3.5 Ravenloft-Questions on conversion - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

3.5 Ravenloft-Questions on conversion

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
taeldrin_laesrash
Oct 12, 2006 15:18:52 Having picked up PDFs of some of the old books, I'm going to start a Ravenloft campaign pretty soon. However, I still have some questions:

1)How would the Fear, Horror, and Madness checks figure out in 3.5? Since saves are no longer class-specific, what do I use to work out a save DC?

2)Has someone made a 3.5 version of the Half-Vistani? Anchorites, Avengers, Arcanists, or Gypsies? I could do these myself, I just want to know if they exist.
#2
rotipher
Oct 12, 2006 15:29:18 Use a Will save for all three, and select DCs that reflect how scary, horrific, or mind-warping the situation is, and whether the PC who's making the check is at a disadvantage (e.g. by themselves, recently scared by a similar monster, etc). I'd suggest actual numbers, but IDHTBIFOM.

Generally, IMO, a Madness check should have a slightly lower DC than a Horror check, which should in turn be lower than a Fear check's DC. This isn't to say that madness or horror are less incapacitating than fear; on the contrary, it's because the effects of horror, and even moreso of madness, tend to linger for quite a while, and so shouldn't be incurred as easily as simple fear, for the sake of game balance.
#3
gonzoron
Oct 13, 2006 8:35:12 Yes, the saves have all become will saves in 3.5.

1/2 Vistani are in the Ravenloft Campaign Setting (3.0) and Ravenloft Players Handbook (3.5)
an anchorite is just a cleric of Ezra, with domain info in those same books. There are assorted Anchorite PrC's in Van Richten's Arsenal and Heroes of Light
Avengers are also in Van Richten's Arsenal, and the bizarre "Black Powder Avenger" is in Heroes of Light, which also has the White Arcanist.

Gypsy has not been updated to my knowledge.
#4
Myst_the_Moonscout
Oct 13, 2006 11:28:39
Generally, IMO, a Madness check should have a slightly lower DC than a Horror check, which should in turn be lower than a Fear check's DC. This isn't to say that madness or horror are less incapacitating than fear; on the contrary, it's because the effects of horror, and even moreso of madness, tend to linger for quite a while, and so shouldn't be incurred as easily as simple fear, for the sake of game balance.

I can see your reasoning but I don't think a lower DC makes much sense in my opinion, since the DC represents how tough something is to shake off. If anything, I would attach a lower DC to fear since I imagine fear would be more easily overcome than horror or madness. To keep game balance, just reduce the number of scenarios that would require a horror or madness save.

On the edition note, is there really that much difference between 3.0 and 3.5? I have the 3.0 campaign setting and have always just used it as written with any 3.5 material I happen to have. Except for spells and the odd class, I usually just mix the two indiscriminately.
#5
The_Jester
Oct 13, 2006 12:21:42 I should point out that WotC has its own Sanity information:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm
Which is not covered or dealt with in Ravenloft 3E.
#6
Myst_the_Moonscout
Oct 13, 2006 14:16:18 Seems like a whole lot of number crunching for what basically amounts to the same thing as in Ravenloft: roll a die and hope you don't go nuts.
#7
taeldrin_laesrash
Oct 13, 2006 23:24:59 Thanks for the answers. With the info on Horror checks, I suppose winging it is the way to go. Regarding the rest of the stuff, all I'm really interested in regarding that stuff is what they did on Ezra. Can someone explain it? Thanks.
#8
ozyburrfoot
Oct 14, 2006 6:59:26 You should pick up Heroes of Horror, it has updated Fear rules.
#9
malus_black
Oct 14, 2006 9:30:28 Or just download the Book of Shadows from the Kargatane; it has the 3E fear, horror and madness rules.
#10
Tintagel
Oct 15, 2006 10:41:03 Personally, I didn't agree with the change to fear, horror, and madness (making them all will saves), since it really hurts fighters and rogues. I thought the class-specific saves of 2nd made much more sense.

This is easy to implement in 3.5 though, since all classes have a Good and Poor save rating. Fighters, for example, have good fort and poor reflex & will saves. Simply do the same for fear, horror, and madness.

