Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5662477" data-attributes="member: 8835">i do suspect the OP was worried about more changes than I would be.If he's playing the same adventure/world as 2e, he should have restricted the class/race list accordingly.  The world didn't used to have WarForged, why have them now?  That's a flavor issue.As for Paxton being the uber-NPC that the PCs can't hurt right way, the point should be to follow the spirit of that design using the current ruleset.  The rules and terms differ, but the same would be true if you were converting to Gurps.  So approach the problem from that perspective.as to whether certain level-appropriate expectations in 4e vs. 2e differ, there's nothing stopping a GM from using those ideas in 2e, 3e or 4e.  So if you want some big scary "dont fight this" encounters, that's up to the GM.  All the math and stuff is about helping the GM see what is balanced, and what is not. Just tools, use them as your style prefers.I guess I'm not really sure what the problem is.  Or more to it, looking at the problem as a do-over an upgrade versus trying to replicate the concept in a different ruleset.You had sparse populations and more wilderness encounters.  Then in 4e use more non-sentient monster encounters.  Giant whatevers, dire critters, and the wierd stuff that earth doesn't have.  Its not that significant that they used to be able to have random encounter with a black panther, and now it is is random encounter  with a displacer beast.Certainly, things will play out a bit different, but you can focus on the concepts from the 2e adventure, and not the details, and probably have a good time.Though it might also be worth noting, if you improved over your GMiing and can do a better job now because so much time passed, that it is also likely that the material was not as good as you can produce now.That might be another source of problem for you.  Trying to stick to material that is no longer your best, and doesn't have your better practices built into it.Somebody disputed your concept of an NPC that could only be beat by one means.  I suspect they were angling for multiple combat means (needing the magic macguffin weapons to hurt it).  I don't specifically have a problem that the NPC has 1 means to defeat it in combat (by reducing its HP to 0 by defeating its defenses as defined by the game rules).  So long as you also allow for "creative" solutions to work as well (like luring it off a cliff, squashing it with a mountain, teleporting it into space, etc).  These alternatives require the PCs have the means as well, but the point is, while you have the obvious 1 correct path covered (which is also the path you probably need to share with the PCs via clues), so long as you will accept some other solutions you did not think of, then as a GM, you should be OK.</blockquote>

Verification