What Do You Want In A Converted Adventure?

[eamon]

And I think your idea is actively bad. It may be ok to leave weapons & armour undetailed, or even just say "level X item here" - although personally I much prefer to see something suggested - but there is no reason at all on God's green Earth why the designer should not list *mundane* treasure!!

I was objecting to the following instruction: "if converting to 4e don't leave every magic weapon as a bare +X, use stuff at least from the PHB, preferably PHB2 too and maybe other sources like AV". Items that aren't plot-significant should be left unspecified; ideally as Zinovia puts it:

For magic items, I'd prefer some suggestions like "a level 12-13 item suitable for a spellcaster", but that is far less important. Those are something I need to customize anyway. The simple monetary treasure should not be.

Define the money-equivalent treasure, and suggest flavor for the items.

 

[Dannager]

Agood advice, but don´t deviate too much... many encounters consist of 4 or more enemies. You can easily mix elite, standard and minion monsters.

A good rule of thumb is making classed and named monsters elite (applying a class template per DMG rules)
In this way, 3 orcs may pose a challenge.

I thought the same when I began converting adventures, and quickly found this to be a poor solution for a number of reasons. I'll elaborate.

First off, applying class templates is a fair amount of work. Not only do you have to go through the normal work of applying a template, you must also select class powers from the class you're adding to the monster. Class templates already add a huge number of powers, so class-templated monsters end up with huge stat blocks - far larger than they need to be.

Second, class templates are not as effective as normal monster templates. They add versatility, but do not provide the monster with the level of round-to-round power that it ought to have as an elite.

Third, remember that players aren't necessarily going to have any idea what powers the monster has. Sure, if a PC is of the same class as the monster, he or she might notice some similarities, but typically they'll have no idea.

Given this, adding class templates rarely improves the players' experience, rarely improves the DM's experience, and creates more work for the DM than is necessary. The urge to apply class templates can stem from the desire to create as faithful a conversion as possible, but conversions are always better off when they preserve the spirit of the original adventure rather than the letter.

Class templates have their place, but they ought to be used sparingly. Templates, in general, ought to be used slightly more. The majority of the time, when you want to include an elite monster, you should just find a working, pre-made elite monster in the Compendium, or find a standard monster you like and an elite monster with some cool powers, and snag some of the elite monster's powers for your standard monster to use (while upgrading him to elite).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually I was lying...

when i said, applying class templates, i meant:
doubling hp and adding powers I made up on the fly or have stolen from a different elite monster... the class template thing was just a justification, that it is in line with 4e game expectations...

the important part was: often, classed NPC were meant to be as powerful as a PC in older adventures and as such, making them elite is a wise thing to do.

I would not however make standard NPC to solos, even if they were supposed to be met alone... Solo is usually for monsters like dragons beholders and gods etc.

 

[Dannager]

Actually I was lying...

when i said, applying class templates, i meant:
doubling hp and adding powers I made up on the fly or have stolen from a different elite monster... the class template thing was just a justification, that it is in line with 4e game expectations...

the important part was: often, classed NPC were meant to be as powerful as a PC in older adventures and as such, making them elite is a wise thing to do.

I would not however make standard NPC to solos, even if they were supposed to be met alone... Solo is usually for monsters like dragons beholders and gods etc.

Don't be afraid to make something that was supposed to challenge the whole party in 3.5 into a solo. As long as you have a way of justifying its level of challenge (and, if it was supposed to be a threat to a whole party in 3.5, you probably do) it's no big deal. Just take care when crafting the encounter.

It doesn't need to be a dragon, god or beholder, or even anything like those. Today I ran a solo monster: a wereleopard driven mad by a narcotic, magic-suffused mist. He challenged the whole party, and no one batted an eye at the idea that he was a solo monster, because his lycanthropy and magical insanity helped to justify it.

Examples of other solo monsters I've created/run: a necromantic disease-riddled nobleman/murderer with a split personality, an ancient barghest shackled beneath the earth, a stone giant who uncovered the ancient magical secrets of his race, and a lamia matriarch chosen to help bring about the return of one of the greatest wizards the world has even known. Each of these is far more than just a typical example of the type of monster or person that it is, and each has a plausible justification for the relative level of power it possesses.

 

[S'mon]

I think "If he has a name, he's an Elite" is a good rule of thumb, although sometimes I stat the general mass of mooks as minions and the named guys as standard monsters, which can work very well and gives a quicker fight.

It's also a good idea to treat a bunch of near-by allied monsters as a single encounter and stat them appropriately, this can help reduce grind.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Don't be afraid to make something that was supposed to challenge the whole party in 3.5 into a solo. As long as you have a way of justifying its level of challenge (and, if it was supposed to be a threat to a whole party in 3.5, you probably do) it's no big deal. Just take care when crafting the encounter.

It doesn't need to be a dragon, god or beholder, or even anything like those. Today I ran a solo monster: a wereleopard driven mad by a narcotic, magic-suffused mist. He challenged the whole party, and no one batted an eye at the idea that he was a solo monster, because his lycanthropy and magical insanity helped to justify it.

Examples of other solo monsters I've created/run: a necromantic disease-riddled nobleman/murderer with a split personality, an ancient barghest shackled beneath the earth, a stone giant who uncovered the ancient magical secrets of his race, and a lamia matriarch chosen to help bring about the return of one of the greatest wizards the world has even known. Each of these is far more than just a typical example of the type of monster or person that it is, and each has a plausible justification for the relative level of power it possesses.

Agreed.
But I definitively would no make normal human enemies solo creatures. Even the BBEG should usually be just elite (insane werecreatures not withstanding). You can fudge a bit by adding some powers that you would rather expect from a solo and increase his level a bit, but in general they should play with about the same "rules" as players... (And elite monsters more or less are close enough.)

Solofying the enemy is tempting, but as someone mentioned in an old thread: Not every (goblin) boss should feel like a dragon. A tough elite monster is usually enough to threaten a whole party. And usually there are ways, not to face a whole party if you have a lot of minions at hand...)