# CURSE OF STRAHD: Here's The Official Announcement & Cover Image!



## TerraDave (Jan 18, 2016)

Sounds a lot like the original.

But it may not be. (Except that it is totally demi-PLANAR). 

Lets see. You get sucked in at a low level. Eva gives you some early adventures (using a randomization mechanic similar to the original), then you take on the main Vampire. That would be different. 

Also seems like you work for Strahd first? I have done something like this in a past campaign--set in Transylvania! But they where powerful were-wolves. The party had already beat Strahd. 

Curious about the video game tie-in.


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Jan 18, 2016)

The image just made me hit the pre-order on Amazon!  Love that cover!


----------



## lyle.spade (Jan 18, 2016)

Anyone see a page count in any of that?


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Jan 18, 2016)

Its $49.95, so I imagine about the same page count as Out of the Abyss.

Wow, that cover is stunning, this may make me a believer of the Ravenloft setting, looking forward to seeing what they do to it for 5e and how its linked to Forgotten Realms. Being a fan of tarot decks, I admit I will be buying this GF9 Tarroka deck.


----------



## lyle.spade (Jan 18, 2016)

chibi graz'zt said:


> Its $49.95, so I imagine about the same page count as Out of the Abyss.
> 
> Wow, that cover is stunning, this may make me a believer of the Ravenloft setting, looking forward to seeing what they do to it for 5e and how its linked to Forgotten Realms. Being a fan of tarot decks, I admit I will be buying this GF9 Tarroka deck.




That's my thought, as well. The two Dragons books were only 8 levels each, and a little under 100 pages, and they're $30. Perhaps this will include more fluff and world-related material so flesh out things? And the cover does look nice.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Jan 18, 2016)

Yup, awesome, love it. Random adventuring and replayability through the Tarroka deck...

I wonder if they will give at least cursory nods to the other domains and Dark Lords. Either way I'm excited!


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 18, 2016)

> *Heroes from the Forgotten Realms and other D&D worlds can easily be drawn into Strahd’s cursed land. Once there, they must contend with the horrors of Barovia.* Its people are melancholy, misshapen and grotesque, living in fear of the wolves and other creatures that serve Strahd’s evil will. The only hope for the trapped adventurers is to heed the warnings of a mysterious fortune-teller named Madam Eva. Drawing random cards from her tarroka deck, she directs adventurers to search Strahd’s domain for artifacts and allies to help the master of Castle Ravenloft.




Called. 

No "Barovia in the Sword Coast" no "Manshoon", no "Inspired by", nothing. Real. Damn. Ravenloft. Demiplane. In the Mists. Proper Strahd. Proper Eva. Proper Barovia. 

Why was this so hard for people to grasp?


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 18, 2016)

lyle.spade said:


> Anyone see a page count in any of that?



224 pages. 32 less than OotA and PotA. 

Anyway, so Strahd has a mullet now?


----------



## Klaudius Rex (Jan 18, 2016)

Love the artwork!

By far, the best offical picture of Strahd that ive seen so far. Makes him look handsome, genteel, and lordly, which creates mystery...not like some stereypical raging vampire or cliche Dracula clone.

Very nicely done.

Whelp, time to head on over to Amazon and preorder this sucker!
(hehe...get it? sucker?)


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Jan 18, 2016)

I don't think its hard to grasp, Wizards has repeatedly said that their official setting is the Multiverse, this adventure heralds a gradual introduction to that statement. Im excited that other planes are being opened up officially, but still linked to their launch setting.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 18, 2016)

I think it was expected, but it is interesting that the adventure is for levels 1-10.  I assume you face Strahd in the end, but maybe not.  I would have like to see him in the high teens or maybe even lvl 20, but with the PCs only hitting level 10  I guess that is not to be.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 18, 2016)

Io9 has their preview material up.http://io9.gizmodo.com/ravenloft-returns-in-the-new-dungeons-dragons-module-1753575391

As does Geek and Sundry
http://geekandsundry.com/the-next-dd-release-will-get-your-blood-pumping/


----------



## falcarrion (Jan 18, 2016)

I have the original. And I loved the maps. I curious to see if the maps will be just as good


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jan 18, 2016)

lyle.spade said:


> Anyone see a page count in any of that?



The Amazon listing says 224 pages, but the interview with Perkins says it will be more than 250 pages.  I wonder which is correct; Amazon has been wrong before.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 18, 2016)

I still don't see anything in this release that says we'll be seeing any actual Ravenloft setting material.  
We've seen Castle Ravenloft published on five separate occasions, and only /one/ of those has any link to the Ravenloft setting, let alone the logo on the cover.

In the run-up to D&D5, Mearls stated that they were considering renaming the Shadowfell "Ravenloft."  All you need to cover the "demiplanar" points made in this release is the core-setting Shadowfell fluff described in D&D4 (and D&D5, for that matter).  If all you care about seeing from the Ravenloft setting are the Mists, Barovia, Strahd, and Eva, you won't be disappointed.  If you're hoping to cross the border into Borca -- forgive me -- you are s**t out of luck.

I am sure the book will have a page in the back that talks about the relationship of the module to the AD&D2 setting material.  But do not expect more than that.  Man, I am not trying to rain on anybody's parade!  I just hate to see people angry and disappointed when it is so easily avoided!

That aside, I really hope "material from the original Ravenloft adventure" is limited to maps.  There is no justifiable reason to rehash the same plot for a fourth time and sell it for $50 when I can get two older and easily convertible versions of the same story online for less than $20 total.  It's Strahd that will sell copies, not the encounters or events.  Do something new with him, for gods' sake!


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 18, 2016)

Remathilis said:


> Called.
> 
> No "Barovia in the Sword Coast" no "Manshoon", no "Inspired by", nothing. Real. Damn. Ravenloft. Demiplane. In the Mists. Proper Strahd. Proper Eva. Proper Barovia.
> 
> Why was this so hard for people to grasp?




Tough to say if they'll incorporate any of the material from the stuff beyond I6, though. On the one hand, Hickman doesn't like the setting. On the other hand, they _are_ using the classic Tarokka deck.


----------



## Raunalyn (Jan 18, 2016)

The cover art is spectacular!


----------



## JTorres (Jan 18, 2016)

Per the Geek and Sundry interview linked by Von Ether:

Chris Perkins: "What we’ve done in Curse of Strahd is given you a bigger sandbox. The land of Barovia is more detailed than it has been previously, and there are more cool places to go and more cool people to meet, and a mechanism to guide you."

Music to my ears!  I was hoping for a supplement that was similar in structure to Lost Mines and Princes.


----------



## doctheweasel (Jan 18, 2016)

goldomark said:


> 224 pages. 32 less than OotA and PotA.




The Polygon article linked in the article stated (emphasis mine):
"This new version of the story will be *more than 250 pages long*, and include everything Dungeon Masters will need to get their players situated in the kingdom of Barovia."


----------



## JTorres (Jan 18, 2016)

I hope Barovia will be added to the DM Guild; there's plenty of material to convert and/or expand upon.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 18, 2016)

Von Ether said:


> Io9 has their preview material up.http://io9.gizmodo.com/ravenloft-returns-in-the-new-dungeons-dragons-module-1753575391
> 
> As does Geek and Sundry
> http://geekandsundry.com/the-next-dd-release-will-get-your-blood-pumping/




Were my links not good enough?


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 18, 2016)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Tough to say if they'll incorporate any of the material from the stuff beyond I6, though. On the one hand, Hickman doesn't like the setting. On the other hand, they _are_ using the classic Tarokka deck.




I had an inkling that we wouldn't see much beyond Barovia's borders. Perhaps if this sells well, we'll see additional info and expanded domains. That said, its looking like it might be truer to the 2e cannon than Expedition was (oy!), but that remains to be seen how true.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 18, 2016)

Chris Perkins just said: "Curse of Strahd is 256 pages. Same size as OOTA and POTA."