Example: (Fear / Horror / Madness)

Wizard: poor / good / poor
Fighter: good / poor / poor
Rogue: poor / good / good
Paladin: good / poor / good
Cleric: good / good / good

etc... The above examples are obviously up for debate.
#11
Myst_the_Moonscout
Oct 15, 2006 15:33:13 I don't feel that changing the saves to fit the class would mke much sense but I could see alternating between fort and will depending on the situation. One option might be to doctor the DC to suit the character rather than change the save. For example, if we're talking a dimembered corpse of some kind, the fighter may have a lower will save but may have seen similar things in his career, so he would get some kind of bonus to make up for the lower save.
#12
The_Jester
Oct 16, 2006 12:08:01
Personally, I didn't agree with the change to fear, horror, and madness (making them all will saves), since it really hurts fighters and rogues. I thought the class-specific saves of 2nd made much more sense.

This is easy to implement in 3.5 though, since all classes have a Good and Poor save rating. Fighters, for example, have good fort and poor reflex & will saves. Simply do the same for fear, horror, and madness.

Example: (Fear / Horror / Madness)

Wizard: poor / good / poor
Fighter: good / poor / poor
Rogue: poor / good / good
Paladin: good / poor / good
Cleric: good / good / good

etc... The above examples are obviously up for debate.

[sarcasm]
It's also unfair for fighters and the rest to fight vampires. They're automaticly more vulnerable to domination and can easily wipe out the rest of the party. Domination should also have a seperate save.
[/sarcasm]

The problem being that it doubles the number of saves and adds to the bookeeping. And, while there are many, many items and feats that boost Will saves, none of them will do any to the above. Having a single feat boot four different saving throws would have it be overpowered.

Will saves, while 'unfair' are the easiest and simplist way to go. And as saving throws are so important in higher levels
#13
Tintagel
Oct 16, 2006 15:04:13 *shrug* To each his own. Some prefer differentiation between classes for F/H/M, some don't. I think the original AD&D concept was that fighters were better at handling basic threats (fear) and mages were more able to withstand the truly horrific. It's just a recommendation for those who want a hybrid of 2nd and 3rd edition.

Jester, I should note that Iron will is strong in both situations, because you make the same amount of saves, and it modifies each. Whether you make F/H/M seperate saves, used infrequently, or Will, used often. Case 1: make 2 will saves vs. charm and 2 wills for fear and 1 will for horror = 5 Iron will modified saves. Make 2 will saves for charm, 2 Fear saves, and 1 Horror save = 5 Iron will modified saves...

Anyways, when I implemented it, we just wrote them down on the sheet, and anything that modified will also modified them. Really they just changed the Base save for Will, that's all. It wasn't complex in implementation, but I can understand it's not for everyone.
#14
Tintagel
Oct 16, 2006 15:08:42 Oh, I should note for those who didn't play Ravenloft in the 1990's:

AD&D Ravenloft had 3 separate saves for Fear, Horror and Madness. That idea isn't something kooky I came up with. In 2nd edition AD&D Ravenloft, fighters had better fear saves, rogues had better horror, etc. In fact, Fear, Horror, and Madness were called Checks, not saves (although they used similar mechanics). They were mostly there for a role-playing aid, and helped the DM enforce certain horrific reactions. They were actually discouraged if the Players role-played their characters in an appropriate fashion. Even paladins were not immune to them, as they were situational checks rather than magical effects, and paladins could be afraid of situations such as failing to protect and innocent, judging someone incorrectly, or losing paladinhood. In all, they were a very interesting game mechanic - one of the better mechanics introduced to the campaign setting. I should note that there were also some terrible mechanics in AD&D Ravenloft too.

I just realized that I didn't preface my advice with that bit of info, and not all of us here are "old timers".
#15
The_Jester
Oct 16, 2006 17:34:11 I'm against adding massive new mechanics to the game. Anything that requires adding new slots on the character sheet is adding something to an already dice-happy and complicated system. 3E streamlined saves so there wouldn't be redundancies and huge overlap instead of the broad spell/poison/deathmagic saves of 2nd Edition.

Many spells and mechanics underwent much more serious and dramatic changes with the switch to the three broad saves; fear and horror are simply lesser effects that have to change as well.

Adding new saving throw types that are clearly mind-effects and require force of will to resist is redundant and useless. Strong-willed individuals should have a bonus. Especially since most rely on Wisdom bonus as a modifer anyway.

