Legends & Lore: A Few Rules Updates

[Lokiare]

Didn't they include this kind of advice with random encounters in the Blingdenstone adventure in the playtest package. I think I remember them specifically saying that there were X amount of orcs so if they are encountered outside of their camp keep track of it. They also explained that if over y amount of orcs were killed outside the camp, then the entire clan of orcs would fall back and be more defensive, getting ready for attacks. (I think that's what it mentioned).

This type of advice allows for wandering monsters that make sense in a campaign setting. It works great.

It might have in that adventure, but in the packet it glosses over it and in other adventures it also glosses over it.

But I also think you're looking for rules and guidelines in the wrong place. In AD&D, for instance, the DMG has a discussion of what can be involved in clearing an area of monsters so that no more random encounters will occur. To some extent its common sense advice, but in a game where players are expected, at high level, to have their PCs clear out monsters and build a castle it makes sense to have some details.

Can you point me to the page number that is on, because I'm currently converting a 1E adventure to 4E and I can't figure out how many random encounters should convert to static encounters because it doesn't list it anywhere.

 

[pemerton]

Can you point me to the page number that is on, because I'm currently converting a 1E adventure to 4E and I can't figure out how many random encounters should convert to static encounters because it doesn't list it anywhere.

DMG pp 93-94, "Territory Development by Player Characters". "Monsters and Organization", on pp 104-105, might also be helpful.

 

[Lokiare]

DMG pp 93-94, "Territory Development by Player Characters". "Monsters and Organization", on pp 104-105, might also be helpful.

Page 93-94 is only used when the players decide to make their strongholds and it only deals with monsters encountering their strongholds.

Page 104 and 105 talk about monster type responses, nothing in it tells my what to roll for random monsters only vague advice like 'Orcs attack in waves with the leaders last'.

I thought there was some actual rules to go along with it, but I guess not...

 

[pemerton]

I thought there was some actual rules to go along with it, but I guess not...

I think you're expected to adapt (from p 91):

Certain pre-done modules might serve in your milieu . . . but always alter them to include the personality of your campaign so the mesh is perfect.​

If you're converting to 4e, can't you use the 4e encounter-building guidelines to help?

 

[Lokiare]

I think you're expected to adapt (from p 91):

Certain pre-done modules might serve in your milieu . . . but always alter them to include the personality of your campaign so the mesh is perfect.​

If you're converting to 4e, can't you use the 4e encounter-building guidelines to help?

I could, but I'm trying to convert the random encounters into set encounters and 4E doesn't have random encounters so there is no conversion.

I finally settled on just rolling the 2E method (2d10 1's and 2's cause a roll on the chart) for each building in the area. I'm about half way done at this point.

 

[Sadrik]

Have not read the thread but I thought I would comment on this Mearls post.

Exploration and stealth. Thank you. Hopefully this removes the stupidly absurd un-mathtastic opposed rolls (can you tell I don't like them). Passive perception is the way to go. Try and sneak by someone just look to their passive perception roll. Granted, I would have like to have this be the actual wisdom save, but hey. Also I would set the DC to the environment when trying to hide, not the observers passive perception.

Bonus actions, makes sense this harkens back to the idea of haste and shortsword of speed, they did not stack back in 1e. With a lot more options and bells and whistles I can see making this a universal rule and fitting lots of things into it. So long as it can maintain a certain natural feel without becoming gamey.

Strength having an effect on armor speed penalty. Sure makes sense to me, though I want to see the rules for it. I think there are ways where this can be done with a very lame application and ways where this could be done very naturally and well. Rules where it says you cannot wear this or are so severely affected by the armor don't even bother unless you have str X are not good rules. A sliding scale is the key and of course ways to mitigate the penalties with class features/feats. Additionally this should plug directly into the encumbrance rules too, which is already str based. Why have essentially two encumbrance subsystems when you can have one...

All size small humanoids speed 30, meh. Whatever, sounds ok to me. Though wood elves have +5 speed, I think dwarves could have -5 in speed. It just fits. Too many hurry up fun times around the game table when talking to the dwarf player. That will be missed.