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 18, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Chris Perkins just said: "Curse of Strahd is 256 pages. Same size as OOTA and POTA."




Thanks for the update!


----------



## TailleferTheWise (Jan 18, 2016)

falcarrion said:


> I have the original. And I loved the maps. I curious to see if the maps will be just as good




Mike Schley hinted on his twitter account that he is doing the maps for this book, so I bet they'll be phenomenal as always.

https://twitter.com/schley/status/688736565066117120


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 18, 2016)

JTorres said:


> Per the Geek and Sundry interview linked by Von Ether:
> 
> Chris Perkins: "What we’ve done in Curse of Strahd is given you a bigger sandbox. The land of Barovia is more detailed than it has been previously, and there are more cool places to go and more cool people to meet, and a mechanism to guide you."
> 
> Music to my ears!  I was hoping for a supplement that was similar in structure to Lost Mines and Princes.




Yes, to those upthread, its not just the castle. 

Again, part of the reason for this is to have more adventure. It is supposed to start at 1-3 and then go up to 10. Again, I assume the later part is more focused on the castle.

This doesn't mean its a "setting". It might have more on adventuring on the demi-plane. For that we have to see.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> I think it was expected, but it is interesting that the adventure is for levels 1-10.  I assume you face Strahd in the end, but maybe not.  I would have like to see him in the high teens or maybe even lvl 20, but with the PCs only hitting level 10  I guess that is not to be.




I imagine it will be more about finding out about him and exploiting his weaknesses rather than just a brute force run of the mill battle.

That the adventure tops out at level 10 is encouraging to me. Ravenloft shouldn't be focused on hacking and slashing.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 18, 2016)

Glad to hear about more sandbox material.  Have been rooting for that since Tyranny.


----------



## shager (Jan 18, 2016)

I am floored with excitement for this one......My formative D&D days were second edition, and Ravenloft was always the setting my friends and I favored. I'm very much liking the concept of making Barovia into it's own mini-setting (an idea I had toyed with myself if the time ever came to make my own conversion). The covers and art are top notch here.......hats off to the D&D team for doing this, this is exactly what I've been waiting for, and I suspect others share that sentiment.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 18, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Were my links not good enough?




Sorry. 

Maybe we posted at the same time? That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Reality be darned.

I swear I didn't see the goodies below.


----------



## Nemio (Jan 18, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Chris Perkins just said: "Curse of Strahd is 256 pages. Same size as OOTA and POTA."




Yet those go from lvl 1 to 15  
5 less levels here.  

Could be a good thing.  
More details?
Less fighting?


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 18, 2016)

ad_hoc said:


> I imagine it will be more about finding out about him and exploiting his weaknesses rather than just a brute force run of the mill battle.
> 
> That the adventure tops out at level 10 is encouraging to me. Ravenloft shouldn't be focused on hacking and slashing.




Agreed, but I would really like to see an adventure where the end game is not killing the enemy.  In this case, I would like Strahd to be too powerful for a lvl 10 party.  Thus the goal is to solve some issue, gather an artifact, what have you, and then escape from, not kill, Strahd.  If the party want to come back later and finish the job - well that's another adventure!


----------



## Charles Rampant (Jan 18, 2016)

Presumably we can expect the book to be about 20 pages of NPC and monster stats (Strahd probably getting his own one, as the Vampire statblock is kind of dull for a major named villain), 30ish pages on the Castle itself (the same length as the I6 module) and the other 200 pages will be story outline, other locations, plot points, etc.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> Agreed, but I would really like to see an adventure where the end game is not killing the enemy.  In this case, I would like Strahd to be too powerful for a lvl 10 party.  Thus the goal is to solve some issue, gather an artifact, what have you, and then escape from, not kill, Strahd.  If the party want to come back later and finish the job - well that's another adventure!




Then why take issue with it only going up to level 10?

This is exactly what it seems to encourage.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jan 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> I think it was expected, but it is interesting that the adventure is for levels 1-10.  I assume you face Strahd in the end, but maybe not.  I would have like to see him in the high teens or maybe even lvl 20, but with the PCs only hitting level 10  I guess that is not to be.



It's also worth noting that the original module was intended for a party of levels 5-7, and that was in 1st edition.  

Of course, in 5e the basic vampire is a Challenge 13 monster, and I assume Strahd will be a bit tougher than that.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 18, 2016)

I'm hoping we get to see the rest of the 2nd edition campaign setting come back in some form.  

But I don't think anywhere in these descriptions is it mentioning it being on a demiplane, or in Shadowfell or anything like that.


----------



## Cody C. Lewis (Jan 18, 2016)

One small comment:

I hope GF9 gets their act together and releases the DM screen on time this round. Rage of Demons was like 3 months after it dropped.


----------



## neobolts (Jan 18, 2016)

The cover art is excellent. 

Hoping there is a new twist (for example: Strahd is dying, finding a way to escape, or maybe forced to work for Strahd). I heard the original was punishing and a no-win scenario as written.


----------



## spectacle (Jan 18, 2016)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I'm hoping we get to see the rest of the 2nd edition campaign setting come back in some form.
> 
> But I don't think anywhere in these descriptions is it mentioning it being on a demiplane, or in Shadowfell or anything like that.




It could be that the exact location of Barovia is left ambiguous by the module. Traditionalists will place it in Ravenloft, other DMs will put it somewhere in their homebrew world, while the Adventurer's League will place it in a quite corner near the Moonsea, etc.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 18, 2016)

ad_hoc said:


> Then why take issue with it only going up to level 10?
> 
> This is exactly what it seems to encourage.




The issue is that I don't think they will do what I want.  They will take you to level 10 and have you fight a level 13/14/15 Strahd.  Maybe I am wrong and the end game is not killing of Strahd - I hope I am.

I would like to see a level 10 party be challenged with a level 18/19/20 Strahd.  A challenge they can't yet defeat.  I realize this seems very similar to the previous AP (at least in terms of fighting the end villain), but those had ways to bring the villain down to your level so to speak.  I don't want the PC's to fight a nerfed Strahd - I want them to feel they must escape or perish.


----------



## Weird Dave (Jan 18, 2016)

I'm almost more excited for the quick line about the Adventurers League tie-in scenarios:

Fans of the Dungeons & Dragons® Roleplaying Game can have additional adventures in Ravenloft by participating in the D&D Adventurers League™ organized play program.

Perhaps the AL scenarios dive into other realms outside of Barovia? I'm sure someone knows, and I'm sure they're not telling just yet!


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> The issue is that I don't think they will do what I want.  They will take you to level 10 and have you fight a level 13/14/15 Strahd.  Maybe I am wrong and the end game is not killing of Strahd - I hope I am.
> 
> I would like to see a level 10 party be challenged with a level 18/19/20 Strahd.  A challenge they can't yet defeat.  I realize this seems very similar to the previous AP (at least in terms of fighting the end villain), but those had ways to bring the villain down to your level so to speak.  I don't want the PC's to fight a nerfed Strahd - I want them to feel they must escape or perish.




Why does ending at level 10 make you believe that the goal is to fight Strahd where if it ended at level 15 or 20 you would think it wasn't about fighting Strahd?

That doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 18, 2016)

doctheweasel said:


> The Polygon article linked in the article stated (emphasis mine):
> "This new version of the story will be *more than 250 pages long*, and include everything Dungeon Masters will need to get their players situated in the kingdom of Barovia."



Seems Amazon's page was mistaken or it was given innaccurate info.


----------



## neobolts (Jan 18, 2016)

spectacle said:


> It could be that the exact location of Barovia is left ambiguous by the module. Traditionalists will place it in Ravenloft, other DMs will put it somewhere in their homebrew world, while the Adventurer's League will place it in a quite corner near the Moonsea, etc.




