evilbob
Explorer
I've only seen a couple of CoS impression threads so far so I though I'd share my thoughts as someone who is VERY familiar with the 3.5 version of the book.
First, as others have already hailed, the art is amazing. I've not gone through the book in fine detail yet, but some of the full-page art is the best I've seen in D&D since at least 3.5. It's good stuff.
For those who have seen the original adventure from 1983, the town and the castle are pretty much 85-90% straight-up I6-Ravenloft, even down to the names of rooms in the castle. It's much more similar than the 3.5 Castle Ravenloft book was to the original material, although all three are obviously very close. All the major set pieces are there, the maps are extremely close, and all the major (and minor) NPCs are there. If you're familiar with the original, CoS will be like deja vu. If you're familiar with 3.5, it is interesting to see what parts are missing from the more embellished 3.5 version. (Hooray no constant zombie invasion!)
However, like the 3.5 book, the town and castle are only a piece of the content. (As opposed to I6, where it was 100%.) In 3.5, those were about 2/3rds of the content. In this book, I feel like they're more like 1/3rd. There is a TON of new stuff in the countryside (including whole villages), with everything except the werewolves being completely different than the 3.5 version (and those are still pretty different). Also, the focus is different: in 3.5, you were fighting "the land" as well as the count, weakening his connection to make him more vulnerable. In CoS, you are simply trying to gather enough resources so that fighting the count isn't suicide. It feels less binary this way, and a bit more open-ended. Also, more of the set pieces could be easily imported into other campaigns. On the other hand, there's almost too much to do. I could easily see campaigns petering out before even getting to the castle, which is a shame.
CoS is amazingly less deadly than 3.5 Ravenloft in my opinion, but mostly because 3.5 Ravenloft was really too deadly. (It wasn't Tomb of Horrors, but Bruce is a huge fan.) In CoS it's slightly harder to stumble into a situation that simply kills the party on a single roll. (This happened MANY times in 3.5 Ravenloft. Apparently "roll well now or stop playing" was what created "tension" according to Bruce Cordell. If you like that sort of thing, check out Return to Tomb of Horrors - also by Bruce Cordell - for A LOT MORE of it.) Also, the traps in the castle aren't straight-up designed to make you mad at the designer and/or ragequit. There are still deadly traps, don't get me wrong - but 3.5 was more "screw you" in its trap design (a la Tomb of Horrors), and these are more just like cunning traps. The overall lack of "save or die" mechanics in 5.0 is probably a huge factor. Also, there's not a >50% chance for any party to die by the end of the second session! (This was the worst part of 3.5 version in my opinion. Most parties should die at the church. If you didn't, your DM probably cheated.)
One thing that the book does that is interesting to me is that it simply sets up situations and never explains how to handle them. (Similar again to many 2nd Ed. D&D adventures.) I suppose that's mostly pointless when adventurers could come from any angle, but this leaves wide swaths to DM interpretation. Other adventures I've read tend to be a little more focused, and suggest at least one or two ways the party can proceed, and how to adjudicate those cases. Many of the 3.5 Ravenloft encounters had a sort of suggested path, which you could then use to extrapolate out what else could happen. Here, you are simply presented some information and left to deal with it as you see fit. Some DMs will find this liberating. Others might be left scratching their heads and wanting more information. Either way, the end result is that the book is DENSE - there is a TON of material because very little is explained in great detail. You will definitely get your money's worth of ideas here.
Finally, if this were a comic book you'd call the world "high blue." Like 3.5 Ravenloft, they've thrown all kinds of weirdnesses from all corners of D&D and fantasy lore into the mix. Most major tropes and classic spooky characters get represented - less of an homage to the horror fables of old and more of a ...montage. Still, things are easy to leave out if you think they are too corny or distract from the theme.
I can give more thoughts when I've read the book through in more detail, but overall it seems really cool and really original (especially for a copy of something) and almost like a fresh take on the vampire genre - but it's only "fresh" because there have been so many fresh takes on the vampire genre in the last 10 years that the original take seems fresh again. The intro does a good job of explaining this: there's no glitter on these vampires. They are monsters, and the illusion of their redemption serves only as a trap for their prey. I like it.
