# New adventure path from ENP



## Morrus

Later this year, we'll be seriously turning our minds to an AP to produce once we've finished with WotBS.  At the moment there is nothing specific planned - not even a concept of idea.  Just that we plan to do another AP later.

So if you have any ideas, requests, concepts, desires, hopes, or opinions - feel free to post 'em here.  We'll read this thread and it *might* help guide our conceptualization of the new AP.  

We're interested in hearing your opinions on themes (planar? pirates? underdark?  oriental?  war?  awakening ancient evil?  political? etc.); and on the structure (encompassing all levels again?  shorter?)

We don't know yet *when* this'll happen, but I'm currently trying to persuade Ryan Nock to take the helm again.  He hasn't said yes yet, so no promises there!


----------



## renau1g

Is it going to be a full 30 level AP? I might like to see a smaller arc that maybe could be like 4-5 adventures, otherwise my group will likely never be able to complete it .  Personally, I'd like to see it from say mid-heroic to mid-paragon

Are you going to be opening up things for submissions or sticking with your current freelancers? 

Thanks! I look forward to it.


----------



## Blackbrrd

I haven't gotten that far, but a AP going from level 1-15 is something I would really like. Epic 4e isn't something I am exactly dead set on playing. 

WotBS is different from other AP's I have tried because of the depth of the characters presented, their motivations and the non white-and-black theme. Some more of this would make it a sure sell with me. 

Paizo is doing a "Sandbox" AP at the moment, something I would really like, but I don't think I would switch to pathfinder or back to 3.5 to play it. Hint-hint. I haven't got the time to create a sandbox of my own but would like to DM and would love to play. Maybe I can get somebody to run it?


----------



## EugeneZ

Personally, I think an adventure path would be highly incomplete if it didn't go all the way to 30. Trimming an AP is *super* easy, and in fact, lets you cut the encounters, adventures, and events you didn't like as much as the ones you're keeping.

I was going to make a few suggestions and requests but to be totally honest, if Ryan is helming it, I'm not picky.  So that's my number one request -- and not just Ryan, the more people you can get on board from WotBS 3.5e and 4e the better, in my opinion. I'm not just saying that because I like WotBS. There's a *a lot* to be said for experienced developers and a team learning to work together. They did it once, they can do it again, and better.

But if it's a whole new team lined up, then I suppose suggestions are the way to go. On that note, may I suggest something more experimental and... off the cuff? I think that's sort of missing in the 4e stuff I see coming out: something unique and interesting, with less emphasis on railroading the players.

For example, take the concept writers like Jack Vance and Gene Wolfe have mastered and create a setting that takes place in the far future, where social and biological decay have corrupted civilization so far that the setting essentially becomes a twisted medieval/fantasy vision rather than anything sci-fi. Let's say most of mankind leaves Earth in the future (let's call it eight hundred years from now) because something has gone wrong with the sun. But many people, for one reason or another, couldn't make it off. The windstorms and flooding annihilated anyone who stayed above ground, so a "Points of Light"-like environment exists underground: many colonies and even large cities built in the last couple hundred years using technologies that work like magic: construction robots that build skyscrapers underground, but whom no one has the knowledge to repair. To add more of a fantasy element, throw in some experiments with dark matter and genetics gone wrong. Arcane and Psionic power source, right there.

That's just an example; but if you're interested, I am currently developing just such a campaign for use down the line.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

*Count me in*

I am also interested in a second 4E adventure path from ENP. 

We are currently running WotBS and we love it!


----------



## Truename

Great news! I think WotBS is fabulous. I've played through #1, read #2, and skimmed #3, so these comments are based on that background:

Things to keep:
* The non-linear structure and copious DM notes about how to deal with various player actions. Add even more information about what something means and how items/characters recur so DMs can plan and foreshadow.
* The great characterization and prolific use of NPCs.
* Intentionally unbalanced encounters.
* Lots of non-combat scenes.
* Plenty of story. I want plotty goodness even in a sandbox structure.


Things to improve:
* Improve grasp of 4e mechanics and reduce unintentional unbalance. (Remember, though, I've only played through WotBS #1 so far.)
* Improve adventure layout and structure. Make it easier for the DM to grasp the whole. Optimize for two things: grokking the adventure on its first read-through, and using it as a reference at the table. Perhaps include summaries that can be quickly referenced by glancing down while DMing, alongside more traditional prose meant for reading ahead of time. Perhaps even _repeat_ the content in two parts--adventure information & reference + delve-style spreads.
* Skill challenges. Don't include 'em unless failure has an impact on the story. (Personally, I think skill challenges are a broken mechanic, so I'd say ditch 'em entirely. But that's me.)


Things to steal from WoTC:
* Great set-piece battles.
* Ease of running a scene/encounter "from the module" when prep-time is tight.
* Clear "mini-arcs" that span a single tier, knitted together into an overall story.
* Noticeable change in scope and flavor between heroic, paragon, and epic tiers.
* Roleplaying stat blocks.


----------



## Morrus

I'm certainly on board with doing things a bit differently.  I'm also half on board with dumping or redesigning skill challenges.

One thing I've always loved the idea of - but don't think it's feasible - is a set of adventures which can be played in _any_ order.  Gives the players real control, and while - as an AP - it's still railroady to an extent, it helps create an illusion that it's not.  The problemw with that idea, of course, is that PCs level up, which means that every single adventure has to accomodate every possible level.  I don't think that would work.


----------



## renau1g

Well...with the monster builder it would take a DM some time, but perhaps it might work out well? Now for those without DDI it could be more work, but really bumping up, or delevelling monsters isn't the hardest thing in the world. +1 or -1 here or there and + or - a set amount of hp. Only thing problematic is the monsters auras/special abilities that a DM needs to pay attention to. 

I don't think it could work from say 1-30 but even within a half-tier or possibly even a full tier it could maybe work. Off the cuff thoughts is that there could be three areas, one for each corresponding tier of adventuring (if you go full 1-30 levels). This creates "Noticeable change in scope and flavor between heroic, paragon, and epic tiers." (Truename's comment) that is fun for the players.


----------



## John Doom

renau1g said:


> Well...with the monster builder it would take a DM some time, but perhaps it might work out well? Now for those without DDI it could be more work, but really bumping up, or delevelling monsters isn't the hardest thing in the world. +1 or -1 here or there and + or - a set amount of hp. Only thing problematic is the monsters auras/special abilities that a DM needs to pay attention to.
> 
> I don't think it could work from say 1-30 but even within a half-tier or possibly even a full tier it could maybe work. Off the cuff thoughts is that there could be three areas, one for each corresponding tier of adventuring (if you go full 1-30 levels). This creates "Noticeable change in scope and flavor between heroic, paragon, and epic tiers." (Truename's comment) that is fun for the players.




I really love WotBS so far, and my group seems to really enjoy it too. One of the biggest draws for me is, as a DM, my prep time is relatively minimal. I basically have to know the story, do the treasure stuff, and prepare the maps. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do more than that, but the current layout is part of what makes WotBS so great! 

In reply to Renau1g; I think that idea would work for half tiers. Any higher than that and it would be a bit like an open jRPG  where your players go into the tougher areas but they would get the TPK that can ruin a game. 

Also, wouldn't it mean that ENP would have to release then entire AP in one go?


----------



## renau1g

I have the current Paizo AP (Kingmaker) and it is a sandbox open concept game and it has some hints for who to keep the PC's from getting in over their heads. Say the level 1 PC's end up heading to the next area (meant for lvl 5+) the module suggests letting the PC's see the powerful enemies from afar first if they don't remember the monsters from the area with skill checks. If the party says "no, we're level 1's, we can totally take that group of trolls" then they're deserving of a TPK. 

Personally, I like the half-tier idea myself. In Kingmaker the first adventure is from 1-4, so you can easily make the 4e one 1-5. This would also cut down on the number of adventures to write. I'm guessing there's got to be some economies of scale dealing with fewer, but larger adventures when you get it formatted, printed, etc as the small scale print run would cost a fortune for EN. 

If it's half tiers, there's less chance for a party to get in over their heads (in the aforementioned example, 4e PC's at level 1 are much hardier than PF ones) and after one or two very difficult battles they might reconsider the area and try somewhere else. As Morrus said, the illusion that there's no railroads


----------



## Insight

I'd like to throw in a vote for a pirate-themed AP.  

I'd also like to pitch a "half" AP (1-15) as a release and then the other "half" using the same basic plotline as another AP (16-30).  It would help to reduce the immediate overhead for each release; in essence, you could release the first "part" when you'd be in the middle of the development cycle, instead of waiting until the end.  That would certainly aid in getting the product to market faster.

Finally, and I don't know if this is the place, but I'd like to throw my hat in the ring as a possible developer.  I have produced work for 3.5 SRD stuff (Skull & Bones) that has a pirate theme, if you go in that direction.  Heck, even if you don't, I'd probably be interested in pitching in.


----------



## Sepp

Something like Kingmaker would get my vote for an AP...

I'd also love some Dark Sun modules.


----------



## RangerWickett

So a tier-splittable campaign saga with adventures you can play in any order? I've got some ideas about that. 

And Eugenez, I don't know if we'd go for Jack Vance, but a friend of mine did once brainstorm an amazing image of a party of adventurers being attacked by a necromancer standing atop the pitted, decayed hull of a harrier jumpjet, painted with runes of blood to reanimate its long-dead power.


----------



## renau1g

And maybe with some pirates thrown in for good measure... everything's better with pirates


----------



## TarionzCousin

I would explode if it was set in the Outer Planes from start to finish.

... and that's a good thing!


----------



## bert1000

Morrus said:


> I'm certainly on board with doing things a bit differently. I'm also half on board with dumping or redesigning skill challenges.