From the io9 article:
"Curse of Strahd will find adventurers drawn into the magical mists that transport people to the nightmarish land of Borovia, the domain of the Vampire Lord Strahd von Zarovich"

I definitely take that to mean you start in your setting of choice and then get spirited away to Barovia.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 18, 2016)

Nothing outside of Barovia, but if I were going to re-launch an RL campaign setting, I'd *absolutely* focus on Barovia, for much of the same reason that 5e's FR releases have focused on the Sword Coast. The adventure is in the land of Barovia, not somewhere else, so it is in the RL setting, as much as any of the adventure paths have been in any setting. And it is gothic in tone, which indicates it has an RL setting vibe to it - it's likely not going to be "A party of tieflings, dragonborn, and half-orcs smash up Castle Ravenloft, kill Strahd, and take his stuff." 

I think for me a big questionable factor is if it allows for/encourages/offers options for Barovia-native characters. Playing heroes born under Strahd's reign who know of the often deadly fortunes of the Vistani will offer a very different vibe from heroes whisked away from the road near Neverwinter whose main interest is in getting back. If there's some rules help for doing the former (It doesn't need much...perhaps some Barovia-specific factions or subclasses?), we'd have all I really need in an RL reboot.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 18, 2016)

ad_hoc said:


> Why does ending at level 10 make you believe that the goal is to fight Strahd where if it ended at level 15 or 20 you would think it wasn't about fighting Strahd?
> 
> That doesn't make sense to me.




Fear need not make sense!  

It is the other way around.  I assume the goal is to fight Strahd (it was in the original and each 5e AP so far that was an option at the end), so I fear it is a less powerful or nerfed Strahd that will be fought.  I don't think increasing the level changes the outcome, I think it would be WotC goal regardless, it just changes the CR of the end game threat.

To be clear, I think this is what WotC is doing, not what has to be done.  I would like a 1-10 AP with a CR 19/20 threat that can't be fought without a 99% chance of a TPK.  The goal is something different because you can't kill Strahd.  Of course you could have a different goal and still possess the ability to kill Strahd, I guess I prefer the more blunt and punishing choice.


----------



## Mirtek (Jan 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> I think it was expected, but it is interesting that the adventure is for levels 1-10.  I assume you face Strahd in the end, but maybe not.  I would have like to see him in the high teens or maybe even lvl 20, but with the PCs only hitting level 10  I guess that is not to be.



I don't think he ever was that tough. Given how 5e is stating deities, demigods and archfiends, anything beyond 15 would be too high for him in this edition


----------



## Jester David (Jan 18, 2016)

I'm excited. And worried. Ravenloft is my favourite setting. Curiosity over the setting helped get me interested in D&D. The Ravenloft Red Box was the fourth D&D product I ever bought.
As much as I enjoy the adventure, it has a lot of problems and is really just a giant dungeon crawl. First and foremost I love the world and what as built upon the adventure.

It's a different look for Strahd. Okay, it works. It keeps the pendant and black cloak and the red vest adds a splash of colour. He still has longer hair, but it's not quite so Louis de Pointe as in 3e.

I'm a little worried about the plot. 
I have Castle Ravenloft. And the campaign setting retelling House of Strahd. And the 3e mini-campaign Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. (There's also the board game, Silver Anniversary reprint, and video game.) Do we need it again? A re-re-retelling. Does it need a bunch of filler at the start designed to get people from level 1 to level 5 where they can actually begin the true adventure?
I hope they'll surprise us and Strahd's schemes will be grander and different, the climax more than just roaming through the castle hunting Strahd. Acknowledging that the first adventure happened, Strahd survived, and his ambitions now are beyond seeking the reincarnation of his lost love. 
(That said, one improvement would be a complete overhaul of the castle to make it designed like an actual castle, with a logical layout. The original really doesn't seem like the place a vampire has lived in for 300 years, and is somewhat of a nightmare to navigate.)

It's neat that they brought in Hickman, a nice nod like involving Ed Greenwood on Realms changes. But… part of me also remembers Hickman has a so-so hit:miss ratio and was not a fan of the setting. It sounds like they're going with his ideas for expanding Barovia and the countryside. But… the Ravenloft campaign setting already did that over multiple products with the licensed 3rd Party Gazetteer I being an excellent compilation with 30 pages on the nation of Barovia. I'll be really upset if they just dump that content, jettison the entire established campaign setting. 
I can't imagine the reaction from fans if they did that to the Realms or Eberron. If they didn't just nuke the Realms but erased everything following the Grey Box from canon...

But we'll see. Maybe they'll expand on the Barovia of the campaign setting and give us a twist on the Strahd story. I could be concerned for nothing...


----------



## variant (Jan 18, 2016)

Finally, an adventure I may actually pick up. I wonder if we will get some player options to go along with it.


----------



## pukunui (Jan 18, 2016)

I thought Barovia was a duchy. When did it become a full-blown kingdom?

Also, it looks like this time the storyline and main adventure have the same title. That could potentially get a little confusing.


----------



## Grognak (Jan 18, 2016)

Is this the first 5e supplement besides the core books that is written by actual WOTC employees in-house?


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jan 18, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'm a little worried about the plot.
> I have Castle Ravenloft. And the campaign setting retelling House of Strahd. And the 3e mini-campaign Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. (There's also the board game, Silver Anniversary reprint, and video game.) Do we need it again? A re-re-retelling. Does it need a bunch of filler at the start designed to get people from level 1 to level 5 where they can actually begin the true adventure?




Well, while I have had all prior incarnations of Ravenloft and Strahd's appearances in the past, I don't have any of them now, and know that pretty much none of my players (even the old vets) played Ravenloft in the past, so a new book on the subject...even if it's a retelling...has a lot to offer the contemporary crowd. Ironically I have only ever used Strahd and Barovia in my own games, and never run any of the modules "as-is." So even for me this will be "new."



> But… the Ravenloft campaign setting already did that over multiple products with the licensed 3rd Party Gazetteer I being an excellent compilation with 30 pages on the nation of Barovia. I'll be really upset if they just dump that content, jettison the entire established campaign setting.
> I can't imagine the reaction from fans if they did that to the Realms or Eberron. If they didn't just nuke the Realms but erased everything following the Grey Box from canon...
> 
> But we'll see. Maybe they'll expand on the Barovia of the campaign setting and give us a twist on the Strahd story. I could be concerned for nothing...




I think the White Wolf content for Ravenloft was incredibly elaborate and also not half as useable as I would have liked it. This is likely just my own preferences, but most of what WW did for Ravenloft when they had it was taking 300 pages of content and seeing how they could expand on it into 3,000 pages of additional content that was soundly milked for cash at the expense of useful product. So my hope is that the new book is very efficient at presenting Barovia as a useful domain, one which is easy to use in play, and to stay away from dozens of pages of elaborate background detail that is incredibly difficult to expose in actual play. (Yes, I am a fan of Domains of Dread and other editions of Ravenloft which provided very concise, easy gazetteers with lots of room for DM interpretation and expansion).


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 18, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> Nothing outside of Barovia, but if I were going to re-launch an RL campaign setting, I'd *absolutely* focus on Barovia, for much of the same reason that 5e's FR releases have focused on the Sword Coast. The adventure is in the land of Barovia, not somewhere else, so it is in the RL setting, as much as any of the adventure paths have been in any setting. And it is gothic in tone, which indicates it has an RL setting vibe to it - it's likely not going to be "A party of tieflings, dragonborn, and half-orcs smash up Castle Ravenloft, kill Strahd, and take his stuff."
> 
> I think for me a big questionable factor is if it allows for/encourages/offers options for Barovia-native characters. Playing heroes born under Strahd's reign who know of the often deadly fortunes of the Vistani will offer a very different vibe from heroes whisked away from the road near Neverwinter whose main interest is in getting back. If there's some rules help for doing the former (It doesn't need much...perhaps some Barovia-specific factions or subclasses?), we'd have all I really need in an RL reboot.



http://dndadventurersleague.org/moonsea-mists/


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jan 18, 2016)

pukunui said:


> I thought Barovia was a duchy. When did it become a full-blown kingdom?
> 
> Also, it looks like this time the storyline and main adventure have the same title. That could potentially get a little confusing.




