log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Poll: What adventures would you want officially updated for 5E

What modules would you want officially adapted to 5E?

  • A Paladin in Hell

    Votes: 8 8.6%
  • A1-A4: Scourge of the Slave Lords

    Votes: 21 22.6%
  • Age of Worms

    Votes: 20 21.5%
  • X2: Castle Amber

    Votes: 12 12.9%
  • D1-D3: Descent into the Depths of the Earth

    Votes: 20 21.5%
  • I3-I5: Desert of Desolation

    Votes: 28 30.1%
  • Gorgoldand's Gauntlet

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • B5: Horror on the Hill

    Votes: 5 5.4%
  • X1: The Isle of Dread

    Votes: 10 10.8%
  • B2: The Keep on the Borderlands

    Votes: 8 8.6%
  • Keep on the Shadowfell

    Votes: 8 8.6%
  • Kill Bargle

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • Kingdom of the Ghouls

    Votes: 3 3.2%
  • L1-L3: The Secret of Bone Hill, the Assassin's Knot, Deep Dwarven Delve

    Votes: 14 15.1%
  • Labyrinth of Madness

    Votes: 4 4.3%
  • N1: Against the Cult of the Reptile God

    Votes: 26 28.0%
  • Night Below

    Votes: 23 24.7%
  • Q1: Queen of the Demonweb Pits

    Votes: 17 18.3%
  • Rahasia

    Votes: 5 5.4%
  • Red Hand of Doom

    Votes: 32 34.4%
  • Shackled City

    Votes: 12 12.9%
  • The Awakening

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • WG4: The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun

    Votes: 14 15.1%
  • I10: The House on Gryphon Hill

    Votes: 7 7.5%
  • S4: The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth

    Votes: 16 17.2%
  • The Shattered Circle

    Votes: 3 3.2%
  • UK2-UK3: The Sentinel, The Gauntlet

    Votes: 8 8.6%
  • Savage Tides

    Votes: 5 5.4%

  • Total voters
    93

log in or register to remove this ad





I ran and really liked Savage Tide back in the 2000s, but it'd need major surgery these days, since a large portion of the plot is basically 'PCs actively aid in colonising a place inhabited by fantasyAztecs'

Isn't Kobold Press's Empire of the Ghouls AP already basically a 5e version of Kingdom of the Ghouls?
 


I don't see them updating the Paizo adventures, because there's probably a legal headache there (probably why Paizo themselves haven't done the same)
I don't think it's a legal headache at all. The adventures are from Dungeon Magazine, and thus rights are owned by WotC. That's why Paizo hasn't done it.
As to why WotC hasn't done it - could be many reasons, from the APs not being classics in the same way the other 'remakes' are, to not being the story they want to tell, to not really fitting the way they do their hardcovers, and so on.
 

I don't think it's a legal headache at all. The adventures are from Dungeon Magazine, and thus rights are owned by WotC. That's why Paizo hasn't done it.
As to why WotC hasn't done it - could be many reasons, from the APs not being classics in the same way the other 'remakes' are, to not being the story they want to tell, to not really fitting the way they do their hardcovers, and so on.
Given how WotC's legal team reacted to Pathfinder, with a nearly pointless GSL to prevent that from happening again, even if it ended up hurting 4E (which I firmly believe it did), I have a hard time picturing WotC/Hasbro senior management doing anything with Paizo-created content any time soon.
 

Given how WotC's legal team reacted to Pathfinder, with a nearly pointless GSL to prevent that from happening again, even if it ended up hurting 4E (which I firmly believe it did), I have a hard time picturing WotC/Hasbro senior management doing anything with Paizo-created content any time soon.
The Styes says otherwise.

Edit: Besides, I think the GSL came before Pathfinder, that is Pathfinder was a direct response to the GSL, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:

For reference, I collected several responses from this thread into the poll here. I didn't include every suggestion made on that thread (there were a lot), but I did do my best to collect all the modules that I saw were recommended at least twice.

I can expand the poll if I see more popular suggestions in the comments, however the results will likely skew towards modules who are initially on the list, so this poll is obviously not very scientific. Just a fun exercise!

I'm giving everyone 5 votes as well, as obviously WotC can adapt many modules to 5E, not just one! Also, some modules are collected as a single response (Slavers for example) as they really belong together and shouldn't be split up. Also, I am aware that some of these are already adapted by Goodman Games; this is not a critique of their work.
Are we talking merely updated as in modern stats and layout and so on, maybe rebalancing some stuff, or are we talking as in "retain the basic concept but re-write the whole thing in a modern way, including potentially massive structure and plot changes - as long as the concept was similar"?

