So, what is "4th Edition's Tomb of Horrors"?

[Betote]

Wait.

From what I understand, Tomb of Horrors was basically 'Pick right or Left. You picked left? You die. You picked right? Okay. Pick right or left. You picked right? You die. You picked Left? Okay, on to the next coin flip..."

Simply put the deathtraps were rather instantaneous. Doesn't seem to be in line with 4e's philosophy, given they nixed the save or dies.

Exactly my thoughts. I even recall (not sure if correctly) one of the preview articles for 4e putting Tomb of Horrors as the example of everything that was wrong from previous D&D editions.

Not sure how will Tomb of Horrors be under 4e's design philosophy, but it will definitely be something. Good or bad, that's not sure.

 

[Cyronax]

I wish they make retcons/renewed 4e versions of the classic adventures a staple of DDI's Dungeon. I think a 4e version of the old basic D&D adventure of Rahasia (great for tactical use of teleportation zones and also the moral quandry of attacking dominated opponents) or the Veiled Society (great for showcasing skill challenge mechanics) would be fantastic for instance.

C.I.D.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Wait.

From what I understand, Tomb of Horrors was basically 'Pick right or Left. You picked left? You die. You picked right? Okay. Pick right or left. You picked right? You die. You picked Left? Okay, on to the next coin flip..."

Simply put the deathtraps were rather instantaneous. Doesn't seem to be in line with 4e's philosophy, given they nixed the save or dies.

I want to believe that over the course of a 12 level adventure, PCs will learn about most of Acerak's tricks long before they make it into the tomb.

 

[kaomera]

Simply put the deathtraps were rather instantaneous. Doesn't seem to be in line with 4e's philosophy, given they nixed the save or dies.

Well, your recollections of S1 differ a lot from mine, but yes there where ways of ending up very, very dead after very few (if any) die-rolls. Like you say, that's not 4e's thing, so I'd expect to see things done differently. As this is described, it couldn't possibly be a direct transcription of the old Tomb anyway.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Exactly my thoughts. I even recall (not sure if correctly) one of the preview articles for 4e putting Tomb of Horrors as the example of everything that was wrong from previous D&D editions.

Not sure how will Tomb of Horrors be under 4e's design philosophy, but it will definitely be something. Good or bad, that's not sure.

It really doesn't matter what's in the adventure. WOTC will sell it on name recognition even if its Tomb of Flowers.

 

[coyote6]

Ah, dang it ExploderWizard, now I want to see the Tomb of Flowers. Some kind of Aztec-themed death trap.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ah, dang it ExploderWizard, now I want to see the Tomb of Flowers. Some kind of Aztec-themed death trap.

I don't want to give away too much but the BBE lich at the end was formerly a 17th level monk.

 

[coyote6]

Instead of instant death, the traps all capture the hapless adventurers. They are later sacrificed to bloodthirsty gods is gory rites.

 

[darjr]

I ran my boys through the 3.5 tomb conversion (yes, still available at WotC for free).

They played a vampire and a were wolf.

The vamp would take point and get smashed into smoke a lot. Their fingers regenerating was a big hint that the sphere was NOT teleporting them.

 

[Mortellan]

There's alot wrong with this idea. Most of it has been said already. Where's the horror in a mega-ToH I ask? The original did more to scare players in several dozen pages than an entire boxed set ever could, that's why its often imitated. Mind you I never liked the Return to's and the Expedition to's either. The more something is remade the less of the original feel it has. Where or what are the new classics?