Strahd was a count so Barovia was a county/barony of its original material realm; however, in Ravenloft it is a region in the Balinok Mountains. My guess is that a current version of Barovia will parallel the timeline advancement for the Forgotten Realms, so enough time has passed for the domain to grow, expand and become more elaborate....and for Strahd's relationship with the dark powers of the mists to have changed. If Barovia is still properly part of the greater demiplane of dread then he could have conquered and expanded his territory into neighboring domains, something which happened often in the 2E version of Ravenloft.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 18, 2016)

pukunui said:


> I thought Barovia was a duchy. When did it become a full-blown kingdom?
> 
> Also, it looks like this time the storyline and main adventure have the same title. That could potentially get a little confusing.



Right around the time Strahd stopped having a king to report to.


----------



## Faenor (Jan 18, 2016)

Is that Julia Roberts's brother?


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 18, 2016)

Mirtek said:


> I don't think he ever was that tough. Given how 5e is stating deities, demigods and archfiends, anything beyond 15 would be too high for him in this edition




Yes, but as he is "the" vampire in D&D he should be more than the run-of-the-mill vampire to me.  I think bumping him up 1 or 2 CR is not enough IMO.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Jan 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> Yes, but as he is "the" vampire in D&D he should be more than the run-of-the-mill vampire to me.  I think bumping him up 1 or 1 CR is not enough IMO.



I think making him basically just a vampire spellcaster as presented in the Monster Manual is about the right place to put him considering his original write-up... but then, I'm all for the practice of considering the "run of the mill vampire" as being vampire spawn and the vampire stats (with or without the warrior or spellcaster add-ons) being reserved for special vampires.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jan 18, 2016)

Remathilis said:


> http://dndadventurersleague.org/moonsea-mists/



The most interesting bit on this page as far as I'm concerned is the confirmation that Ravenloft exists as a demiplane and traps characters inside itself: 

"since your characters will be visiting the pleasant confines of Barovia, once you start playing a character in this series, you cannot play a non-season 4 adventure until you find a way out of the demiplane."

Edit: Of course, the above is consistent with the mention of Ravenloft in the Dungeon Master's Guide, on page 51.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 18, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I think making him basically just a vampire spellcaster as presented in the Monster Manual is about the right place to put him considering his original write-up... but then, I'm all for the practice of considering the "run of the mill vampire" as being vampire spawn and the vampire stats (with or without the warrior or spellcaster add-ons) being reserved for special vampires.




How about a spellcaster and warrior add_ons?  Then i could get on board with that


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Jan 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> How about a spellcaster and warrior add_ons?  Then i could get on board with that



Eh... I guess that wouldn't be completely terrible, but I think it is unnecessary and falls into the same (in my opinion flawed) logic that a character being important, like the main protagonist of a novel, inherently translates to the character being higher level (as if only the paradoxically unnamed examples of a creature or class could be represented by the standard stats presented).


----------



## Agamon (Jan 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> Fear need not make sense!
> 
> It is the other way around.  I assume the goal is to fight Strahd (it was in the original and each 5e AP so far that was an option at the end), so I fear it is a less powerful or nerfed Strahd that will be fought.  I don't think increasing the level changes the outcome, I think it would be WotC goal regardless, it just changes the CR of the end game threat.
> 
> To be clear, I think this is what WotC is doing, not what has to be done.  I would like a 1-10 AP with a CR 19/20 threat that can't be fought without a 99% chance of a TPK.  The goal is something different because you can't kill Strahd.  Of course you could have a different goal and still possess the ability to kill Strahd, I guess I prefer the more blunt and punishing choice.




In the original, you searched for a couple mcguffins (Holy Symbol and Sunsword) in order to have a chance to defeat Strahd.  My guess is this may be replicated, while he'll be a tough fight normally, there will be items to be found that make the encounter easier.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 18, 2016)

Agamon said:


> In the original, you searched for a couple mcguffins (Holy Symbol and Sunsword) in order to have a chance to defeat Strahd.  My guess is this may be replicated, while he'll be a tough fight normally, there will be items to be found that make the encounter easier.




Yep, that is what I am afraid of.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jan 18, 2016)

Remathilis said:


> Called.
> 
> No "Barovia in the Sword Coast" no "Manshoon", no "Inspired by", nothing. Real. Damn. Ravenloft. Demiplane. In the Mists. Proper Strahd. Proper Eva. Proper Barovia.
> 
> Why was this so hard for people to grasp?




That's cool.

It's not hard to _grasp_, but it is a change in direction from the last year. They have said more than once that everything was going to be about Forgotten Realms for a while. Now, it's possibl that they were tricky with it and said, "linked" to the Forgotten Realms. I can't recall the precise wording of every statement they made.

They've also had the designers saying they'd like to get to other settings, but that can easily be attributed to simply what they _want_ to get to, not that they will get to anything soon.

The hints that something non-Forgotten Realms was coming up were the most tenuous and weakest bits of info we have received, compared to the more concrete "all Forgotten Realms, all the time, through at least 2017 to 2018" types of statements and the obviously personally biased "we really want to get to these other worlds at some point!" types of statements.

The issue is that they've been sending clearly mixed messages.

And I'm very glad they've chosen to go with real Ravenloft, but it was most definitely _not_ the way to bet if you were a betting man/woman. (There was a good chance of it after the leak last week, but there was still a good chance it wouldn't deliver full-on Ravenloft setting material.)


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 18, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Eh... I guess that wouldn't be completely terrible, but I think it is unnecessary and falls into the same (in my opinion flawed) logic that a character being important, like the main protagonist of a novel, inherently translates to the character being higher level (as if only the paradoxically unnamed examples of a creature or class could be represented by the standard stats presented).




That's a good point, and I almost fell into the same trap when I updated Cyan Bloodbane.  However, Strahd just feels different to me.  I think he should by a cut above.  Not to mention the HP in stat blocks is the average for a reason   It also doesn't help that the MM vampire is fairly weak for its CR.  Sly Flourish did a good redesign of the MM vampire that was actually CR 13 and it was pretty good.  If they do something like that it might work.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 18, 2016)

Hmmm.... maybe I'll be buying some 5e material afterall.  Out of the Abyss was good enough I nearly picked it up just in case I wanted to run an underdark campaign.  If Curse of Strahd is of similar quality and a lot less like prior Return to Castle Ravenloft crap, I'll probably get it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 18, 2016)

If the lands of Barovia are being expanded, I wonder if they did a complete reboot or if they are using a lot of the landmarks that have been introduced to the valley previously?  Things like Lysaga Hill from _Expedition to Castle Ravenloft_, or the town of Vallaki and the Monastery of the White Sun that Claudio Pozas introduced in the _Fair Barovia_ module for 4E?

Ironically, for the past six months or so I'd actually been gathering various horror and gothic modules together from various sources to place within the Balinok Mountain valley in order to create a larger Barovian campaign (with Castle Ravenloft being the capstone.)  So the fact that this book is basically going to duplicate that might make things even easier for me.  But I probably will still look through a lot of my 4E modules I own that could be inserted into the larger _Curse of Strahd_ setting.  Some of them include:

The Haunting of Kincep Mansion [Dungeon 156]
The Crossroads [Dungeon 176]
Lord of the White Field [Dungeon 184]
Bark At The Moon [Dungeon 185]
Mistwatch [Dungeon 186]
Leader of the Pack [Dungeon 194]
A Knight In Shadowghast Manor [Dungeon 197]
Fair Barovia [Dungeon 207]
Fall of the Grey Veil [Dungeon 211]
A Rhyme Gone Wrong [Dungeon 217]

There's also several monsters that had been created for the Monster-A-Day blog posted over on Reddit that had the same sort of horror feel that could be incorporated into the landscape.  There was a Evil Doll, a Masked Killer, a Headless Horseman, and several other types of new undead.