If it's a largely aesthetic/rules update literally the only one I'd pay money for would be The Night Below - or Dragon Mountain, which isn't mentioned. I voted on that basis so far.

If it means a complete re-working, retaining only the concept and maybe the maps? Then suddenly a huge number start looking attractive, especially with good writers.

EDIT - I am impressed that 4 people voted for Keep on the Shadowfell. Not only does it have one of the most misleading adventure titles in D&D history, it's one of the very worst official adventures, certainly of the WotC era. Maybe y'all are envisioning it being entirely re-worked? The original is a remarkable combination of both nonsensical and terminally boring, which is kind of a hard combination to nail. I loved 4E but I cannot defend the terrible, terrible adventures released for it early on (I can defend Dungeon Delve at least).
 
Last edited:

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Given how WotC's legal team reacted to Pathfinder, with a nearly pointless GSL to prevent that from happening again, even if it ended up hurting 4E (which I firmly believe it did), I have a hard time picturing WotC/Hasbro senior management doing anything with Paizo-created content any time soon.
It's hard to say just how damaging the GSL was to 4th Edition, but I'm inclined to agree. The GSL was a course-correction for the company, intended to protect their IP from direct competition...it was necessary, and it worked. I think it went too far, though, and caused things to cascade in the wrong direction for the brand. The GSL was less useful to third-party publishers, so less third-party material was published under it, so the 4E brand shrank while the Pathfinder brand grew, which made 4E appear weaker than it really was (and made Pathfinder appear stronger than it really was), and down the ladder we went.

I feel like 4E didn't really get a chance to grow...or at least not enough of a chance. I'm happy that things turned around for WotC with the 5th Edition. (Thanks, I'm sure in no small part, to the DM's Guild and its "community content" program.)
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I ran and really liked Savage Tide back in the 2000s, but it'd need major surgery these days, since a large portion of the plot is basically 'PCs actively aid in colonising a place inhabited by fantasyAztecs'

Isn't Kobold Press's Empire of the Ghouls AP already basically a 5e version of Kingdom of the Ghouls?
To be fair, that part of the adventure was already pretty meh. The great part of Savage Tides takes place in Sassarine.
 

ART!

Hero
How weird is it that I've been playing D&D on and off since the late '70s and do not recall ever playing any of these adventures? I guess most of the groups I've been part of have leaned toward homebrewed stuff. Weird!
 

It's hard to say just how damaging the GSL was to 4th Edition, but I'm inclined to agree. The GSL was a course-correction for the company, intended to protect their IP from direct competition...it was necessary, and it worked. I think it went too far, though, and caused things to cascade in the wrong direction for the brand. The GSL was less useful to third-party publishers, so less third-party material was published under it, so the 4E brand shrank while the Pathfinder brand grew, which made 4E appear weaker than it really was (and made Pathfinder appear stronger than it really was), and down the ladder we went.
I think the GSL was also a signal to a lot of third party companies -- who waited for years for clarity so they could play nice with WotC -- that they needed to create their own systems and not rely on them.

I don't know how much WotC sweats Dungeon Crawl Classics, for one, but Goodman Games made it very clear they were ready to play ball with WotC. And it's not hard to picture them marrying their heavy metal aesthetic (remember their Wicked Fantasy line?) with 4E and just going nuts with it.
 


How weird is it that I've been playing D&D on and off since the late '70s and do not recall ever playing any of these adventures? I guess most of the groups I've been part of have leaned toward homebrewed stuff. Weird!
The list is a real mishmash of different eras, including some Dungeon magazine adventures. I've played every version but 4E, but I've missed more than half of this list myself. I would be surprised if there were many people who'd run the entirety of this list.
 


Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
Are we talking merely updated as in modern stats and layout and so on, maybe rebalancing some stuff, or are we talking as in "retain the basic concept but re-write the whole thing in a modern way, including potentially massive structure and plot changes - as long as the concept was similar"?

If it's a largely aesthetic/rules update literally the only one I'd pay money for would be The Night Below - or Dragon Mountain, which isn't mentioned. I voted on that basis so far.

If it means a complete re-working, retaining only the concept and maybe the maps? Then suddenly a huge number start looking attractive, especially with good writers.

Well, I meant which adventures would you want to be given treatment in the style of either TftYP, CoS, and GoS. So not just updated.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top