distinctive from other settings.

But it would've saved me a lot of time if I could've done it in 4e.