Needless to say, having this new book to use as the spine of the campaign rather than me trying to jerry-rig one together from all of these disparate parts will hopefully make things work and feel much more organic.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 18, 2016)

I did not own "Return", but it seems to get a lot of flak...what was the issue with it?


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jan 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> Yep, that is what I am afraid of.




Me too.  It would be like interrupting the ritual at the end of Rise of Tiamat and facing her when she wasn't even at full strength. 

 Intelligently planning out a way to gain advantages over an enemy or exploiting an enemy's weaknesses instead of charging in like a superhero is just playing the game _wrong_.


----------



## Valmarius (Jan 18, 2016)

Here's the announcement from GF9 about the cards.

http://www.gf9-dnd.com/Home/tabid/56/entryid/253/return-to-ravenloft.aspx

Not much new info here, and no release date yet. But they shouldn't be far off.


----------



## lyle.spade (Jan 18, 2016)

lyle.spade said:


> Anyone see a page count in any of that?




Found an answer: according to the Polygon article it'll be 250+ pages.


----------



## darjr (Jan 18, 2016)

Rounded corners ftw


----------



## Morrus (Jan 18, 2016)

lyle.spade said:


> Found an answer: according to the Polygon article it'll be 250+ pages.




Chris Perkins says in the OP that it's 256 pages.


----------



## lyle.spade (Jan 18, 2016)

Thank you, sir. If it's 10 levels of story plus setting fluff, that'd make for a hefty amount of extra information. I have to admit that, despite having played DnD since the 1978 Blue Box, which I proudly still own, I have never played nor do I own the original Ravenloft modules. I'm looking forward to this.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Jan 18, 2016)

Very exciting! They even got the original authors involved. I am thinking the reason it is the same size as the other adventures but only lasts ten levels is because the adventure will likely have more sidequests, or it will function similar to a campaign setting by giving the DM a lot of space to write their own adventures using the book.


----------



## Barantor (Jan 19, 2016)

This is the first adventure I'm actually excited for because it isn't directly linked to FR.

Might have to preorder!


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 19, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> Nothing outside of Barovia, but if I were going to re-launch an RL campaign setting, I'd *absolutely* focus on Barovia, for much of the same reason that 5e's FR releases have focused on the Sword Coast.




What are there reasons?


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jan 19, 2016)

Interesting that WotC waited until now to announce this.  It looks like they are only announcing products 2 or so months in advance of the release date, which is definitely a change from previous editions.  Personally I'd prefer a bit of a longer lead-in (say 3-4 months), but WotC are obviously taking a different path with their marketing of 5E products.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 19, 2016)

camazotz said:


> Well, while I have had all prior incarnations of Ravenloft and Strahd's appearances in the past, I don't have any of them now, and know that pretty much none of my players (even the old vets) played Ravenloft in the past, so a new book on the subject...even if it's a retelling...has a lot to offer the contemporary crowd. Ironically I have only ever used Strahd and Barovia in my own games, and never run any of the modules "as-is." So even for me this will be "new."



They're available on D&D Classics - including _Expedition to Castle Ravenloft_ and used book stores carry I6 or the Silver Anniversary reprint for reasonable prices. They're not hard to get ahold of. We don't need a full reprint for something we can update outself. 



camazotz said:


> I think the White Wolf content for Ravenloft was incredibly elaborate and also not half as useable as I would have liked it. This is likely just my own preferences, but most of what WW did for Ravenloft when they had it was taking 300 pages of content and seeing how they could expand on it into 3,000 pages of additional content that was soundly milked for cash at the expense of useful product. So my hope is that the new book is very efficient at presenting Barovia as a useful domain, one which is easy to use in play, and to stay away from dozens of pages of elaborate background detail that is incredibly difficult to expose in actual play. (Yes, I am a fan of Domains of Dread and other editions of Ravenloft which provided very concise, easy gazetteers with lots of room for DM interpretation and expansion).



It was only published by White Wolf (under their Swords & Sorcery line). The first few years of products were written by the "Kargatane", the fans who ran the Secrets of the Kargatane Ravenloft website. It was really a labour of love.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 19, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> It was only published by White Wolf (under their Swords & Sorcery line). The first few years of products were written by the "Kargatane", the fans who ran the Secrets of the Kargatane Ravenloft website. It was really a labour of love.




Not quite. WW had some of the Kargatane folks work on the line, but they were largely written by professional, freelance writers. The Kargatane/fan-written stuff and the WW Ravenloft stuff were separate projects.


----------



## pukunui (Jan 19, 2016)

Valmarius said:


> Here's the announcement from GF9 about the cards.
> 
> http://www.gf9-dnd.com/Home/tabid/56/entryid/253/return-to-ravenloft.aspx



"Includes 54 Tarokka cards, as well as _Prophet’s Gambit_, a card game for 3-5 players."

That's pretty cool. Makes it so the cards are useful outside of the adventure.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jan 19, 2016)

I love the art an the deck. I like the ravenloft atmosphere, but not the old 2e mechanics - it was too much of a jar, suddenly half your spells didn't work (detection spells) and summoning spells backfired, curses couldnt be removed, and all sorts of other bad sh*t. As a PC you felt very nerfed. I am very curious about how that aspect will work with the high level of magic in 5e classes.... I don't think it will work well to take an established party from FR and stick them in Ravenloft. It's too... railroad, for my tastes. 

On the other hand, a campaign specifically set in Barovia - with PCs made for it - could be very awesome indeed. But I think that would need special rules such as: human only, low magic, horror/madness rules, and so on.


----------



## halfling rogue (Jan 19, 2016)

From the Geek & Sundry interview:



> “The message behind Ravenloft is very important to us,” said Tracy.
> 
> “It’s a cautionary tale. As we both think all good vampire stories would be,” added Laura.
> 
> ...




I like this. The Hickmans are spot on in their assessment. The culmination is found in Twilight, but the modern idea that vampires are just misunderstood, or worthy of redemption, or are some kind of super human whose abilities we mere mortals ought to be desirous of, is flat out antithetical to what the vampire is and what it represents. Plus, all of those tropes have been played out (and it didn't take very long for it to happen...which is likely why zombies have cropped up as our newest favorite cultural undead) and I think a vampire in its traditional understanding is in need of a comeback.


----------



## turkeygiant (Jan 19, 2016)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I'm hoping we get to see the rest of the 2nd edition campaign setting come back in some form.
> 
> But I don't think anywhere in these descriptions is it mentioning it being on a demiplane, or in Shadowfell or anything like that.




Barovia has actually already been very briefly described in 5e, on pg. 51 of the DMG it is described as being a prison domain within the Shadowfell, so it does already have a "canon" location in the cosmology.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 19, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> Not quite. WW had some of the Kargatane folks work on the line, but they were largely written by professional, freelance writers. The Kargatane/fan-written stuff and the WW Ravenloft stuff were separate projects.




Check the credits. 
The Kargatane were Andrew Cermak, John W. Mangrum, Ryan Naylor, Chris Nichols, Stuart Turner and Andrew Wyatt. Cermak, Mangrum, and Wyatt wrote the 3e campaign setting. With Naylor and Nichols also contributing to the first couple Gazetteers and Van Richten's Arsenal. 
While the studio eventually brought in other freelancers and writers, at the start it was all Kargatane. And several continued to work on the Gazetteer line until the end.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 19, 2016)

Olaf the Stout said:


> Interesting that WotC waited until now to announce this.  It looks like they are only announcing products 2 or so months in advance of the release date, which is definitely a change from previous editions.  Personally I'd prefer a bit of a longer lead-in (say 3-4 months), but WotC are obviously taking a different path with their marketing of 5E products.