Morrus,

I'm a big fan of skill challenges (although I prefer a looser Obsidian style execution). I'm also a big fan of WoTBS. However, 4e WoTBS skill challenges have frankly been pretty bad so far. It's not in the mechanical set up (skill uses, etc.) which is ok, but the reason they have been poor IMO is the *stakes. The consequences for success and failure have been trivial.*

Good skill challenges are not just a different means to the same end, but have emotional impact on the PCs and players, and consequences that are permanent (but of course not game ending). My thoughts are that every skill challenge should have a permanent story consequence. 

For instance, in Shelter from the Storm there are a few travel skill challenges that result in loss of healing surges for failure and a combat that results before rest. So what? Unless that combat will result in the probable death of a PC because of the healing surge losses then it is just "a different means to the same end". 

IMO, good stakes for a travel skill challenge would be something like: You need to quickly travel through the mountains to reach the village so you can join in the defense before the orcs attack. Success: "The PCs reach the village in time to help defend and there is a chance the village is saved". Failure: "The PCs are too late and the village is burned to the ground". Or "The PCs are too late and the village is already under attack with an NPC the PCs' like killed already". 

In this example, the players (assuming they had some stake in the village) would actually care if they succeeded on the skill challenge. And it doesn't derail the adventure -- if they fail, now the PCs are even more invested in tracking down these orcs and avenging the loss. WoTBS (and many WOTC) skill challenges don't have meaningful stakes/ consequences to success and failure.

Here's a thread discussing this further:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...penalties-winning-losing-skill-challenge.html

So, I guess what I am saying is please keep skill challenges but try to make them a meaningful part of the story. 

SC-Seaquen-3 — Rat Search is better in this regard. There are story consequences. I would take this one level further on failure: The fires continue and the violence increases, but also come up with some scene that makes it clear to the PCs that their failure led to X being killed in the violence, etc. Or perhaps Lorb loses power because he was "ineffectual in dealing with this arson business", and that has consequences later when...

Almost all RPGs assume that you can always continue playing if the DM and players want to: either you get resurrected, roll up new characters, etc. And combat is set up so that the PCs win. In this framework, the ability for PCs to not obtain some of their goals is priceless.

I would love to see this philosophy incorporated into the new AP as well as the remaining 4e WoTBS modules.

Thanks for listening!


----------



## sfedi

100% agree with bert1000.

Persnoally I'm doing that with the WotBS adventures I'm running.


----------



## Morrus

bert1000 said:


> Morrus,
> 
> I'm a big fan of skill challenges (although I prefer a looser Obsidian style execution). I'm also a big fan of WoTBS. However, 4e WoTBS skill challenges have frankly been pretty bad so far. It's not in the mechanical set up (skill uses, etc.) which is ok, but the reason they have been poor IMO is the *stakes. The consequences for success and failure have been trivial.*
> 
> Good skill challenges are not just a different means to the same end, but have emotional impact on the PCs and players, and consequences that are permanent (but of course not game ending). My thoughts are that every skill challenge should have a permanent story consequence.
> 
> For instance, in Shelter from the Storm there are a few travel skill challenges that result in loss of healing surges for failure and a combat that results before rest. So what? Unless that combat will result in the probable death of a PC because of the healing surge losses then it is just "a different means to the same end".
> 
> IMO, good stakes for a travel skill challenge would be something like: You need to quickly travel through the mountains to reach the village so you can join in the defense before the orcs attack. Success: "The PCs reach the village in time to help defend and there is a chance the village is saved". Failure: "The PCs are too late and the village is burned to the ground". Or "The PCs are too late and the village is already under attack with an NPC the PCs' like killed already".
> 
> In this example, the players (assuming they had some stake in the village) would actually care if they succeeded on the skill challenge. And it doesn't derail the adventure -- if they fail, now the PCs are even more invested in tracking down these orcs and avenging the loss. WoTBS (and many WOTC) skill challenges don't have meaningful stakes/ consequences to success and failure.
> 
> Here's a thread discussing this further:
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...penalties-winning-losing-skill-challenge.html
> 
> So, I guess what I am saying is please keep skill challenges but try to make them a meaningful part of the story.
> 
> SC-Seaquen-3 — Rat Search is better in this regard. There are story consequences. I would take this one level further on failure: The fires continue and the violence increases, but also come up with some scene that makes it clear to the PCs that their failure led to X being killed in the violence, etc. Or perhaps Lorb loses power because he was "ineffectual in dealing with this arson business", and that has consequences later when...
> 
> Almost all RPGs assume that you can always continue playing if the DM and players want to: either you get resurrected, roll up new characters, etc. And combat is set up so that the PCs win. In this framework, the ability for PCs to not obtain some of their goals is priceless.
> 
> I would love to see this philosophy incorporated into the new AP as well as the remaining 4e WoTBS modules.
> 
> Thanks for listening!




What I've noticed from running it is that the new content skill challenges in the 4E version tend to work well; but the ones which are an update of the 3.5 content in the original do not - mainly because the concept of a skill challenge didn't exist in the same way back then, and so those areas *weren't* critical - because that's just how 3.5 worked.  We coudn't suddenly make things plot critical just because 4E demanded a "skill challenge" without changing the actual plot.

In a new adventure path, everything will be original content, which means the skill challenges would be designed from scratch as part of the plot development process.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

I like the idea of a tier based 'adventure path', and I think a very good option would be to really, in depth detail a city/surrounding area. WoBS is great partly because of the depth of the story line outside the heroes path, and in the involvement by the PCs in the wide scope of literally a battle between nations. One of the issues I have with WoBS is, due mainly to the lack of session time I get, my players never really get involved in the great background set-pieces of the campaign. They are too busy moving on to the next published adventure {We have been playing for 2 years now.. which makes 24 sessions  }

 I would like to see a narrowed down scope from the half-continent WoBS covers to a port city, something like Stormhold, Sanctuary, Valenar, or London. The adventures could be scattered in, around, and under the city.. with pirate options, ninja options, diplomancy and guild plot-lines.

 This could set the adventures in whatever order the players chose to go to, allow DM's to flesh out the city and area more in between adventures, and give the PCs a place to really settle into.

 Perhaps take Seaquin, or a port city out of Ostalin and jump ahead of the WoBS by 50 years.  Or break completely and use a fairly generic city-site that could be dropped in as any of the above mentioned places.

 I would also recommend using the Obsideon skill challenge rule-set.. and I am off to read *bert1000*'s thread on good rewards..


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

I agree that Skill Challenges should remain a part of EWP 4E adventures and I agree that they must have tangible rewards or penalties for their outcomes.

I disagree that Skill Challenges must be "life-or-death" however

Just like a combat that ends in TPK, a Skill Challenge that ends with "game-over" for the adventure is bad form on the part of the DM and the designer


----------



## RangerWickett

Russ, I just sent you a 5-page outline for a possible campaign saga.

Let me ask the folks here, what are your thoughts about steamtech fantasy? Not steam_punk_ exactly, because I'm too young to be a good punk anyway, but rather a mixing of physically plausible steam age technology with D&D-style magic and monsters?


----------



## Insight

RangerWickett said:


> Russ, I just sent you a 5-page outline for a possible campaign saga.
> 
> Let me ask the folks here, what are your thoughts about steamtech fantasy? Not steam_punk_ exactly, because I'm too young to be a good punk anyway, but rather a mixing of physically plausible steam age technology with D&D-style magic and monsters?




When you start introducing "technology" (beyond that which is found in typical D&D), it usually butts heads with magic.  In other words, why would this technology have developed in a world where magic is prevalent?

If the steam technology and the magic don't step all over each others' toes, I think it could make a fine setting.  The only issue with 4E magic is that _everything_ is magic, so separating what the steam tech does from what magic can do is going to be a little tricky.

If the steam technology is mere backdrop (interesting backdrop, mind you, but still backdrop), it doesn't necesitate major fluff (or crunch) changes at all.  I guess, in the end, it depends on how much you want to _feature_ the steam technology in the adventure versus how much you want to _show_ it in the background.


----------



## renau1g

I liked it in FF3 and find it interesting. Eberron kinda has this vibe with their heavy use of magic to create modern technology like planes, trains and automobiles. They use magic though and not steam-power. Is it more cost-effective than magic? Like Insight said if there's a reason for it, cool, perhaps the common man has a natural distrust of magic and this is their way of still having access to wonderful inventions.


----------



## bert1000

Amphimir Míriel said:


> I agree that Skill Challenges should remain a part of EWP 4E adventures and I agree that they must have tangible rewards or penalties for their outcomes.
> 
> I disagree that Skill Challenges must be "life-or-death" however
> 
> Just like a combat that ends in TPK, a Skill Challenge that ends with "game-over" for the adventure is bad form on the part of the DM and the designer




Agreed.  The rewards and penalties don't have to be earth shattering every time.  And they should never be game ending.  However, they do need to be personally meaningful for the PCs and the players.  This also means the players can fail at a goal they care about.  Failing at a goal can be great fun and increases the sense of "my actions have consequences" and investment in the story by the players.  The failure should hurt, but also open up a new avenue of adventure.  I know this is a little harder to do with published modules, but should be easier to do for EN than a publisher with more constraints...


----------



## bert1000

sfedi said:


> 100% agree with bert1000.
> 
> Persnoally I'm doing that with the WotBS adventures I'm running.





Would you be willing to start another thread and post when you used a SC in WotBS, the SC goal, and failure/success parameters (I don't think the individual skills likely to be used, etc. are necessary)?

I know I would be very interested.


