Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Converting 1st/2nd Edition Modules to 4th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RomanStoic" data-source="post: 4463721" data-attributes="member: 77063"><p>That is a fantastic idea, thank you!</p><p> </p><p>I do foresee some issues with it, though, in T1-4. The Temple's inhabitants tend to despise each other and although they are noted to work together at particular points, other times they seem to ignore each other's troubles entirely.</p><p> </p><p>For example, in areas 103-107 on Dungeon Level One of the Temple of Elemental Evil, there are some harpies and several groups of ghouls. Specifically, there are two harpies in 103, six ghouls in 104, another six ghouls in 105, and two ghasts in 107 (106 is empty).</p><p> </p><p>As written, the ghouls in 104 come to help out the harpies if the harpies are attacked--but the ghouls in 105 are supposed to completely ignore the conflict, believing that their comrades will be fine. The ghasts are totally oblivious.</p><p> </p><p>Now, of course, I could ignore the module as written and group all of the ghouls and harpies together in one large encounter, but that would kind of defeat my goal, I feel, of converting the module as faithfully as possible. I hope that makes sense.</p><p> </p><p>That said, though, I checked Thunderspire Labyrinth's C4 encounter on page 9 of book 2, the one to which you were referring. The 'tactics' text does say that if the PCs attack location 10 first, all of the groups wind up getting involved in one large combat. However, if the PCs enter location 6 first, only one of the other groups runs in to help whilst the third stays put. I do have a question, though (and this may be a stupid one, but I'm trying to wrap my brain around this encounter style, so do forgive my idiocy). If the PCs were to enter location 6 first and defeat those two groups (and the third did not join in), would the encounter count as 'finished'? Would the PCs be able to take a short rest to recharge encounter powers, or do they first need to head into location 10 (the site of the uncaring third group) and kill off group three? Is an encounter still a full, challenging encounter if the PCs really only battle some of the monsters within it?</p><p> </p><p>To clarify what I am asking: in the Moathouse of T1-4, there is a room with a giant tick, a second room with a giant snake, and a third room with a giant lizard which are relatively close to each other. Neither the giant tick, the giant snake, nor the giant lizard alone make a suitable challenge unless they are turned into solo monsters (turning a small-size 'giant tick' into a 1st-level solo skirmisher is a bit bizarre, but I could rationalise making the snake and lizard into solo monsters). The monsters are totally unconnected--the giant lizard doesn't care at all about the giant snake, of course, and they certainly would not team up against the PCs in one big battle. In such a situation--of which there are many in T1-4--does it still make sense to connect the monsters into one 'encounter', even though they are fought one at a time? Doesn't facing the monsters one-by-one lessen the encounter's overall difficulty?</p><p> </p><p>A 1st-level encounter for 5 PCs gives 500 XP. Let's assume that the giant snake and giant lizard are both 1st-level elites (therefore counting as four 1st-level monsters) and the giant tick is 1st-level. If these monsters were fought in one big combat, then they would constitute an encounter worth 500 XP, which would count as one of the three 'Level + 0' encounters of the 1st PC level (as per 'Encounter Difficulty' mix on page 104 of the DM Guide).</p><p> </p><p>But these monsters are unconnected and will not rush to help each other. Let's say that the PCs head over to kill the giant snake (200 XP). They do not even go into the rooms containing the lizard and tick; instead, they head out of the moathouse and back to town for some random reason. They return later, after having a rest, and kill the lizard and the tick (300 XP). Now they have their 500 XP total for the 'encounter', but wasn't the encounter really two encounters, both of which were considerably easier than the suggested single, equal-level encounter?