I think that's the "We know for sure it's gonna hit the shelves on that date." Or it could be that some marketing data shows that many ADD gamers cool to the release or get distracted by shinies by 4 months time.


----------



## Barantor (Jan 19, 2016)

turkeygiant said:


> Barovia has actually already been very briefly described in 5e, on pg. 51 of the DMG it is described as being a prison domain within the Shadowfell, so it does already have a "canon" location in the cosmology.




It is also mentioned with Stradh on pg. 296 of the Monster Manual.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 19, 2016)

The info about this release of raven loft has made me much more interested in it than before, the setting not bring my thing. And the anti sparkly vampire idea should be thoroughly supported. Also please don't make the other faction werewolves, how gauche


----------



## Knight_Marshal (Jan 19, 2016)

Psikerlord# said:


> On the other hand, a campaign specifically set in Barovia - with PCs made for it - could be very awesome indeed. But I think that would need special rules such as: human only, low magic, horror/madness rules, and so on.




Not really looking forward to everyone at the table somehow being an anti-undead cleric, paladin, ranger or warlock by some freakin mystical coincidence. Just like every on at the table now was magically set up to fight demons in the underdark, almost like their characters had divine insight into them being in the Underdark with lots of demons to fight. Except for my character who would have been perfect for Ravenloft.

I guess my Ravenloft character will have to be different as were the rest of my characters in the previous seasons.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 19, 2016)

Knight_Marshal said:


> Not really looking forward to everyone at the table somehow being an anti-undead cleric, paladin, ranger or warlock by some freakin mystical coincidence. Just like every on at the table now was magically set up to fight demons in the underdark, almost like their characters had divine insight into them being in the Underdark with lots of demons to fight. Except for my character who would have been perfect for Ravenloft.
> 
> I guess my Ravenloft character will have to be different as were the rest of my characters in the previous seasons.




Sounds like a player problem rather than a game or adventure one.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 19, 2016)

ad_hoc said:


> Sounds like a player problem rather than a game or adventure one.



it comes down to the old question... Can you metagame character creation?


----------



## MechaPilot (Jan 19, 2016)

Nemio said:


> Yet those go from lvl 1 to 15
> 5 less levels here.
> 
> Could be a good thing.
> ...




If they are doing the product well, the loss of the five levels could be due to devoting a certain amount of space to discussing the finer points of running a horror fantasy adventure versus a normal fantasy adventure.  Presumably, this product is for all DMs to use and not just those who already have a background in horror gaming, therefore I would expect at least some discussion about horror tropes and creating the right atmosphere (and that inevitably means cutting out other material).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 19, 2016)

GMforPowergamers said:


> it comes down to the old question... Can you metagame character creation?




Yes. That's not even a question.

Now, whether or not you _should_, that I'd accept as a question.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Jan 19, 2016)

Nah, metagaming isn't inherently a thing (people make it a thing, and insist upon it being done in order to pretend that they are avoiding doing it in the first place) - there is just playing the game in good faith, and playing not in good faith (usually called cheating). Everything people refer to as metagaming is actually either perfectly acceptable "just playing the game", or is outright cheating.

Making a character and choosing the options that will be most useful in the type of campaign that character ends up being played in? That's just playing the game - since a brand new player with zero clue about how to play the game could build the very same character for the very same campaign, it would actually be metagaming if you insisted that an experienced and knowledgeable player couldn't make that character for that campaign (since that would be forcing the player to use their knowledge as a player to decide the course of their character, even though the character could have differing knowledge that would indicate a different course being taken).


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Jan 19, 2016)

I’m excited to see that Chris Perkins has co-written this adventure.  He’s written some awesome ones in the past, so I have high hopes for this.


----------



## turkeygiant (Jan 19, 2016)

Knight_Marshal said:


> Not really looking forward to everyone at the table somehow being an anti-undead cleric, paladin, ranger or warlock by some freakin mystical coincidence. Just like every on at the table now was magically set up to fight demons in the underdark, almost like their characters had divine insight into them being in the Underdark with lots of demons to fight. Except for my character who would have been perfect for Ravenloft.
> 
> I guess my Ravenloft character will have to be different as were the rest of my characters in the previous seasons.




This is much more difficult to do in 5e, by design they left out the fiend and undead type weaknesses. There are also far fewer spells and class abilities that specifically target them. I dont think you can make a anti-undead build that is substatially more effective against undead over any other mob.


----------



## pukunui (Jan 19, 2016)

Now we just need to figure out how WizKids' "Monster Menagerie" miniatures set fits in with this. I wonder if that was a working title and we'll see that it's actually been renamed to "Curse of Strahd" when we start seeing previews for the set. I suppose it's also possible that the set goes with some other product, like a second Monster Manual ...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 19, 2016)

pukunui said:


> I suppose it's also possible that the set goes with some other product, like a second Monster Manual ...




We can only, _desperately_ hope so. _I NEED MORE MONSTERS!_


----------



## pukunui (Jan 19, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> We can only, _desperately_ hope so. _I NEED MORE MONSTERS!_



I'm looking forward to that case incentive treant.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 19, 2016)

pukunui said:


> Now we just need to figure out how WizKids' "Monster Menagerie" miniatures set fits in with this. I wonder if that was a working title and we'll see that it's actually been renamed to "Curse of Strahd" when we start seeing previews for the set. I suppose it's also possible that the set goes with some other product, like a second Monster Manual ...




That's an interesting theory on a potential Monster Manual 2. And, given the full name "Icons of the Realms: Monster Menagerie", I doubt it would be renamed. It would be very nice to see more of the D&D IP monsters updated to 5e, especially more mid-to-high level monsters, as well as groups underrepresented in the original MM (Celestials, I'm looking at you).


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 19, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> We can only, _desperately_ hope so. _I NEED MORE MONSTERS!_




Do you have  FGG Fifth Edition Foes? Not perfect but great stuff, none the less


----------



## Arnwolf (Jan 19, 2016)

I am not a fan of the 5E magic system, but it is perfect for Ravenloft.  Looking forward to this product.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 19, 2016)

Sqn Cdr Flashheart said:


> Do you have  FGG Fifth Edition Foes? Not perfect but great stuff, none the less




Yep. And backed Tome of Beasts as well. _MORE!!_


----------



## Tyranthraxus (Jan 19, 2016)

Am looking forward to this and having a 'smaller environment' . Barovia was simply a small Valley within the Balinok Mountains. It had a small village named Barovia and Castle Ravenloft. That was effectively 'it'. (it had some minor forests and the like)

Im extremely happy that we have a 1-10 range here. I ran Ravenloft for 4 years under the 2e rules and I can say as soon as my group started to hit level 13 and beyond I found it very hard to really threaten them. They had grown beyond the power of some of the Darklords (and as it happened managed to kill Vlad Drakov). Level 10 for me isnt too hight, but its still a very solid level of power.

EDIT: Id also like to point out that as Darklords go, Count Strahd von Zarovich was not the most powerful statistically. In fact in his first appearance in I6, he had 10 HD and 55hp. However its never been about raw stats when it comes to Darklords.. its the power granted to his AS a Darklord that made him so tough.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 19, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> Yep. And backed Tome of Beasts as well. _MORE!!_




Me too! MOAR! MOAR!


----------



## Nemio (Jan 19, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> If they are doing the product well, the loss of the five levels could be due to devoting a certain amount of space to discussing the finer points of running a horror fantasy adventure versus a normal fantasy adventure.  Presumably, this product is for all DMs to use and not just those who already have a background in horror gaming, therefore I would expect at least some discussion about horror tropes and creating the right atmosphere (and that inevitably means cutting out other material).