----------



## Insight

bert1000 said:


> Agreed.  The rewards and penalties don't have to be earth shattering every time.  And they should never be game ending.  However, they do need to be personally meaningful for the PCs and the players.  This also means the players can fail at a goal they care about.  Failing at a goal can be great fun and increases the sense of "my actions have consequences" and investment in the story by the players.  The failure should hurt, but also open up a new avenue of adventure.  I know this is a little harder to do with published modules, but should be easier to do for EN than a publisher with more constraints...




The intrinsic problem with skill challenges is that they can amount to nothing more than railroading unless done in a very clever manner in which the consequences of success or failure have an impact on the rest of the adventure, or at the very least, the course of perhaps the next encounter.

I'd say a good rule of thumb should be: If you can't imagine two _different_ outcomes for the encounter, it's not a skill challenge.  With that said, I'd like to see _less_ skill challenges, not because I don't like the idea of skill challenges, but that they usually devolve into a die rolling exercise and nothing more.  Making the skill challenge count is definitely the tricky part from a design perspective.


----------



## DragoonLance

I enjoy steampunk, but I agree with Insight that it needs to be carefully thought out in what it changes.  One of the most well known steampunk settings is Iron Kingdoms, and they IMO are a bad example, due to the overabundance of firearms, specifically machine guns and cannon that would radically alter the state of warfare and the use of magic in a fantasy world.  Something along the lines of Eberron's house Cannith that use steampower instead of elementals (or using elementals to make steam engines that don't need refueling) could work without affecting the PCs too much, especially if the engines are too large and bulky for anything smaller than a train or ship.

While I love some of the quirky techno-magical stuff from FF and Eberron, once you have mass transit it makes a POL setting much more implausable unless you have a Wild West idea in mind...which could actually work nicely with a heroic tier West Marches kind of plot.  The PCs could do "explore the frontier" missions at low levels, then help defend and/or keep the peace in their new towns/settlements.  It's something I've been thinking of running for a group of gamer friends that love board games like Settlers of Catan.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

I would enjoy a "Wild West Frontier Steampunk Fantasy" adventure, although I'm not so sure about an entire 30 level series

I'd also enjoy a WotBS sequel where a new adventuring party have to deal with some unforeseen consequences of the original adventures... Set 10-20 years after the original, and crafty DMs could feature some of the original adventurers as powerful NPCs


----------



## fr33py

Everyone has their own tastes. Personally I enjoy D&D for its fantasy setting. Preferably I enjoy High Fantasy. The idea of Wild West, Steam punk style leaves little to be desired by myself and I think I speak for my group of players as well. I wouldn't immediately dismiss the thought of running it, but it wouldn't be favored for us. 

I would also like to see a full 1-30 AP. If others wanted to play certain sections of the AP they could still do so but I'd rather have the option to strip things out then have to come up with my own content to fill in the gaps if the production was only going to cover a small range of levels. I personally look to material already written as my group (and by that I mean me) doesn't exactly have the time to write all original material for adventuring. Between work and other hobbies I find my time straining as is just trying to prep for each weekly session. 

So far WotBS has been fantastic and I look forward to another 1- 30 AP from EWP. 

Shannon


----------



## Stormrazor2000

RangerWickett said:


> Russ, I just sent you a 5-page outline for a possible campaign saga.
> 
> Let me ask the folks here, what are your thoughts about steamtech fantasy? Not steam_punk_ exactly, because I'm too young to be a good punk anyway, but rather a mixing of physically plausible steam age technology with D&D-style magic and monsters?




While this sounds interesting, it would be much harder to  adapt the AP to other campaign worlds. A real selling point (at least to me) of WotBS is that it can faily easily be incorporated into just about any fantasy setting.


----------



## Insight

fr33py said:


> I would also like to see a full 1-30 AP. If others wanted to play certain sections of the AP they could still do so but I'd rather have the option to strip things out then have to come up with my own content to fill in the gaps if the production was only going to cover a small range of levels. I personally look to material already written as my group (and by that I mean me) doesn't exactly have the time to write all original material for adventuring. Between work and other hobbies I find my time straining as is just trying to prep for each weekly session.
> 
> So far WotBS has been fantastic and I look forward to another 1- 30 AP from EWP.
> 
> Shannon




This is why I suggested doing a 1-30 but splitting it up into a part one and part two (or three parts) covering the entire range.  It has three main benefits.  First, you can get the first product on the market faster.  Second, you can whet people's appetites for the subsequent products.  Third, if people want to run only one tier, they certainly can.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

RangerWickett said:


> Russ, I just sent you a 5-page outline for a possible campaign saga.
> 
> Let me ask the folks here, what are your thoughts about steamtech fantasy? Not steam_punk_ exactly, because I'm too young to be a good punk anyway, but rather a mixing of physically plausible steam age technology with D&D-style magic and monsters?




  While the idea of steamtech sounds interesting, I think a 'generic' DnD world would get more traction... and sales. One of the things I have enjoyed with WoBS is the discussion about how to set the campaign in the various published worlds.

  I also really liked how the WoBS reached beyond WoTC RAW and used 3d party material, which is harder to do in 4e's paradigm. This had the effect of making the AP much different than anything WoTC had to offer.

  Another campaign idea would be to follow the Maztecian, ancient civiliazation in a jungle approach. The ancient civilization could be highly detailed and unique... new pantheon, new weapons, etc..., but still fit into any campaign world fairly easily.

 I better go back to lurking before my typing gets ahead of my ideas...


----------



## Stormrazor2000

I know it may sound strange, but I've often toyed with the idea of a sunken Atlantis sort of setting for an adventure. It introduces a lot of challenges to the designer in order to make it workable, but a mostly underwater setting is something that would certainly be unique. 

The bonus is that pretty much every world setting has oceans, and being able to incorporate pirates and other ocean going adventures is a plus. In fact you could also introduce some different technology (such as steam, etc) without impacting the above water world.


----------



## Insight

Heroic = Pirates
Paragon = Underwater Kingdom
Epic = Elemental Chaos (Water)

... as a very basic outline.

Thoughts?


----------



## Morrus

A couple of concepts I'm keen to explore - rival adventurering groups who the PCs can grow to know and loathe (recurring villains); detailed organizations, such as a mafia-style thieves guild with lots of influence, etc; continuing WotB's style of no foregone conclusion that by completing each adventure the good guys will win, with actions in earlier adventures affecting later adventures; maintaining the "for experienced DMs" theme, allowing us to include complex situations, NPCs and motivations which may not be easy to run for the beginning DM but very rewarding for those who put in the effort; continuing grey areas and moral choices, and allowing the PCs to be on the "wrong" side (neither side being black or white)..


----------



## Stormrazor2000

Insight said:


> Heroic = Pirates
> Paragon = Underwater Kingdom
> Epic = Elemental Chaos (Water)
> 
> ... as a very basic outline.
> 
> Thoughts?




Yep, that lines up pretty close to what I was thinking as well. Lots of potential for new races (both PC and NPC). Strange and unique cultures. Politics of the underwater and surface realms.

 Perhaps a threat to surface dwellers that needs to be stopped could be an overarching plot. Flooding and invasion come to mind. Or perhaps the surface people are doing something that is destroying the underwater realm and they are plotting more in self defense. It could easily have enough moral ambiguity so that it doesn't fall into the typical "evil bent on destroying the world" stuff.

Anyway, babbling, but yes, I think it would be a fun AP setting.


----------



## Blackbrrd

RangerWickett said:


> Russ, I just sent you a 5-page outline for a possible campaign saga.
> 
> Let me ask the folks here, what are your thoughts about steamtech fantasy? Not steam_punk_ exactly, because I'm too young to be a good punk anyway, but rather a mixing of physically plausible steam age technology with D&D-style magic and monsters?




It didn't exactly get my heart racing


----------



## RangerWickett

Blackbrrd said:


> It didn't exactly get my heart racing




Fair enough. I get that we'll have to sell some people on the idea, so I think I'll hold off on posting any more details until Russ and I have a clearer sense of where we want to go. I want to avoid getting anyone annoyed at a hypothetical idea that may not actually make it into the final campaign.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

Morrus said:


> A couple of concepts I'm keen to explore - rival adventurering groups who the PCs can grow to know and loathe (recurring villains); detailed organizations, such as a mafia-style thieves guild with lots of influence, etc; continuing WotB's style of no foregone conclusion that by completing each adventure the good guys will win, with actions in earlier adventures affecting later adventures; maintaining the "for experienced DMs" theme, allowing us to include complex situations, NPCs and motivations which may not be easy to run for the beginning DM but very rewarding for those who put in the effort; continuing grey areas and moral choices, and allowing the PCs to be on the "wrong" side (neither side being black or white)..




Yes, Yes and Ten Thousand Times Yes! To all of the above, specially: 

* Rival Adventuring Party (Who are not exactly antagonists, maybe they are in it just for the money, and the party might even be forced to work with them to ensure mutual survival at some point!)

* Moral Grey Areas and complex moral choices (I particularly love this about WotBS)


----------



## Blackbrrd

RangerWickett said:


> Fair enough. I get that we'll have to sell some people on the idea, so I think I'll hold off on posting any more details until Russ and I have a clearer sense of where we want to go. I want to avoid getting anyone annoyed at a hypothetical idea that may not actually make it into the final campaign.




I didn't say it was a turn-off, it just didn't make me think: "Wow, I have got to get that". I was just trying to give you some feedback. 

I am 99% sure going to get whatever 4e campaign arc Enworld publishes next anyway, especially with the same writer as WotBS. It was a breath of fresh air with it's lack of dungeon crawling* and detailed NPC's. 

*Dungeon crawling like in anywhere you have to go into great detail about turning left, following the left wall etc, instead of just being able to state: "We find an inn at the wrong side of town and start asking questions".