And the general view that class X is more resistant to fear than class Y is also facetious. A fighter will not necessarily be more resistant to fright and terror than a wizard. When faced with an eldritch horror or magical terror a fighter should be more likely to crumble than a wizard who has studied the arcane and would know what they are up against. A cleric faced with a blasphemous monstrosity might be appalled and horrified much more than a fighter who would simply shrug and miss the significance.

Are fear and horror so radically different they require two seperate saves to ward off? Is it not situation that chages and not the mechanism of terror?

Besides, giving any one class (cleric) three good saves is risking balance.

Jester, I should note that Iron Will is strong in both situations, because you make the same amount of saves, and it modifies each. Whether you make F/H/M separate saves, used infrequently, or Will, used often. Case 1: make 2 will saves vs. charm and 2 wills for fear and 1 will for horror = 5 Iron will modified saves. Make 2 will saves for charm, 2 Fear saves, and 1 Horror save = 5 Iron will modified saves...

But the desire to avoid fear or similar situations might drive a player to take Iron Will as a feat, even if they would normally have a strong will save. Look at the poor wizard who already has two bad saves and is saddled with two extra poor saves (2 good out of a possible 6). It takes away the one thing they might be good at. So even in situations where they could trust in a strong mind to save them they may fall short and feel compelled to blow a feat, one that could have been used in something far more interesting or colourful.
Meanwhile the cleric, who already has two good saves, now has 5 of the six and a high wisdom so can withstand anything thrown at it. They can ignore Iron Will completely.

In short:
You cannot balance 3E based in ideas pulled directly from 2E. Adding something without thought or conversion risks throwing off the balance.