First, as others have already hailed, the art is amazing. I've not gone through the book in fine detail yet, but some of the full-page art is the best I've seen in D&D since at least 3.5. It's good stuff.
For those who have seen the original adventure from 1983, the town and the castle are pretty much 85-90% straight-up I6-Ravenloft, even down to the names of rooms in the castle. It's much more similar than the 3.5 Castle Ravenloft book was to the original material, although all three are obviously very close. All the major set pieces are there, the maps are extremely close, and all the major (and minor) NPCs are there. If you're familiar with the original, CoS will be like deja vu. If you're familiar with 3.5, it is interesting to see what parts are missing from the more embellished 3.5 version. (Hooray no constant zombie invasion!)
However, like the 3.5 book, the town and castle are only a piece of the content. (As opposed to I6, where it was 100%.) In 3.5, those were about 2/3rds of the content. In this book, I feel like they're more like 1/3rd. There is a TON of new stuff in the countryside (including whole villages), with everything except the werewolves being completely different than the 3.5 version (and those are still pretty different). Also, the focus is different: in 3.5, you were fighting "the land" as well as the count, weakening his connection to make him more vulnerable. In CoS, you are simply trying to gather enough resources so that fighting the count isn't suicide. It feels less binary this way, and a bit more open-ended. Also, more of the set pieces could be easily imported into other campaigns. On the other hand, there's almost too much to do. I could easily see campaigns petering out before even getting to the castle, which is a shame.
CoS is amazingly less deadly than 3.5 Ravenloft in my opinion, but mostly because 3.5 Ravenloft was really too deadly. (It wasn't Tomb of Horrors, but Bruce is a huge fan.) In CoS it's slightly harder to stumble into a situation that simply kills the party on a single roll. (This happened MANY times in 3.5 Ravenloft. Apparently "roll well now or stop playing" was what created "tension" according to Bruce Cordell. If you like that sort of thing, check out Return to Tomb of Horrors - also by Bruce Cordell - for A LOT MORE of it.) Also, the traps in the castle aren't straight-up designed to make you mad at the designer and/or ragequit. There are still deadly traps, don't get me wrong - but 3.5 was more "screw you" in its trap design (a la Tomb of Horrors), and these are more just like cunning traps. The overall lack of "save or die" mechanics in 5.0 is probably a huge factor. Also, there's not a >50% chance for any party to die by the end of the second session! (This was the worst part of 3.5 version in my opinion. Most parties should die at the church. If you didn't, your DM probably cheated.)
One thing that the book does that is interesting to me is that it simply sets up situations and never explains how to handle them. (Similar again to many 2nd Ed. D&D adventures.) I suppose that's mostly pointless when adventurers could come from any angle, but this leaves wide swaths to DM interpretation. Other adventures I've read tend to be a little more focused, and suggest at least one or two ways the party can proceed, and how to adjudicate those cases. Many of the 3.5 Ravenloft encounters had a sort of suggested path, which you could then use to extrapolate out what else could happen. Here, you are simply presented some information and left to deal with it as you see fit. Some DMs will find this liberating. Others might be left scratching their heads and wanting more information. Either way, the end result is that the book is DENSE - there is a TON of material because very little is explained in great detail. You will definitely get your money's worth of ideas here.
Finally, if this were a comic book you'd call the world "high blue." Like 3.5 Ravenloft, they've thrown all kinds of weirdnesses from all corners of D&D and fantasy lore into the mix. Most major tropes and classic spooky characters get represented - less of an homage to the horror fables of old and more of a ...montage. Still, things are easy to leave out if you think they are too corny or distract from the theme.
I can give more thoughts when I've read the book through in more detail, but overall it seems really cool and really original (especially for a copy of something) and almost like a fresh take on the vampire genre - but it's only "fresh" because there have been so many fresh takes on the vampire genre in the last 10 years that the original take seems fresh again. The intro does a good job of explaining this: there's no glitter on these vampires. They are monsters, and the illusion of their redemption serves only as a trap for their prey. I like it.