----------



## renau1g

Yeah the rival adventuring party was fun in the Paizo AP with Kyuss (I forget the name). The first adventure the party ran across them in the tavern (our party was three PC's as well) and the tension built pretty quickly between them as the rogue bested the party's rogue in a dagger contest and the fighter won an arm-wrestling match with the party's barbarian. They loved the progression of how that storyline went and it would be quite an enjoyable time to add it into the new AP.


----------



## Morrus

Another question - how interested are people in in stronghold building?  Say, gradually building/upgrading it over the course of the AP.  And maybe the stronghold being a ship instead of a building?


----------



## renau1g

I love it. That's why I'm going to be running the Kingmaker AP (but converted to 4e), which has something like that in it (more country building, but same premise). I think it heavily invests the PC's in an area/setting if they have something permanent, plus somewhere to unwind, conduct some research, craft items, etc. 

As long as it's not used to mostly create problems for the PC's (i.e. enemies always attacking while on board, someone on the ship always needs help) it would be fun and interesting.


----------



## Insight

Morrus said:


> Another question - how interested are people in in stronghold building?  Say, gradually building/upgrading it over the course of the AP.  And maybe the stronghold being a ship instead of a building?




Why not?  Start with a schooner (or the equivalent) and get better ships as the AP progresses.  Or start with a broken down galleon and fix it up/upgrade it as the game goes along.  Or both.


----------



## Morrus

Insight said:


> Why not? Start with a schooner (or the equivalent) and get better ships as the AP progresses. Or start with a broken down galleon and fix it up/upgrade it as the game goes along. Or both.




Yeah, I figured maybe a choice of 2-3 ships to start with (with different stats).  Then upgrade it as you visit different places.  At the Heroic level, things like dwarven armour plating and eladrin fire-resistant paint.  At higher tiers, things like "bigger on the inside".  At the Epic tier, maybe it could even evetually fly like an airship.

All the while, it's home to the PCs.  They can customize it, become attached to it, and so on.


----------



## Insight

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I figured maybe a choice of 2-3 ships to start with (with different stats).  Then upgrade it as you visit different places.  At the Heroic level, things like dwarven armour plating and eladrin fire-resistant paint.  At higher tiers, things like "bigger on the inside".  At the Epic tier, maybe it could even evetually fly like an airship.
> 
> All the while, it's home to the PCs.  They can customize it, become attached to it, and so on.




An awesome reward for adventuring could be ship upgrades (or better ships) you either acquire as a result of a quest or perhaps as loot.  Think of the possibilities!


----------



## pneumatik

Re: steampunk, the reason I tend to not like it is I've always felt that limited communication and organization is what limited scientific growth in the early industrial era (i.e., steam). DnD tends to already have organized countries, schools, and guilds and can used magic for long-distance communication. At that point it snaps my disbelief suspenders for the setting to be stopped at the steam level of technology.

Re: what I'd like to see in another AP, I'd love to play a non-geographicly-based campaign. Something where you travel to different planes, alternate realities, or just unrelated places on the other side of your planet that are connected via plot and villains but not location.

Re: a ship or other homebase - awesomeness.


----------



## Talysian

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I figured maybe a choice of 2-3 ships to start with (with different stats). Then upgrade it as you visit different places. At the Heroic level, things like dwarven armour plating and eladrin fire-resistant paint. At higher tiers, things like "bigger on the inside". At the Epic tier, maybe it could even evetually fly like an airship.
> 
> All the while, it's home to the PCs. They can customize it, become attached to it, and so on.




that sounds awesome!


----------



## RangerWickett

pneumatik said:


> Re: steampunk, the reason I tend to not like it is I've always felt that limited communication and organization is what limited scientific growth in the early industrial era (i.e., steam). DnD tends to already have organized countries, schools, and guilds and can used magic for long-distance communication. At that point it snaps my disbelief suspenders for the setting to be stopped at the steam level of technology.
> 
> Re: what I'd like to see in another AP, I'd love to play a non-geographicly-based campaign. Something where you travel to different planes, alternate realities, or just unrelated places on the other side of your planet that are connected via plot and villains but not location.
> 
> Re: a ship or other homebase - awesomeness.




If we go with steamtech, the logic for it is that some time in the past, a Crusades-level holy war came to an end when the winning side used an epic ritual to kill off half the people of the losing side. This weakened the magic from the whole region, which allowed technology to advance to its current state.

The whole conflict between pastoral innocence and the corrupting effects of industry in fantasy started way back with Tolkien. We're just changing the form the industry takes (and hopefully will be less one-sided in our valuation of technology).


One of the ideas I pitched Russ was a "hop all over the place" picaresque campaign, but that idea lost out to a more "get to know and love a place" political-ish campaign, because we felt it was easier to have an actual _story_ as opposed to a series of vaguely linked events. I suppose if we'd hit on a boat home base idea earlier we could have come up with a different plot to mesh the two concepts.

Right now I'm working on an email to send Russ of ideas to use a boat-base(tm) in the framework we already have in mind. But it's definitely not too late if Russ wants to change his mind and turn us in a new direction. We just have a rough idea so far.


----------



## Talysian

I dunno there is just something I like about having a Boat or Airship type base.. I guess it harkens back to my earthdawn days where the I almost always had my party based out of a airship. Then again I did the same thing back in my mystara days as well... I notice a trend.


----------



## humble minion

In general terms, I'm a big fan of steamtech type stuff, but I can certainly see where people's issue with it are.  'Needs too many supplemental rules beyond the standard rulebooks' is perfectly valid, as is 'not easily transportable to other campaign worlds'.

But perhaps something set during the RISE of steamtech is a possibility.  Particularly if it's brand new but proliferating rapidly, and wizards/clerics are still getting used to the idea, and it's still raw and unreliable and risky, and there's still the lurking question 'is it really just applied natural laws and engineering, or is there something ELSE behind this whole steam business?'  Steamtech as plot element rather than setting element.

Pirates seem to be getting a lot of love, but is it too soon since Savage Tide (or am I just saying that because I'm running Savage Tide right now?)

My list of things to include might be vikings and perhaps vampires (there hasn't been a good vampire AP yet, and they're full of plot possibilities).  Something about the awakening of the ancient and legendary First Vampire, who lies sleeping in a secret tomb deep in the savage wilderness of the north.  Vikings, vampires, dwarves, merciless and predatory druids, and maybe a just tiny little bit of steamtech to be going on with...


----------



## Morrus

humble minion said:


> Something about the awakening of the ancient and legendary First Vampire, who lies sleeping in a secret tomb deep in the savage wilderness of the north....




Oh, I dunno.  If I ever see another "awakening of ancient evil" plot - in D&D or any fantasy genre - I might actually fall into a stupefied coma!


----------



## humble minion

Morrus said:


> Oh, I dunno.  If I ever see another "awakening of ancient evil" plot - in D&D or any fantasy genre - I might actually fall into a stupefied coma!




there's gotta be an incredibly powerful evil of some description!  It can be a new one or an old one - and both options have been done once or twice before...


----------



## Blackbrrd

Morrus said:


> Oh, I dunno.  If I ever see another "awakening of ancient evil" plot - in D&D or any fantasy genre - I might actually fall into a stupefied coma!





Actually I couldn't agree more. I remember one high-level module where the characters were supposed to stop a demon from getting an artefact. Which was basically a fancy whip. Ooooohhh.... A WHIP! 

Personally I would be more for a castle than a ship, but that's just me. Anyway, getting something else than just levels/fame as you level up sounds like fun. 

(My problem with boats is that you end up overboard and that is no fun in fullplate, which is quite a deciding factor when selecting what class you want to play. As you noted yourself, both the Paladin and the Fighter are very popular as defenders, neither of which really likes boats.)


----------



## renau1g

Perhaps that's one of the upgrades you can earn? A net or something that triggers when someone falls out? There are pretty cheap shields of floating (lvl 1 item IIRC) that would negate this problem, just carry one on board.


----------



## RangerWickett

This is 4e, though. You can swim in plate armor and a shield pretty easily in 4e (silly though that is).


----------



## Insight

There are _LOTS_ of ways to get around the plate armor problem and swimming.  It shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## renau1g

Yeah it's just -4 for heavy shield + plate. If you're trained in athletics (most fighters are) and have a high Str (most fighters do) you should be around +4 to +5 at first level (16 - 18 str).

Only person I see struggling mightily is the Cha-based paladin with low Str. He could be as low as -4 at first level with 10 str.


----------



## sfedi

One of my main issues with the next AP I'm going to buy/run is the choices the players have.

One is tactical, within combat. Which is perfectly fine with 4E.
Another is within the adventuring day. Managing dailies, item uses, etc.
The other is within the adventure, what choices do they have, how can it be solved, etc.
And the other is within the campaign, analogous (sp?) to within the adventure.

I can feel how WotBS has great places for these different choices, but fails to formalize or show them. And to let the DM be aware of them too.


----------



## KidSnide

Morrus said:


> continuing WotB's style of no foregone conclusion that by completing each adventure the good guys will win, with actions in earlier adventures affecting later adventures;





Morrus said:


> maintaining the "for experienced DMs" theme, allowing us to include complex situations, NPCs and motivations which may not be easy to run for the beginning DM but very rewarding for those who put in the effort;





Morrus said:


> continuing grey areas and moral choices, and allowing the PCs to be on the "wrong" side (neither side being black or white).




I just want to call out these three points as areas of massive awesomeness in WoBS that I very much want to see continued in future ENP games.

One other thing I really like about WoBS is that it's epic fantasy, but it's still relatively contained in the world.  In many plane-hopping stories, the world you come from becomes nothing more than a thing to save (and occationally shop in).  A tighter story like WoBS explores the world, and then takes place there.  There's nothing wrong with a multi-planar world (like Planescape) in which the PCs are *from* those planes, but you don't want an AP in which all the connections the PCs forge in the heroic tier become largely moot when the campaign switches to the astral plane a third of the way into the AP.