So you want your fighters to be less vulnerable to fear than wizards? Give them a +2 circumstance bonus when fighting something physical or give them a lower DC. Meanwhile the wizards and sorcerers might suffer a -2 circumstance penalty or have a higher DC.
It’s simple, easier on bookkeeping and requires no modifications to the rules or imbalances.
#16
hornblower
Oct 18, 2006 15:08:34 I agree with Jester here, maybe even grant some classes a permanent bonus on specific F/H/M saves, akin to the elven +2 bonus on saves against enchantments. That way it would be consistent, easy on the bookkeeper, and still differentiate various classes and situations based on what the class "logically" would fear/not fear.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 taeldrin_laesrash Oct 12, 2006 15:18:52	Having picked up PDFs of some of the old books, I'm going to start a Ravenloft campaign pretty soon. However, I still have some questions: 1)How would the Fear, Horror, and Madness checks figure out in 3.5? Since saves are no longer class-specific, what do I use to work out a save DC? 2)Has someone made a 3.5 version of the Half-Vistani? Anchorites, Avengers, Arcanists, or Gypsies? I could do these myself, I just want to know if they exist.
#2 rotipher Oct 12, 2006 15:29:18	Use a Will save for all three, and select DCs that reflect how scary, horrific, or mind-warping the situation is, and whether the PC who's making the check is at a disadvantage (e.g. by themselves, recently scared by a similar monster, etc). I'd suggest actual numbers, but IDHTBIFOM. Generally, IMO, a Madness check should have a slightly lower DC than a Horror check, which should in turn be lower than a Fear check's DC. This isn't to say that madness or horror are less incapacitating than fear; on the contrary, it's because the effects of horror, and even moreso of madness, tend to linger for quite a while, and so shouldn't be incurred as easily as simple fear, for the sake of game balance.
#3 gonzoron Oct 13, 2006 8:35:12	Yes, the saves have all become will saves in 3.5. 1/2 Vistani are in the Ravenloft Campaign Setting (3.0) and Ravenloft Players Handbook (3.5) an anchorite is just a cleric of Ezra, with domain info in those same books. There are assorted Anchorite PrC's in Van Richten's Arsenal and Heroes of Light Avengers are also in Van Richten's Arsenal, and the bizarre "Black Powder Avenger" is in Heroes of Light, which also has the White Arcanist. Gypsy has not been updated to my knowledge.
#4 Myst_the_Moonscout Oct 13, 2006 11:28:39	Generally, IMO, a Madness check should have a slightly lower DC than a Horror check, which should in turn be lower than a Fear check's DC. This isn't to say that madness or horror are less incapacitating than fear; on the contrary, it's because the effects of horror, and even moreso of madness, tend to linger for quite a while, and so shouldn't be incurred as easily as simple fear, for the sake of game balance. I can see your reasoning but I don't think a lower DC makes much sense in my opinion, since the DC represents how tough something is to shake off. If anything, I would attach a lower DC to fear since I imagine fear would be more easily overcome than horror or madness. To keep game balance, just reduce the number of scenarios that would require a horror or madness save. On the edition note, is there really that much difference between 3.0 and 3.5? I have the 3.0 campaign setting and have always just used it as written with any 3.5 material I happen to have. Except for spells and the odd class, I usually just mix the two indiscriminately.
#5 The_Jester Oct 13, 2006 12:21:42	I should point out that WotC has its own Sanity information: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm Which is not covered or dealt with in Ravenloft 3E.
#6 Myst_the_Moonscout Oct 13, 2006 14:16:18	Seems like a whole lot of number crunching for what basically amounts to the same thing as in Ravenloft: roll a die and hope you don't go nuts.
#7 taeldrin_laesrash Oct 13, 2006 23:24:59	Thanks for the answers. With the info on Horror checks, I suppose winging it is the way to go. Regarding the rest of the stuff, all I'm really interested in regarding that stuff is what they did on Ezra. Can someone explain it? Thanks.
#8 ozyburrfoot Oct 14, 2006 6:59:26	You should pick up Heroes of Horror, it has updated Fear rules.
#9 malus_black Oct 14, 2006 9:30:28	Or just download the Book of Shadows from the Kargatane; it has the 3E fear, horror and madness rules.
#10 Tintagel Oct 15, 2006 10:41:03	Personally, I didn't agree with the change to fear, horror, and madness (making them all will saves), since it really hurts fighters and rogues. I thought the class-specific saves of 2nd made much more sense. This is easy to implement in 3.5 though, since all classes have a Good and Poor save rating. Fighters, for example, have good fort and poor reflex & will saves. Simply do the same for fear, horror, and madness. Example: (Fear / Horror / Madness) Wizard: poor / good / poor Fighter: good / poor / poor Rogue: poor / good / good Paladin: good / poor / good Cleric: good / good / good etc... The above examples are obviously up for debate.
#11 Myst_the_Moonscout Oct 15, 2006 15:33:13	I don't feel that changing the saves to fit the class would mke much sense but I could see alternating between fort and will depending on the situation. One option might be to doctor the DC to suit the character rather than change the save. For example, if we're talking a dimembered corpse of some kind, the fighter may have a lower will save but may have seen similar things in his career, so he would get some kind of bonus to make up for the lower save.
#12 The_Jester Oct 16, 2006 12:08:01	Personally, I didn't agree with the change to fear, horror, and madness (making them all will saves), since it really hurts fighters and rogues. I thought the class-specific saves of 2nd made much more sense. This is easy to implement in 3.5 though, since all classes have a Good and Poor save rating. Fighters, for example, have good fort and poor reflex & will saves. Simply do the same for fear, horror, and madness. Example: (Fear / Horror / Madness) Wizard: poor / good / poor Fighter: good / poor / poor Rogue: poor / good / good Paladin: good / poor / good Cleric: good / good / good etc... The above examples are obviously up for debate. [sarcasm] It's also unfair for fighters and the rest to fight vampires. They're automaticly more vulnerable to domination and can easily wipe out the rest of the party. Domination should also have a seperate save. [/sarcasm] The problem being that it doubles the number of saves and adds to the bookeeping. And, while there are many, many items and feats that boost Will saves, none of them will do any to the above. Having a single feat boot four different saving throws would have it be overpowered. Will saves, while 'unfair' are the easiest and simplist way to go. And as saving throws are so important in higher levels
