Castle Smoulderthorn, Part 3

[McBard]

Logan’s warlock laid down a Mire of Minauros on one side of the room, dissolving a couple of vampires and creating a nice acidic bog to guard our right flank.

Do others like me read the above bit from the playtest as implying that it was the acidic bog that dissolved the vampires (and then lingered around to "guard [the] right flank")? I only mention this, because Morrus (or whoever posted the info on ENWorld's home) seems to think otherwise:

The warlock opened a fight with two things: a "Mire of Minauros" which dissolved a couple of vampires, and an acidic bog. It appears that he did both these things in the first round.

I don't think it appears that way at all--it struck me fairly clearly that the two results were referring to a single Mire of Minauros. Anyone?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't think it appears that way at all--it struck me fairly clearly that the two results were referring to a single Mire of Minauros. Anyone?

I'd agree; reads like a single spell/invocation to me.

 

[freyar]

Is it just me, or do 4e PCs seem a lot more powerful compared to monsters than 3e? (I guess this is expected with the new 1 monster per character paradigm.) Doesn't a dozen vampires plus mummies sound like a lot for 6-8th level PCs? (Or have they advanced some?) This isn't a problem so much for me, btw, as a readjustment of expectations.

 

[Jer]

No matter how narrow the intent, they still don't recommend it.

As a matter of fact they want people to start again at first level and see how the character grows.

Gaming groups will do all kinds of different things but the intent from Wizards is pretty clear, no matter how narrow.

Huh? I haven't seen this at all, so I'd like to see a link if you have one. I haven't gleaned that from any of the stuff I've read, myself.

My impression from what I've read is that Wizards isn't going to put out a lame conversion book like they did from 2e -> 3e. That they don't think direct formulaic conversion is going to be easy or worthwhile. Some of the developers have said things like "keep playing 3.5e until your current campaign winds down and start fresh with a new campaign", but that seems to be their personal opinion on what the "best way" of migrating to 4e, not anything "official" from Wizards. (And clearly, not all of the developers feel this way - if they did, we wouldn't be getting reports from Dave Noonan's converted 3.5e campaign).

 

[Insight]

I'm sure as heck not going to force my players to ditch a campaign and characters they enjoy just to switch game systems. For me, the enjoyment of characters and story trumps game mechanics. If we're embroiled in a fun and exciting game, we'll convert as best we can. I have a feeling that's what the folks at WOTC are doing.

 

[Horacio]

Is it just me, or do 4e PCs seem a lot more powerful compared to monsters than 3e? (I guess this is expected with the new 1 monster per character paradigm.) Doesn't a dozen vampires plus mummies sound like a lot for 6-8th level PCs? (Or have they advanced some?) This isn't a problem so much for me, btw, as a readjustment of expectations.

They were "minion vampire", I guess that a kind of minor vampire, or newly created ones. A bit as in Buffy, where normal vampires are no match for the Slayer, or even for the experienced scoobies in last seasons, but old vampires are as powerful (or even more) as the Slayer...

 

[D'karr]

Huh? I haven't seen this at all, so I'd like to see a link if you have one. I haven't gleaned that from any of the stuff I've read, myself.

My impression from what I've read is that Wizards isn't going to put out a lame conversion book like they did from 2e -> 3e. That they don't think direct formulaic conversion is going to be easy or worthwhile. Some of the developers have said things like "keep playing 3.5e until your current campaign winds down and start fresh with a new campaign", but that seems to be their personal opinion on what the "best way" of migrating to 4e, not anything "official" from Wizards. (And clearly, not all of the developers feel this way - if they did, we wouldn't be getting reports from Dave Noonan's converted 3.5e campaign).

The 4e announcement presentation video. The Living Greyhawk meeting at GenCon. Comments from Chris Perkins and Bill Slaviscek at GenCon, after the presentation. Comments from Andy Collins at GenCon. I believe Rob Heinsoo said something similar.

Just because Dave Noonan is doing a playtest and has decided to attempt a conversion does not mean that the prefered method is not to start fresh.

WotC is not providing a "Conversion Guide" for many reasons that others have already elaborated on. You can "reinvent" your character and attempt to do so with the rules of 4th edition. Many people did the same between 2nd to 3rd. It was messy but it could be done. And still the prefered method there was to start fresh.

 

[Glyfair]

I believe Rob Heinsoo said something similar.

Actually, during the GenCon interviews on YouTube, Rob (I think it was Rob, it would have been someone else) said that they changed their mind about the "conversion book" during the convention, based on interaction with the fans.

The problem they had was that the conversion book to 3E never really did what they wanted it to do. They felt making such a book for 4E would have been as much of a wasted effort. However, it sounded like they decided to do it after all, with a different approach (more artistic, less scientific).

 

[D'karr]

Actually, during the GenCon interviews on YouTube, Rob (I think it was Rob, it would have been someone else) said that they changed their mind about the "conversion book" during the convention, based on interaction with the fans.

The problem they had was that the conversion book to 3E never really did what they wanted it to do. They felt making such a book for 4E would have been as much of a wasted effort. However, it sounded like they decided to do it after all, with a different approach (more artistic, less scientific).

More artistic in that WotC will provide you nothing to do a conversion, you are on your own. In any case that is neither good nor bad. It simply is.

So if WotC provides you nothing for converting they aren't necessarily endorsing it. Like I said neither good nor bad.

 

[Jhaelen]

Doesn't a dozen vampires plus mummies sound like a lot for 6-8th level PCs? (Or have they advanced some?) This isn't a problem so much for me, btw, as a readjustment of expectations.

We don't know, if these have actually been vampires and mummies. That was what the players thought they were (towards the end it turned out the vampires were just some vampirespawn or something similar).

But yes, in 4th.ed. pcs will probably be able to take on a lot more foes at a time than in 3rd.ed.