I'd also like to throw in a vote for a shorter AP (1-10?, 1-15?, maybe 1-20?).  A full length AP is a serious time investment, and I'd like something long enough to see plot complexity and character development without needing to find a group that's ready to play together for 3-4 years.  I know that, technically speaking, you can trim an AP, but a 1-30 AP like WoBS needs to have a huge satisfying obstacle to defeat at L30, and I think all the players know they aren't done if you stop before then.

Oh, and I like pirates as much as the next guy, but that feels like territory that has been well trodden as of late.  Steamtech can also be fun, although I agree with an earlier poster who commented that it requires an unusually well thought out world.  And while I'd really love to see a 4e kingmaker-style game, that kind of begs for some WotC-tested mass combat rules.

-KS


----------



## Jdvn1

Oriental would be cool. But, what I really want is for vampires to be cool again. It doesn't have to be awakening an ancient evil, but I just want a really cool vampire BBEG.

Also: a good fey-themed AP would be cool.


----------



## Jdvn1

Morrus said:


> I'm certainly on board with doing things a bit differently.  I'm also half on board with dumping or redesigning skill challenges.



While the skill challenge mechanic has problems, I'd prefer the game to use the standard ruleset. Tweaks are okay, but don't go all Pathfinder on us (not that I have anything against Pathfinder, but I don't want to have to learn a new system for an AP).


----------



## Blackbrrd

renau1g said:


> Yeah it's just -4 for heavy shield + plate. If you're trained in athletics (most fighters are) and have a high Str (most fighters do) you should be around +4 to +5 at first level (16 - 18 str).
> 
> Only person I see struggling mightily is the Cha-based paladin with low Str. He could be as low as -4 at first level with 10 str.



I have one of those in my current campaign 

(He is getting annoyed by people that are up on ledges and whatnot, but getting real friendly with the wizard that's sliding them outside the cliff edge with surprisingly high efficiency.)


----------



## Daern

*treasure request*

I would like to request detailed treasure parcels.  I know DMs have to really tailor treasure these days but today I was running WotBS with minimal prep and the only hiccup I had was when I ran into "insert a lvl 7 treasure parcel here."  I would really appreciate suggestions for treasure, at least monetarily, and really magical stuff too.  
This would at worst get me pointed in the right direction for making my own and be able to include more world/campaign specific exotica, and at best be a quick back up for those DMs who find themselves in the hotseat after having suddenly been obliged to pick people up at the airport during the 3 hours they expected to be prepping for the game.
As for the AP in general, I am more impressed by the current one the farther along I go, but off the top of my head I would vote for a "Kingmaker" style series as this is an intriguing but complex campaign conceit that I have always been hesitant to try on my own.
I'd also like to put in a good word for trilogies.  
cheers!


----------



## renau1g

I liked how the parcels were done in WOTBS personally as when I look at other published modules (GG ones for example) there reward was a Symbol of Battle +1. Great...except I had no divine PC's so now there's more work to figure out a way to sneak in a level 3 other treasure item that they'll actually use. If you can't know each group composition it's too hard to predict what they'd want (with the notable exception of potions & Iron Armbands of Power (for any melee PC))


----------



## Blackbrrd

Regarding treasure parcels, before I started the first module I found 21 appropriate magic items of the appropriate level and each time I was supposed to give out treasure I selected from that pool. I even printed the magic-item cards so I could literally give the party the items. It worked out really well.

I tried using the wish-lists earlier, but I usually only got requests for the most overpowered stuff. In addition it really lessened the fun when you got an item, because you would be expecting it and maybe even disappointed if you didn't get it on a particular session. Therefore I skipped using the wish-list way. I try to find very useful items, but I might hold back on the most overpowered stuff.


----------



## Morrus

One way I'm probably going to start handling it is to get my players' wish-lists (which I really should have done months ago) and use that as the basis for handing out treasure.


----------



## renau1g

One thing you can do with the "wish-Lists" is talk to your players first, tell them that the items they put on the lists are not guarenteed otherwise you may have sour grapes from them if they don't get the items they asked for. I tell my players that I use the lists as basis for the type of PC they want to play and I try to find appropriate treasure for them. I don't like the "entitlement" feeling that some players have when giving that list, to me it destroys much of the verisimilitude of the game if magically all the items the players could ever want just happen to end up in the troves they stumble upon... I usually go with like a 60%-ish from the wish list and 30% cool items that may be related and finally about 10% items that they'd never chose on their own but may be useful and the group tries to find a way to use them...


----------



## OnCider

One thing that bugs me a little with the current campaign that I'm playing in (Scales of War) is that we seem to be going from level 1 to level 30 in a matter of months (game time).  Any ideas of factoring in a way to slow down the levelling of the PCs in the context of their life?

Other than that I really like the ideas being bandied around here.  I came across WotBS very late and kind of wish I would be running it now rather than SoW.  The "ship as home", steampunk-ish idea is making me think of Firefly.

I loved Firefly.


----------



## TrickyUK

I think that something similar has already been said, but I'd like to see an AP that brings out the best of 4e. WotBS is great - running it at present - but it still feels like a conversion and not a true 4e adventure.

Reading the Core Rules gives all the pointers to creating a great campaign and some of the ideas already mentioned would fit with 4e, but I'd definitely prefer a game that feels like epic Dungeons and Dragons and not some 'twisted to fit' campaign.


----------



## Blackbrrd

I must say that I don't have the feeling of running a conversion. Most of all because my group focuses on the roleplaying, and partly because WotBS is so awesome. 

What WotBS does right is focus on the role playing, the characters and the non-player characters. It really is a setting that takes you in and it's a lot of fun both as a DM and a player. 

I think the most important part with WotBS is that it _*isn't*_ a dungeon crawl.

Something I didn't see before running the module is that it's really easy to play some of the more interesting NPC's in the module. They are so believable and interesting that they in themselves lift the module above the usual cut. Focus on this and I think you can put it in nearly any setting.

Secondarily is the issue mentioned by Tricky110974 - it's a conversion and it's noticeable. At least the first module. Some of the skill challenges feel a bit clunky and so does some of the encounters. As mentioned above - it really doesn't matter. Focus on the story, the NPC's and make it believable. Fixing encounters is minor business compared to fixing inconsistencies, confusing NPC's and unbelievable plots.


----------



## RangerWickett

Tricky, what do you think of as 4e's strengths? 

One thing we were considering (though it's probably too weird to pull off well) would be to have certain adventures be modular, so like you could play 2, 3, or 4 in any order. 4e makes it easy enough to scale challenges to party level by just subtracting or adding some numbers that we thought it might be feasible. Then again, we're not sure whether it's worth doing as anything other than a mere gimmick.

For the 3.5 WotBS, one of my goals was to fit in every rule I could, starting with counterspelling and ending with aging modifiers. I regret a bit that I never found a good excuse to make "multiple abjurations in the same area start to buzz" part of one adventure.


----------



## TrickyUK

RangerWickett - For me the strengths are the races and classes. They are now so many combinations that I feel I can create characters for any occasion. You can also create a world where all the races have homes but don't feel like they are already predetermined. The 'points of light' aspect also allows a campaign to build on exploration and discovery.

The cosmology feels right and I would like to see that used a little more - adventures in the Feywild or even the Far Realm. I've just read PH3 and was inspired by the Living Gate history. Not sure how much can be used directly (due to copyright, and all) but the concept was there.

The DMG has loads of material, companion characters, monster themes, hazards, etc. that I think should be exploited. This would certainly help me when running a published adventure as I would be able to understand some of the way the rules had been used to create the encounters, and that would help if I needed to adjust an encounter.

That said, I don't think that 4e is perfect. I still don't like skill challenges and magic items seemed to have lost some of their appeal. But I keep on trying to find ways to make these things into positives. Wish lists are OK but I would like to see a random (or predetermined) treasure list to which I would amalgamate with wish lists.

I agree with Blackbrrd that WotBS has a great story and great characters and that the focus on roleplaying does hide the conversion element. That said, I was running the journey to Seaquen recently and felt that the need for a skill challenge was not necessary. In the 3.5 version to the PCs just journeyed with the option of some possible encounters if the DM felt they were appropriate. So I just ran the journey as I would have in 3.5 and used the encounters that I thought the PCs would enjoy. This is where I think that 'conversion' became a little more apparent.

I would also like to see a more comprehensive campaign guide. I know that WotBS introduces the campaign through the adventures, and this is great for the PCs, but I would like to know more as a DM so that I am better prepared for questions from my players. This wouldn't necessarily need to be hundreds of pages, and could just give pointers where the DM should feel free to fill in the blanks, but having a sight of the bigger picture helps the players believe the world is thought out beyond their current battle map.

Starting to ramble now, so will pause. But I will add that I am working on my own campaign for running after WotBS and so I am going through a process which is addressing the above myself.


----------



## Morrus

Tricky110974 said:


> RangerWickett - For me the strengths are the races and classes. They are now so many combinations that I feel I can create characters for any occasion.




I don't think there are nearly as many as there were for 3E.



> I would also like to see a more comprehensive campaign guide. I know that WotBS introduces the campaign through the adventures, and this is great for the PCs, but I would like to know more as a DM so that I am better prepared for questions from my players. This wouldn't necessarily need to be hundreds of pages, and could just give pointers where the DM should feel free to fill in the blanks, but having a sight of the bigger picture helps the players believe the world is thought out beyond their current battle map.




You know there are two free guides, right?  The Player's Guide and the Campaign Guide?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Random Idea: 

If you go into the epic tiers, and we don't want a repeat of the "Stop Evil" campaign, think of instituting a fundamental change to the world. Something the players need to be Epic Tier at. Maybe something the players have a free choice what to do with it, but giving them a clear path to how they could achieve it.