That could be it.
It's something I would be very interested in as a new DM


----------



## WhiskyJack (Jan 19, 2016)

I like the re-vamp.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 19, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> They're available on D&D Classics - including _Expedition to Castle Ravenloft_ and used book stores carry I6 or the Silver Anniversary reprint for reasonable prices. They're not hard to get ahold of. We don't need a full reprint for something we can update outself.




Perhaps *you* don't need a full reprint, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't, and clearly it is more than that anyway as it has 8x the pages to fill!


----------



## turtle77 (Jan 19, 2016)

*More art*

icv2.com/articles/news/view/33495/d-d-curse-strahd
There is a bigger cover featured over there along with some new art.
View attachment 73397
View attachment 73398


----------



## turtle77 (Jan 19, 2016)

View attachment 73399

and another one ov the cover without the cropping


----------



## GarrettKP (Jan 19, 2016)

As someone who loves 5e and never got to play the older modules I cannot wait for this. Give me more of these updated classics and I'll be happy.


----------



## ZeshinX (Jan 19, 2016)

Well...as a personal nitpick can't say I'm all that pleased to see how much the Curse of Strahd banner looks like a Magic the Gathering expansion title.  They might as well have called it Curse of Innistrahd.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 19, 2016)

ZeshinX said:


> ...called it Curse of Innistrahd.




Heh... I never put 2 and 2 together on that before.  Good show!


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 19, 2016)

ZeshinX said:


> Well...as a personal nitpick can't say I'm all that pleased to see how much the Curse of Strahd banner looks like a Magic the Gathering expansion title.  They might as well have called it Curse of Innistrahd.



Curses over InniStrahd to be correct. 

That said, between CoS in March and Shadows over Innistrad in April, WotC is over-rustling my Gothic horror jimmies. My poor paychecks this Spring...


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 19, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> If they are doing the product well, the loss of the five levels could be due to devoting a certain amount of space to discussing the finer points of running a horror fantasy adventure versus a normal fantasy adventure.  Presumably, this product is for all DMs to use and not just those who already have a background in horror gaming, therefore I would expect at least some discussion about horror tropes and creating the right atmosphere (and that inevitably means cutting out other material).




My guess is more logistical.

There's, in theory, 54 results from the random card draws. The results you don't use THIS time have to go somewhere in the page count.

That's the price for the enhanced replayability with the same group compared to most modules where you pretty much need a new crew before you can play them again.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 19, 2016)

goldomark said:


> What are there reasons?



Instead of multiple half-assed Domains of Dread with limited ability to travel between them, I'd rather see a full-assed Barovia.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 19, 2016)

turtle77 said:


> View attachment 73399
> 
> and another one ov the cover without the cropping



That picture makes it looks like Strahd has gone full Gambit.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 19, 2016)

Never go full Gambit.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 19, 2016)

Staffan said:


> Instead of multiple half-assed Domains of Dread with limited ability to travel between them, I'd rather see a full-assed Barovia.




The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide was half-assed even if it only focused on the SC. Even if they only focus on Barovia they still can half-ass it.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 19, 2016)

goldomark said:


> 224 pages. 32 less than OotA and PotA.
> 
> Anyway, so Strahd has a mullet now?



Do not care. It is pre-ordered because it supports a setting other than the Realms.



Remathilis said:


> No "Barovia in the Sword Coast" no "Manshoon", no "Inspired by", nothing. Real. Damn. Ravenloft. Demiplane. In the Mists. Proper Strahd. Proper Eva. Proper Barovia.



This gives me so much hope. My group will not be done by PotA by then, but I don't care. I'm getting this book.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 19, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> Never go full Gambit.



Someone forgot to tell Channing Tatum that.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 19, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> Perhaps *you* don't need a full reprint, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't, and clearly it is more than that anyway as it has 8x the pages to fill!



We had that with Expedition, which was 5x the size of I6 at 160 pages.
That extra content could be neat. But that could also be filler. 

I don't have a fundamental problem with a 1-10 campaign centred on Strahd. Or even one that climaxes in his death after a dungeon crawl. 
I just don't want that dungeon crawl to be note-for-note identical. The climax shouldn't be 20 pages of near identical content. That's been done. That's *effortless* to convert on the fly. And a direct update only appeals to people who don't have or haven't run one of the top 5 adventures of all time. But a variant appeals to experienced and uninitiated Ravenloft delvers. 

Anyone who wants to run the original should just get the original. You can get a PDF the original and have it printed and bound for pretty cheap.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 19, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> Never go full Gambit.



Boo!!!

- Remathilis


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 19, 2016)

I would venture a guess that 'Curse of Strahd' will be a reprint of the 'Castle Ravenloft' module just as much as 'Princes of the Apocalypse' was a reprint of the 'Temple of Elemental Evil' module.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 19, 2016)

goldomark said:


> The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide was half-assed even if it only focused on the SC. Even if they only focus on Barovia they still can half-ass it.




There's no "only" about the Sword Coast. The region covered in the SCAG is about 1200 x 600 miles - that's like one third the size of the USA. Barovia, at least in the original module (and Expedition) is like two miles across.


----------



## darjr (Jan 19, 2016)

256 pages.


----------



## Benji (Jan 19, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> Someone forgot to tell Channing Tatum that.




I still don't understand why they've let him do it. At some point somebody in the movie buisiness has to realise that Josh Harnett IS GAMBIT and has lived his entire life in full gambit mode without shame.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 19, 2016)

Staffan said:


> There's no "only" about the Sword Coast. The region covered in the SCAG is about 1200 x 600 miles - that's like one third the size of the USA. Barovia, at least in the original module (and Expedition) is like two miles across.



Pedantic:  The USA is 3.80 million sq. mi., so 720,000 sq. mi. (which is 1200 x 600) is a little less than than one-fifth.  The lower 48 is still 3.12 million square miles, which would still be less than a quarter.  You are entirely correct, of course, about the greater point that the Sword Coast region is orders of magnitude larger than Barovia.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 19, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> Pedantic:  The USA is 3.80 million sq. mi., so 720,000 sq. mi. (which is 1200 x 600) is a little less than than one-fifth.  The lower 48 is still 3.12 million square miles, which would still be less than a quarter.  You are entirely correct, of course, about the greater point that the Sword Coast region is orders of magnitude larger than Barovia.




You're right. I was eyeballing it on Google Maps, where 1200 miles is about the length of either coast (minus Florida) of the continental US, and 600 miles gets you a third to a quarter across. And I wasn't including Alaska.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2016)

Very happy to be wrong.  I was pretty sure they were going  to plunk this into the Sword Coast and they didn't.  Well done WotC.

Looking forward to seeing where else things are going to take us, now that the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak.


----------



## dead (Jan 20, 2016)

Does anyone roughly know what the Barovian Calendar date (BC) would be taking into consideration FR's 100-year time advance after the Spellplague?


----------



## psiconauta_retro (Jan 20, 2016)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I would venture a guess that 'Curse of Strahd' will be a reprint of the 'Castle Ravenloft' module just as much as 'Princes of the Apocalypse' was a reprint of the 'Temple of Elemental Evil' module.




THIS!!! (I wanted to give XP to this comment but didn't find out how to do it)


----------



## JohnnyZemo (Jan 20, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> We had that with Expedition, which was 5x the size of I6 at 160 pages.




Expedition is actually 224 pages. (I just checked.) I'm looking forward to Curse of Strahd, and I hope they manage to give everything a fresh spin.

I also hope that the next adventure is something totally new. As much as I like revisiting the classics, it's time for some new classics.


----------



## Shardstone (Jan 20, 2016)

Out of the Abyss was pretty new.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 20, 2016)

JohnnyZemo said:


> Expedition is actually 224 pages. (I just checked.) I'm looking forward to Curse of Strahd, and I hope they manage to give everything a fresh spin.
> 
> I also hope that the next adventure is something totally new. As much as I like revisiting the classics, it's time for some new classics.




I looked and looked for a page count but didn't feel like changing floors to check my copy. 160 was the only one I found but I thought it was small. 