#13 Tintagel Oct 16, 2006 15:04:13	shrug To each his own. Some prefer differentiation between classes for F/H/M, some don't. I think the original AD&D concept was that fighters were better at handling basic threats (fear) and mages were more able to withstand the truly horrific. It's just a recommendation for those who want a hybrid of 2nd and 3rd edition. Jester, I should note that Iron will is strong in both situations, because you make the same amount of saves, and it modifies each. Whether you make F/H/M seperate saves, used infrequently, or Will, used often. Case 1: make 2 will saves vs. charm and 2 wills for fear and 1 will for horror = 5 Iron will modified saves. Make 2 will saves for charm, 2 Fear saves, and 1 Horror save = 5 Iron will modified saves... Anyways, when I implemented it, we just wrote them down on the sheet, and anything that modified will also modified them. Really they just changed the Base save for Will, that's all. It wasn't complex in implementation, but I can understand it's not for everyone.
#14 Tintagel Oct 16, 2006 15:08:42	Oh, I should note for those who didn't play Ravenloft in the 1990's: AD&D Ravenloft had 3 separate saves for Fear, Horror and Madness. That idea isn't something kooky I came up with. In 2nd edition AD&D Ravenloft, fighters had better fear saves, rogues had better horror, etc. In fact, Fear, Horror, and Madness were called Checks, not saves (although they used similar mechanics). They were mostly there for a role-playing aid, and helped the DM enforce certain horrific reactions. They were actually discouraged if the Players role-played their characters in an appropriate fashion. Even paladins were not immune to them, as they were situational checks rather than magical effects, and paladins could be afraid of situations such as failing to protect and innocent, judging someone incorrectly, or losing paladinhood. In all, they were a very interesting game mechanic - one of the better mechanics introduced to the campaign setting. I should note that there were also some terrible mechanics in AD&D Ravenloft too. I just realized that I didn't preface my advice with that bit of info, and not all of us here are "old timers".
#15 The_Jester Oct 16, 2006 17:34:11	I'm against adding massive new mechanics to the game. Anything that requires adding new slots on the character sheet is adding something to an already dice-happy and complicated system. 3E streamlined saves so there wouldn't be redundancies and huge overlap instead of the broad spell/poison/deathmagic saves of 2nd Edition. Many spells and mechanics underwent much more serious and dramatic changes with the switch to the three broad saves; fear and horror are simply lesser effects that have to change as well. Adding new saving throw types that are clearly mind-effects and require force of will to resist is redundant and useless. Strong-willed individuals should have a bonus. Especially since most rely on Wisdom bonus as a modifer anyway. And the general view that class X is more resistant to fear than class Y is also facetious. A fighter will not necessarily be more resistant to fright and terror than a wizard. When faced with an eldritch horror or magical terror a fighter should be more likely to crumble than a wizard who has studied the arcane and would know what they are up against. A cleric faced with a blasphemous monstrosity might be appalled and horrified much more than a fighter who would simply shrug and miss the significance. Are fear and horror so radically different they require two seperate saves to ward off? Is it not situation that chages and not the mechanism of terror? Besides, giving any one class (cleric) three good saves is risking balance. Jester, I should note that Iron Will is strong in both situations, because you make the same amount of saves, and it modifies each. Whether you make F/H/M separate saves, used infrequently, or Will, used often. Case 1: make 2 will saves vs. charm and 2 wills for fear and 1 will for horror = 5 Iron will modified saves. Make 2 will saves for charm, 2 Fear saves, and 1 Horror save = 5 Iron will modified saves... But the desire to avoid fear or similar situations might drive a player to take Iron Will as a feat, even if they would normally have a strong will save. Look at the poor wizard who already has two bad saves and is saddled with two extra poor saves (2 good out of a possible 6). It takes away the one thing they might be good at. So even in situations where they could trust in a strong mind to save them they may fall short and feel compelled to blow a feat, one that could have been used in something far more interesting or colourful. Meanwhile the cleric, who already has two good saves, now has 5 of the six and a high wisdom so can withstand anything thrown at it. They can ignore Iron Will completely. In short: You cannot balance 3E based in ideas pulled directly from 2E. Adding something without thought or conversion risks throwing off the balance. So you want your fighters to be less vulnerable to fear than wizards? Give them a +2 circumstance bonus when fighting something physical or give them a lower DC. Meanwhile the wizards and sorcerers might suffer a -2 circumstance penalty or have a higher DC. It’s simple, easier on bookkeeping and requires no modifications to the rules or imbalances.
#16 hornblower Oct 18, 2006 15:08:34	I agree with Jester here, maybe even grant some classes a permanent bonus on specific F/H/M saves, akin to the elven +2 bonus on saves against enchantments. That way it would be consistent, easy on the bookkeeper, and still differentiate various classes and situations based on what the class "logically" would fear/not fear.