I remember there was a Wizards of the Coast article online about the "Zeitgeist". That was an interesting concept. (It was 3E).

Maybe there are several groups hunting for an Epic McGuffin. The one that reaches it can do great things. It can change the world in a very profound way. _What_ it changes it to, is entirely up to the person(s) getting there. There are limits. But becoming a god is just a side-effect of it, which can be easily avoided if desired so.

The players stop the BBEG around the turn Paragon/Epic tier. But they know where to get the McGuffin. Sure, it will be a difficult task and a lot is left to be done - but think of the power? Think of the good you could do! 

And now, the party might get unusual foes. They might not just have to fight Demons and Devils and Astral Pirates. They might have to awaken a slumbering Primordial to get access to the McGuffin. Some of the gods themselves might challenge them, fearing they could abuse their power. This could be a great thing for "greyness". Sure, it says lawful good on the tin, but can Pelor, Bahamut and Moradin really be sure this Paladin is wise enough to not abuse the power of the McGuffin. Maybe they should better send their minions to kill you. Or at _least_ test your character and worthiness, as they tell you afterwards, _"haha, it was all just a test, we didn't really want to kill you. You have passed the test of the 7 Principles of Wisdom. Mr Paladin, please take away that Bastard Sword from my throat, thankyouverymuch_."


----------



## Morrus

I kinda like the moral ambiguity of having to awaken ancient evil to achieve something, then have to deal with the ramifications of that later.  The fiorst aprt of the campaign being a mission to do what most campaigns are a mission to prevent.


----------



## Blackbrrd

Morrus said:


> I kinda like the moral ambiguity of having to awaken ancient evil to achieve something, then have to deal with the ramifications of that later.  The first part of the campaign being a mission to do what most campaigns are a mission to prevent.



Yeah, I like it when the players really have to think about what they are doing. If it's all black and white there won't be any discussion between the characters and that is so boring. I like it when the players get all involved because of lesser-of-two-evils problem. 

Instead of the regular get-the-artifact-that-will-save-the-world or stop-the-great-evil plots, what about a world that is going down the drain and it will get worse and worse if nobody does something. The players have to put it back together again piece by piece while forces, both good and evil are in the way.


----------



## Daern

That would be great!  Sort of like how in the Deathdealer adventure I'm running now the mission is to unleash said Dealer of Death and even though its a one-shot side game I'm tripping out on what that will do to the campaign world.  In this case I think one of the players is going to become the Deathdealer and we'll have a big party fight...  but I'm thinking it will become sort of a "vignette" that will be then referenced back in my WotBS campaign.
That is an intriguing idea.  Now that I think of it, making each adventure be vignette separated by time and distance but unified in theme or metaplot might be a great way to make a modular set of modules...
Anyways, I'm sure you guys will come up with something pretty cool.  Cheers


----------



## humble minion

In very very general terms, there's only really a limited palette of plot options (unless you start looking at tailoring plots to PCs individual motivations, which is bordering on impossible when it comes to published adventures).

Prevent the rise of a (new or old) evil.
Defeat an established evil.
When the world undergoes changes in some way, ensure that good, rather than evil, profits.

It's going to be very hard to avoid using some variant of these - and therefore, there'll be echoes of a hundred other D&D campaigns in pretty much whatever the next AP is.  The details are what bring the spark.  

I'd still love to do something with vampires.  It staggers me that no APs I'm aware of have really pushed that barrow hard yet.  I know D&D historically hasn't been great at emulating vampire mythology (stakes through the heart etc) but nobody even seems to have tried.  

Oriental would be fun, but possibly limited too in appeal for a full 1-30 AP.  Unless you could somehow include a major oriental component in a more conventional setting, perhaps as a plot point?  Those huge Chinese trade fleets of the 1400s could be a useful inspiration - scale them up by a factor of 10 (it's fantasy, after all!), then land them on the coast of Generic European Setting, where they start setting up a colony and all the established powers (which may include regular D&D bad guys like vampires, thieves guilds, dragons etc) start to get antsy about protecting their turf.  Clash of cultures and loyalties ensues.  Only problem with this sort of game structure is how to handle parties with different origins and/or loyalties.


----------



## renau1g

As long as the vampire's chests don't sparkle that could work... *effing twilight*


----------



## Morrus

humble minion said:


> Prevent the rise of a (new or old) evil.
> Defeat an established evil.
> When the world undergoes changes in some way, ensure that good, rather than evil, profits.




That assumes a Good/Evil dichotomy. What if it were more like real life and about self-interests on a national scale? And that the PCs could be on either side?  What if there were no clear Good and Evil?


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

Yes to a really cool Vampire Big Bad (preferably as the antagonist for Heroic tier)

Yes to good-intentioned antagonists who want to prevent the PCs from being too powerful and disturb the balance of the universe (preferably on the Epic Tier)


----------



## humble minion

Morrus said:


> That assumes a Good/Evil dichotomy. What if it were more like real life and about self-interests on a national scale? And that the PCs could be on either side?  What if there were no clear Good and Evil?




The glib answer is 'evil is in the eye of the beholder'.  From an in-character point of view, according to the PCs, Evil is whatever it is that they're currently fighting against.  Why would they take such hideous risks to oppose it otherwise?  

As for the other questions - well, I entirely agree in principle, but practically it's a bit more difficult.  When you're writing a general AP for a general audience, then do you really want to limit things by deciding the PCs can only be on one side of a morally roughly equivalent conflict?  Regarding PCs being on either side - does every module have to account for the possibility that the PCs may change sides at any time?  Or even worse, that SOME of the PCs might change sides at any time?  You'd end up writing two APs, or even more, trying to cover all the possible bases.  I think James Jacobs said that for the sake of the writers' sanity an Adventure Path has to be an Adventure PATH, rather than Adventure Lots Of Little Branching Paths or an Adventure Multiple Possible Paths.  How would you have gone writing WotBS if you'd had to assume that the PCs might join up with the Inquisition at any time?

Having a moral dichotomy of sorts (maybe a moral distinction is a better word) is a relatively clean way of nudging the PCs along a set of consecutive modules via their own choices.  Sure, it's not how real life works, and it's not even how a good home campaign works, but a published AP doesn't have the luxury of being able to react to the PCs actions as much as a live GM does, when it comes to the overall campaign direction.


----------



## pneumatik

One thing I've noticed running WotBS via pbp is that there are some encounters that feel like they exist just to give PCs x.p. My request for the next adventure path is to write the adventures that tell the story you want to tell and then just sell it to me. If that means it starts at level 4 and ends at level 27, I'm cool with that.


----------



## MrAnthropy

First off, I wanted to say that I began running WotBS for my group last month and we have absolutely loved it so far!

In general, I agree with what others have said regarding ways that Skill Challenges could be improved over what I have seen in the Scouring of Gate Pass.  I also think that some care needs to be taken to ensure that the proper tone is maintained through certain sections of each adventure.  In Scouring, for instance, I tossed out the "Rescuing KiKi" thing as it just felt jarringly silly when the PCs are trying to race across a city under attack.  

I think the idea of a customizable ship/base is something that my group would go for in a heart-beat.

One thing that might be neat would be to include a few (maybe only 5-6) general character backgrounds with mechanical benefits ala PHB2 tied to potential running subplots in the campaign.  While these would only be (very?) roughly sketched out--leaving most of the tailoring work to the GM--each could be used to tie different themes you want to emphasize in the story to each character personally.  The subplots would pop up in designated 'downtime' as seen in parts of WotBS #3.  Something similar to this was used in the Player's Guide and 1st module of Paizo's Curse of the Crimson Throne and I felt that making individual hooks into the campaign part of building each player's character really tied them to the game instantly.  On the downside, I can certainly see how this could entail quite a bit of work and might not see use in everyone's game...


----------



## renau1g

humble minion said:


> The glib answer is 'evil is in the eye of the beholder'.  From an in-character point of view, according to the PCs, Evil is whatever it is that they're currently fighting against.  Why would they take such hideous risks to oppose it otherwise?




Gold (or preferably Platinum)? Wenches? Power? Those are all things that have spurred one of my PC's on in the past.


----------



## TrickyUK

Morrus - I have both the Player's and Campaign Guide for WotBS and have found them useful. But I am still left with more questions than answers. As humble minion has mentioned, though, it would not be practicle to try and address all possible outcomes.

What I would be looking for is a clear history (something that I found through the forums) and geography - nice map and clear descriptions - ahead of running an adventure path so that I can start to picture the campaign world beyond the current adventure. This is only my preference as I don't have too much time to plan and would appreciate having more familiarity with the campaign world so that I have confidence running any adventure in it. People keep comparing to Pathfinder but PF has it's own campaign setting and while I'm not looking for a complete product of that magnitude, I think that there is still some middle ground between the AP guides for WotBS and a complete setting guide.

I like the idea of not having a clear good vs. evil but also agree that there needs to be a focus so the PCs know where they are heading.

I would also like to see the AP make use of the tier structure of 4e. Some opening heroic adventures allowing the PCs to settle into the world (with subtle hints of a future threat) and then beginning a more substantial quest through the paragon tier (with campaign specific paragon paths?) and then the big reveal, where the PC uncover the true threat and begin an epic destiny (also campaign specific?).

You could also use the Tier structure to target the AP to certain players - I've heard some voices hinting that a full level 1-30 AP can be a little overwhelming or drawn out.