</p><p> </p><p>If C4's alternative tactics (if the PCs enter through location 6 and only face two groups instead of all three of the ones which constitute the full encounter) really play out the way I assume they do, then the above ghoul/harpy/ghast encounter from the Temple of Elemental Evil would work brilliantly rolled up as one encounter instead of several, because it could still be run as originally written yet remain a suitably challenging 4E encounter. But if 'unconnected' monsters cannot be strung into one encounter on account of their being fought one at a time like the giant snake et. al., then there will still be some issues, I imagine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RomanStoic, post: 4463721, member: 77063"] That is a fantastic idea, thank you! I do foresee some issues with it, though, in T1-4. The Temple's inhabitants tend to despise each other and although they are noted to work together at particular points, other times they seem to ignore each other's troubles entirely. For example, in areas 103-107 on Dungeon Level One of the Temple of Elemental Evil, there are some harpies and several groups of ghouls. Specifically, there are two harpies in 103, six ghouls in 104, another six ghouls in 105, and two ghasts in 107 (106 is empty). As written, the ghouls in 104 come to help out the harpies if the harpies are attacked--but the ghouls in 105 are supposed to completely ignore the conflict, believing that their comrades will be fine. The ghasts are totally oblivious. Now, of course, I could ignore the module as written and group all of the ghouls and harpies together in one large encounter, but that would kind of defeat my goal, I feel, of converting the module as faithfully as possible. I hope that makes sense. That said, though, I checked Thunderspire Labyrinth's C4 encounter on page 9 of book 2, the one to which you were referring. The 'tactics' text does say that if the PCs attack location 10 first, all of the groups wind up getting involved in one large combat. However, if the PCs enter location 6 first, only one of the other groups runs in to help whilst the third stays put. I do have a question, though (and this may be a stupid one, but I'm trying to wrap my brain around this encounter style, so do forgive my idiocy). If the PCs were to enter location 6 first and defeat those two groups (and the third did not join in), would the encounter count as 'finished'? Would the PCs be able to take a short rest to recharge encounter powers, or do they first need to head into location 10 (the site of the uncaring third group) and kill off group three? Is an encounter still a full, challenging encounter if the PCs really only battle some of the monsters within it? To clarify what I am asking: in the Moathouse of T1-4, there is a room with a giant tick, a second room with a giant snake, and a third room with a giant lizard which are relatively close to each other. Neither the giant tick, the giant snake, nor the giant lizard alone make a suitable challenge unless they are turned into solo monsters (turning a small-size 'giant tick' into a 1st-level solo skirmisher is a bit bizarre, but I could rationalise making the snake and lizard into solo monsters). The monsters are totally unconnected--the giant lizard doesn't care at all about the giant snake, of course, and they certainly would not team up against the PCs in one big battle. In such a situation--of which there are many in T1-4--does it still make sense to connect the monsters into one 'encounter', even though they are fought one at a time? Doesn't facing the monsters one-by-one lessen the encounter's overall difficulty? A 1st-level encounter for 5 PCs gives 500 XP. Let's assume that the giant snake and giant lizard are both 1st-level elites (therefore counting as four 1st-level monsters) and the giant tick is 1st-level. If these monsters were fought in one big combat, then they would constitute an encounter worth 500 XP, which would count as one of the three 'Level + 0' encounters of the 1st PC level (as per 'Encounter Difficulty' mix on page 104 of the DM Guide). But these monsters are unconnected and will not rush to help each other. Let's say that the PCs head over to kill the giant snake (200 XP). They do not even go into the rooms containing the lizard and tick; instead, they head out of the moathouse and back to town for some random reason. They return later, after having a rest, and kill the lizard and the tick (300 XP). Now they have their 500 XP total for the 'encounter', but wasn't the encounter really two encounters, both of which were considerably easier than the suggested single, equal-level encounter? If C4's alternative tactics (if the PCs enter through location 6 and only face two groups instead of all three of the ones which constitute the full encounter) really play out the way I assume they do, then the above ghoul/harpy/ghast encounter from the Temple of Elemental Evil would work brilliantly rolled up as one encounter instead of several, because it could still be run as originally written yet remain a suitably challenging 4E encounter. But if 'unconnected' monsters cannot be strung into one encounter on account of their being fought one at a time like the giant snake et. al., then there will still be some issues, I imagine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Converting 1st/2nd Edition Modules to 4th Edition
Top