----------



## Blackbrrd

I like how the Eladrin in WotBS aren't on the good-guy-side to begin with. You can try to make them your allies, but they aren't yours by default.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

humble minion said:


> The glib answer is 'evil is in the eye of the beholder'.  From an in-character point of view, according to the PCs, Evil is whatever it is that they're currently fighting against.  Why would they take such hideous risks to oppose it otherwise?
> 
> As for the other questions - well, I entirely agree in principle, but practically it's a bit more difficult.  When you're writing a general AP for a general audience, then do you really want to limit things by deciding the PCs can only be on one side of a morally roughly equivalent conflict?  Regarding PCs being on either side - does every module have to account for the possibility that the PCs may change sides at any time?  Or even worse, that SOME of the PCs might change sides at any time?  You'd end up writing two APs, or even more, trying to cover all the possible bases.  I think James Jacobs said that for the sake of the writers' sanity an Adventure Path has to be an Adventure PATH, rather than Adventure Lots Of Little Branching Paths or an Adventure Multiple Possible Paths.  How would you have gone writing WotBS if you'd had to assume that the PCs might join up with the Inquisition at any time?
> 
> Having a moral dichotomy of sorts (maybe a moral distinction is a better word) is a relatively clean way of nudging the PCs along a set of consecutive modules via their own choices.  Sure, it's not how real life works, and it's not even how a good home campaign works, but a published AP doesn't have the luxury of being able to react to the PCs actions as much as a live GM does, when it comes to the overall campaign direction.



I think there are some branching opportunities that can get less complicated. Maybe 2 groups are competing over a specific area (say, a kind of treasure hunt) - it doesn't matter which side you on, you will still have to engage the same puzzles and monsters guarding that treasure. The bigger variation points are your motivation and your possible reward - and maybe a few encounters where you fight the other side's team. (Which could actually be the same in either scenario, actually, assuming they are just hired help.)

Possible setup: 
- A dungeon with two entrances on opposing sides. The dungeon houses an McGuffin sought by two factions.
- Faction A is aware of one possible entrance, maybe posessing a password to convince the guardian there to let the players through.
- Faction B has found the sigil sequence of a portal inside the dungeon. 
- Faction A offers the PCs the loot they get and a good reputation, possibly to get aid at a later time. The McGuffin in their hands could end an internal conflict and avert a Civil War.
- Faction B offers the PCs lots of money (plus the loot) and a valuable information. They need the McGuffin for magical research to cure a painful disease that has afflicted the Faction's leader.
- The two factions are not necessarily directly opposed normally, but the McGuffin can be used by only one. (Or can it? Maybe the PCs can figure out something better, a third way?)

The choices of the PCs could be reflected over the course of the adventure path. The aid of Faction A might help them solve a conflict. The information from Faction B might give them easier access to a particular area. Not helping Faction A might lead to a nation being in disarray and giving a villain additional resources in a particular scenario. Not helping Faction B might be leading to someone with a grudge against the PCs that will come back to haunt them later.


----------



## KidSnide

RangerWickett said:


> Tricky, what do you think of as 4e's strengths?




This was directed at Tricky, but I'll jump in to say that - at least for me - the strengths of 4e are:

* Interesting set piece battles.  I'm not opposed to having one or two regular fights per level, just to make sure there is enough action and so that the PCs get to use all their powers.  But, mostly, each fight should be to accomplish a purpose and should involve some sort of interesting opponent, terrain or situation.

* Fun powers.  The PCs get a lot of fun powers as they level up.  There should be feats, prestige classes and maybe some special powers to tie the game world into the characters.  (Also, as I noted above, there needs to be enough combat that the PCs get a chance to use their combat powers.)

* Flexible adventuring days.  Because 4e can better handle a large or small number of encounters per day, the AP can focus on story / world concerns more than resource management.

* Skill Challenges.  OK, as published by WotC, skill challenges are a poor mechanic, but there is a lot to be said for a mechanism to handle non-combat encounters with more than a single die roll.  I've had a lot of fun with the Gate Pass skill challenges (OK, with some editing... and my players skipped Kiki).  I found the key is to have enough information in the skill challenge about what is going on in-game so that the players can engage the in-game problem that their character's are working rather than the out-of-game problem of just getting the right skills in play.  I'm not sure I have the math right, but I tend to use +/- 5 or 10 modifiers for particularly good or bad ideas.  Yes, the modifiers are huge, but you want identifying a great in-game solution to be the optimal way to solve the challenge.

...and, of course, there are also WotBS's strengths: meaningful decisions, interesting NPCs, shades-of-gray morality, flavorful world, non-dungeon-crawl.  It would be nice to better use the strengths of 4e, but don't lose what makes WotBS great!

-KS


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Speaking of powers - use and create terrain powers as they are described in DMG2. I haven't seen them much in use so far, but I think they are pretty awesome - even for people that have trouble looking beyond their power cards.


----------



## Blackbrrd

Regarding technical details, having unmarked maps (no monsters, traps or names) to use for players and smaller marked maps for the DM is something missing from 99% of the modules I use, partially including WotBS. It should be something like 1 minute extra work pr map to get the unmarked map when you have the original non-flat files.

These unmarked maps should be available as a digital download in one nice map-pack with clear hints of which encounter they belong to.


----------



## Jdvn1

I'd like to recommend that in the Experience Tracking chart you include a column for (or replace a column with) xp/PC. I think it's easier to calculate how to adjust combats this way.


----------



## Morrus

Jdvn1 said:


> I'd like to recommend that in the Experience Tracking chart you include a column for (or replace a column with) xp/PC. I think it's easier to calculate how to adjust combats this way.




Could you explain that a little more?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean.


----------



## Jdvn1

Morrus said:


> Could you explain that a little more?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean.



Sure (I might over explain, because I'm not sure which bit you didn't understand):

For example, in _The Scouring of Gate Pass_, the Experience Tracking chart on page 2. The first encounter is worth 700 xp--but split between 5 characters it's 140 xp. I'd like a chart reflecting that you expect each character to gain 140 xp out of the encounter.

This helps in a rough scaling of encounters for 4 or 6 because that's also the amount of xp you want to scale the encounter by per character. For a party of 4, I need to remove roughly 140 xp worth of creatures, and for a party of 6 I need to add roughly 140 xp worth of creatures (in the example, maybe one of the hazards and one or two minions, or something).

It's just a useful number to have handy, and I don't want to worry about doing the math in my head (675/5? 725/5?).

Thanks!


----------



## Daern

The xp charts have been very useful.  I don't mind dividing by five.


----------



## Blackbrrd

I use the xp charts to see when they should level up since I don't track xp. This way the players don't get into encounters to get xp, but to accomplish a goal.


----------



## ssampier

I am not very familiar with WotBS. I have more than enough APs for awhile. That said I think I would like a shorter AP, maybe 1-10 or 1-15.

Start in a city. We have done the quaint villages to death. The first adventure can be an mystery; just don't forget the three clues rule. 

Another thought, could you do a tight module trilogy with the same mystery, but then expand it out more (like layers of an onion)?

Decent names. Fantasy worlds are full of kenning words (Sandpoint, Freeport, Waterdeep). Maybe something different? 

I like demons, devils, and outer planar creatures, however, they have been done to death. 

Pirates are cool, as are Cthulhu elements, something more specific like the Yellow Sign. Like a more cool version of Freeport trilogy. 

Vampires are cool, too, especially if you can put a unique twist on them. Lyncathropes are cool also.

Here are some weird ideas I gleaned from the thread**:

* An "ancient good", a "new evil"
* Planar Pirates. Could we have planar ninjas, too?
* Reoccurring "good-guy"

** only try these if you can pull it off


----------



## RangerWickett

Thank you for mentioning the 'three clue rule,' which led me to track down this interesting post: The Alexandrian - Misc Creations


----------



## ssampier

That was it; thanks RangerWickett.


----------



## Rechan

As far as the future APs go:

I think a Tier-based AP would be a great thing. Either a different story for each tier, or one that builds upon the last. It also offers a bit of finality/climax if you stop after the first tier - as some people don't _want_ to play a higher tier. 

An alternative would be an AP with 3 separate stories going on. Story A, story B, and story C. These stories are not really related to one another (r are only loosely connected, perhaps sometimes by coincidence alone). And so, the AP consists of following these 3 stories separately. So you'd have Adventure: Story A, then Adventure: Story B, then Adventure: Story C, then Story C, then A, then B, then... Or at least, in each adventure there may be a subplot relating to one of the others, but it is one where multiple things are going on. 

Also, for villains? What I would genuinely like to see is a BBEG who is a nobody, and becomes the BBEG due to meeting the PCs and the players _screwing him over_ or otherwise making _him_ hate _them_. For instance he's a nameless ally or enemy lackey in the first battle of the module, and he is somehow crippled by an explosion/something falling on him. So he has a vendetta. Motivation on both sides is so much better when it's personal. And when the players realize WHO is gunning for them, and why, it will be a golden moment.  

My ideas:

[sblock=#1 Poison Glamour and Cold Iron]One thing about 4e I think that has not been utilized fully is the Feywild. Wolfgang Baur did a great job with it, but otherwise I think that it's not all that fleshed out, and nothing has truly _used_ its potential. 

So a story where the PCs delve into it, and into faerie politics would be engrossing. Or perhaps just exploring it, the dark corners. 

Perhaps the PCs need to court multiple factions. Deciding WHO to ally with (and how to ally with them) would effect how the other groups react to you. If you have become the Herald to the Parliament of the Emerald Frond, The Coral Estuary shall greet you with held tridents. 

And to contest with faeries is an entirely different ballgame - instead of battling one noble fey in combat, you need to best him at musical performance.[/sblock]

[sblock=#2 Changing Ages]I want to tell you a little bit about Exalted. There is a large central government, ran by a powerful theocracy and people who have innate magical power. These people have influence in all corners of teh world. And they hunt down characters who manifest true power. There are also various dangers to the existence of the world - dream-sucking entities of Chaos (the Fair Folk), and undead Warlords, ghosts of the most powerful beings in the world ages past. 

Now, I'm not saying ripping this off completely. But I think that it's a very good starting point. Why? PC classes are Special. They are treated differently. So, build that into the game. Those with PC classes are inherently special, therefore hunted.

Heroic Tier: The PCs are hunted by the Big Government. Their goal is to basically _survive_; lay low, engage in local adventures, get competent, find out what it means to be a member of this Hunted Group. 
Paragon Tier: Build a nation. A safe place for people like them to come, to be protected. The PCs start cleaning house, knocking over despots and gaining allies. 
Epic Tier: Take them all on. Take on the Big Government and smash it to the ground. Take on the Big Threats that threaten the world and drive a stake through their heart.

The point being that the PCs are agents of change. That they _can_ change things. And thus, they should.[/sblock]

Other thoughts:

I would like to see something that begins with the PCs in Jail, and initially on the Run. Possibly as political prisoners, or framed, and thus part of it is trying to clear their names, or overthrow the government that put them in there in the first place. The first adventure I can see where the goal is to escape, and there are multiple avenues the PCs could take, while dealing with gangs and other Prison Pecking Order issues.

Or even a _city based_ AP.


----------



## Jhaelen

Rechan said:


> What I would genuinely like to see is a BBEG who is a nobody, and becomes the BBEG due to meeting the PCs and the players _screwing him over_ or otherwise making _him_ hate _them_.



As in The Incredibles?


----------



## Rechan

Jhaelen said:


> As in The Incredibles?



Same idea but something a little more serious.

Another way to make this villain more than your typical villain is through giving the players something to care about, then _threatening it_. Rise of the Runelords did this with Sandpoint. You have the PCs get attached to something/someone - and then the villain seeks to destroy the things the PCs hold dear before coming after them. 

Now, this is tricky because it's a _module_, so you need to set it up with enough flexibility to account for any type of PC, and multiple choices on the players part. But if you can do it at the beginning of WotBS ("All PCs start sympathetic to the Resistance") then you can do it with a little engineering on the module's part.


----------



## Rechan

I guess I'm a little late to the party.


----------



## Odysseus

I'm a little late. But my interest would be for either.
1. A city based campaign, then actualy all took place in the city(1st to 30th ) 
    Harry Dresden never leaves chicago. The bad guys come to him. Plus a        city based campaign gives you options for rival Parties/gangs/fractions etc

2. Some sort of mobile base of operations. This could be a ship with a time bandits /pirates campaign, or just some teleporting castle. But some way for the BOE to move to the adventure.

Also if your like me and have players who like using the character builder. Houserules / additional setting rules become a hindrance. The CB is not houserule or 3rd party friendly. So a steampunk campaign becomes very unappetizing.


----------



## RangerWickett

Actually, I've been thinking on that last concern: the character builder. 

The trick is to come up with character options that have minimal impact. It's easy enough to add a couple new powers here and there, some new magic items, but it's hard to swap class options. 

For a steam/industrial-revolution campaign, I figure we'd do themes, a la Dark Sun. Those are easy enough to just make our own pdf so if you want to print them out it's a cinch.

The hardest thing is firearms if we wanted them. I figure the work-around would be, like, just use the stats of longbows for muskets, shortbows for carbines, hand crossbows for pistols. Greatbows would be those rare sniper rifles. (Crossbows and superior crossbows, with their 'load minor,' are kinda sub-par.)

Making character powers, feats, and so on fit a unique setting is mostly just a matter of reskinning.


----------



## Phaezen

RangerWickett said:


> The hardest thing is firearms if we wanted them. I figure the work-around would be, like, just use the stats of longbows for muskets, shortbows for carbines, hand crossbows for pistols. Greatbows would be those rare sniper rifles. (Crossbows and superior crossbows, with their 'load minor,' are kinda sub-par.)




Most probably the easiest way to go about things is to have firearms use the stats for bows or crossbows, add a brutal 1 or 2  or high crit to make them a little more deadly.   You could also add load minor for the slower weapons.


----------



## RangerWickett

Phaezen said:


> Most probably the easiest way to go about things is to have firearms use the stats for bows or crossbows, add a brutal 1 or 2  or high crit to make them a little more deadly.   You could also add load minor for the slower weapons.




Oh, there are lots of ways to design firearms, but not a lot of ways that are consistent with the character builder. I don't have any clear sense on how acceptable it would be to players to have to scribble notes onto every power card: enter crossbow in the CB, then add brutal 2 in pencil.

Alternately, we could go _really_ weird, and make guns as 'magic items,' which have a rechargeable power. Expend it as a free action when using a ranged attack, and it deals X instead of Y damage. Recharging requires Z actions. But that meshes very poorly with multi-attack powers.


----------



## Morrus

I never really liked the tendency to try to make guns more deadly than crossbows and the like. Frankly, getting shot in the face by either is going to ruin your day!

I honestly would simply rename the bows and leave it at that. Don't worry about changing the mechanics in any way.  D&D isn't exactly a simulation, anyway; just a thematic tweak is more than enough.


----------



## Rechan

Well honestly, if they're going to have the stats of existing weapons, what's the point of having them?


----------



## Morrus

Rechan said:


> Well honestly, if they're going to have the stats of existing weapons, what's the point of having them?




Like character names and NPC descriptions - it's flavour.

We haven't decided to use them yet, but the reasoning is flavour.


----------



## Odysseus

RangerWickett said:


> Actually, I've been thinking on that last concern: the character builder.
> 
> The trick is to come up with character options that have minimal impact. It's easy enough to add a couple new powers here and there, some new magic items, but it's hard to swap class options.




Or you could support Hero lab. Create your own data sets for the campaign. And not have to think about the charcater builder. I know my group would switch over to Hero Lab, if there were Data sets for things like WotBS.


----------



## renau1g

No, please don't make the vast majority of players have to buy an additional character builder program. 

I like the thematics of guns in the setting, but keeping the stats the same.


----------



## Morrus

renau1g said:


> No, please don't make the vast majority of players have to buy an additional character builder program.




Don't worry, we're fully cognizant of the role that the CB plays in 4E games.  We won't do anthing that's gonna guarantee commercial suicide.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

RangerWickett said:


> The hardest thing is firearms if we wanted them. I figure the work-around would be, like, just use the stats of longbows for muskets, shortbows for carbines, hand crossbows for pistols. Greatbows would be those rare sniper rifles. (Crossbows and superior crossbows, with their 'load minor,' are kinda sub-par.)




Are we talking early fire-arms, share the battle-field with swords, sabres, and pikes and made pre-industrialized factory standards.....? If so:

  I think a reskin of the crossbows would work with a few tweaks:
   Guns attack FORT instead of AC, crit on a 19 or 20 and are vicious weapons.


   I hear ya saying "_doesn't he mean REF?_"  Nope. THat was my initial thought but then I thought that old-days gun fire is more about getting hit where it hurts than it is just getting hit. We aren't talking state of the art rifled weapons here, but smooth-bore black powder weapons firing sub-sonic, clunky projectiles that tear chunks of flesh out of the target.
  As to the accuracy thing, I think a _negative_ proficiency modifier would be appropriate to apply to black-powder smooth-bores.
  And while we are at it, critical fumble with a black-powder should have consequences.

 End result: relatively cheap weapons that are 'magic' without actually being {and costing} that +1 bonus cost. They are significantly different from cross-bows and only take a couple pencil marks on the power cards to use.
  As they retain the 'load minor', Bows are still viable and can be more lethal in trained hands. The Gun, however, is the great equalizer as a common peasant can take out an armored knight with one.


Of course.. if you are talking post industrialized, rifled, shaped bullets, etc... thats a different story. But not by much. 
  I think I would stick to using the Crossbow as the base, add a third range increment, remove any negative proficiency modifiers, and remove the critical fumble option. Still crit on 19 to 20 and viscious.

 Cause the thing with bullets is that some will simply rip right through soft tissue and cause minimal damage.. while another will richochet off a bone and take a destructive trip through the targets vitals...


But I agree with Morrus.. bullets really are not any more, or less, deadly than a crossbow bolt... just different.....
   ...  at least until you start getting into the age of precision turned steel and cartridges.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant

*Disregard, I posted in the wrong place. Sorry!*


----------



## RangerWickett

You probably shouldn't design weapons that target a specific defense. If a seeker wants to snipe with a musket, his powers are (supposedly) balanced partially by what defenses they target.

But ultimately, guns are a minor issue. I'd like a setting where some folks use firearms, but not at the exclusion of most of the traditional fantasy tropes people tend to like in their games.


----------



## KidSnide

RangerWickett said:


> But ultimately, guns are a minor issue. I'd like a setting where some folks use firearms, but not at the exclusion of most of the traditional fantasy tropes people tend to like in their games.




I've played with a lot of D&D gun rules.  IME, there are two contradictory goals:

1) You want guns (particularly in the hands of PCs) to work in as standard a way as possible.  That keeps the fantasy focus, lets you use standard char gen tools and maintains the balance between gun-using and traditional characters.

2) You want guns (particularly in the hands of NPCs) to have a big bang but take a long time to reload.  That provides a nice "gun feel" and lets your PCs have appropriate tactics, like charging the enemy while they are trying to reload.

The seperation between PC and NPC stats in 4e makes this easier to accomplish.

-KS


----------



## pneumatik

I hate guns in my DnD. They snap my disbelief suspenders too much. They make the setting less fantastic, which makes it harder to accept the actual fantastical stuff.

If they're just reskinned mundane weapons can PCs use them in place of those weapons? If so I think the weapons start to feel too modern with their high accuracy and rates of fire. If PCs won't build characters who use them then use gunpowder in some way to make more interesting enemies to fight and don't worry about PCs using guns.

My 2 cents.


----------