I don't mind them alternating between old and new. That works. Every other adventure being something different


----------



## Jester David (Jan 20, 2016)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I would venture a guess that 'Curse of Strahd' will be a reprint of the 'Castle Ravenloft' module just as much as 'Princes of the Apocalypse' was a reprint of the 'Temple of Elemental Evil' module.




Yeah. Y'know if _Out of the Abyss_ had the same setting as _Temple of Elemental Evil_. And the temple was the same. And the end boss was the same. And their goal was the same. And if they just added a whole bunch of quests around Hommlet.

Okay, we don't know that's the route they're taking. They could surprise us and the adventure could be very, very different. Inspired and reimagined rather than just updated. But it might not.


----------



## delericho (Jan 20, 2016)

dead said:


> Does anyone roughly know what the Barovian Calendar date (BC) would be taking into consideration FR's 100-year time advance after the Spellplague?




Whatever they want it to be. Time doesn't necessarily pass the same way in all settings or on all planes. And it would be entirely appropriate for Ravenloft to be in a weird stasis where things don't really change, where time doesn't really pass, and so where a century on the Sword Coast is a day in Barovia.

Or, equally, not.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 20, 2016)

Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but in the 3.5 re-telling of Castlevania... er, Castle Ravenloft, there are other methods to weaken Strahd besides the iconic items.  I'd say starting him as beefy as possible and offering powered-down versions as the players find his weaknesses would be quite swell.


----------



## Mirtek (Jan 20, 2016)

delericho said:


> so where a century on the Sword Coast is a day in Baroviat



that would suck for all returners


----------



## delericho (Jan 20, 2016)

Mirtek said:


> that would suck for all returners




Maybe, but again not necessarily - it's _also_ possibly that the return journey also takes you back where you came from.

There's potentially an issue if you have some means of viewing one place from the other, or if you have a split party. But even that can be worked around - there's not even any reason to suppose that the mapping is the same all the time.

After all, a lot of it is controlled by the Powers. How likely are they to play fair?


----------



## Lily of the Valley (Jan 20, 2016)

How long do you guys think the PCs will stay on the Sword Coast before they enter Barovia? 

I'm thinking it could take up to the first three levels and that would be a deal breaker for me. The AP ends with the PCs at level 10 and I want more than seven of those levels to happen in Barovia. Ravenloft is at its best at low level.


----------



## GarrettKP (Jan 20, 2016)

I doubt that they would have anything more than a paragraph about the party entering the mist for the actual book. The AL adventure may have a level or two in the FR but for the hardcover I can't see them doing any non-Ravenloft levels.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 20, 2016)

More than a page. The PCs need to find/stumble on Madame Eva and must want to get their fortune read. Maybe the PCs get charged by the authorities to investigate the camp site of a band of wonderers. It is more likely that they start investigating vampiric activity or something related to Strahd's plot.


----------



## GarrettKP (Jan 20, 2016)

Who's to say they can't encounter Eva in Ravenloft? That's what I was expecting.


----------



## GarrettKP (Jan 20, 2016)

Wasn't she set in Ravenloft in the first place?


----------



## delericho (Jan 20, 2016)

goldomark said:


> More than a page. The PCs need to find/stumble on Madame Eva and must want to get their fortune read.




That's handled in about a page in I6. Any reason it should take longer this time?


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 20, 2016)

The comments about the level 1-3 material specifically call it out as being "in Barovia," so any non-Ravenloft frame material is likely minimal.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 20, 2016)

delericho said:


> That's handled in about a page in I6. Any reason it should take longer this time?




The RPG industry has changed since then? Better story telling techniques? Less railroading? Refreshing an adventure that has been done three times already?


----------



## delericho (Jan 20, 2016)

goldomark said:


> The RPG industry has changed since then? Better story telling techniques?




The RPG industry has indeed changed since then. But evidence of better story telling techniques is limited.



> Less railroading?




Unlikely. The premise of this adventure seems to be that the PCs are summoned from their home plane and whisked off to Barovia for the adventure. They're unlikely to get any more choice about it than the PCs at the start of "Out of the Abyss" got about starting as slaves of the drow.

(Whether "to play this adventure you must _go on the adventure_" counts as railroading is another debate, and one that I'd rather not get in to at this point.)



> Refreshing an adventure that has been done three times already?




Doing something different doesn't necessarily mean they need more pages.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Jan 20, 2016)

Lily of the Valley said:


> How long do you guys think the PCs will stay on the Sword Coast before they enter Barovia?



I'll actually be a bit surprised if the Sword Coast portion of the adventure is much longer than "You are traveling from Baldur's Gate in the direction of Neverwinter when a strange fog overtakes you."

However it happens to be written, that's about as long as the characters will be not in Barovia when I run the adventure.


----------



## delericho (Jan 20, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I'll actually be a bit surprised if the Sword Coast portion of the adventure is much longer than "You are traveling from Baldur's Gate in the direction of Neverwinter when a strange fog overtakes you."




Yep. That's pretty much what I'd expect - and expressed far more succinctly than I managed!


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 20, 2016)

delericho said:


> The RPG industry has indeed changed since then.



That is why I said it. Quality of adventures have also changed. For the better mostly. We are far from exploring rooms with random monsters of inappropriate levels. Plot is more important now and designers are people who actually play the game. 



> Unlikely. The premise of this adventure seems to be that the PCs are summoned from their home plane and whisked off to Barovia for the adventure. They're unlikely to get any more choice about it than the PCs at the start of "Out of the Abyss" got about starting as slaves of the drow.



Ashame. But even if it is railroading, it still can take a few pages or levels. 



> Doing something different doesn't necessarily mean they need more pages.



But it can also mean it needs more pages.


----------



## delericho (Jan 20, 2016)

goldomark said:


> That is why I said it. Quality of adventures have also changed. For the better mostly. We are far from exploring rooms with random monsters of inappropriate levels. Plot is more important now and designers are people who actually play the game.




To a large extent, it was actually I6 that saw the start of the move towards more plot-driven adventures.

Unfortunately, many of the modules that followed mistook "write an adventure" for "write a story". They're not the same thing.



> A shame. But even if it is railroading, it still can take a few pages or levels.




Funnily enough, one of those "better story telling techniques" you mentioned up-thread would be the scene-framing advice to arrive late and leave early - getting the PCs to the _start_ of the adventure is something that shouldn't be allowed to take any more time than it absolutely needs. Hell, they should treat it as backstory if they can get away with it.



> But it can also mean it needs more pages.




It might.


----------



## rookrock (Jan 20, 2016)

Just responding to the question of time passing. After a cursory glance around google and a few wiki's, it looks like time passes at the same pace in the Shadowfell as it does on the Prime Material Plane. This might not mean ALL of the Shadowfell, and so Barovia may be different, but I'm betting that, by the Barovian Calendar, the same amount of time will have passed.

Maybe.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 20, 2016)

rookrock said:


> Just responding to the question of time passing. After a cursory glance around google and a few wiki's, it looks like time passes at the same pace in the Shadowfell as it does on the Prime Material Plane. This might not mean ALL of the Shadowfell, and so Barovia may be different, but I'm betting that, by the Barovian Calendar, the same amount of time will have passed.
> 
> Maybe.



I think it will be addressed by ignoring it. Time between various settings are hard to gauge, and even if you used canon various events to set the date (Jandar, Hazlin, or Hiregaard's entrances) to forge a firm link between the two settings (FR's Calendar of Harptos and RL's Barovian calendar) ultimately it's a pointless endeavour as far as Wizards is concerned. I don't expect a year to appear because the Barovian year doesn't matter to FR and there is no RL continuity worth worrying about anymore. 

So make it any year you want in Barovia.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 20, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Plot is more important now and designers are people who actually play the game.



Are you actually arguing that people like Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Frank Mentzer, Dave Cook, etc. didn't play extensively back then?


----------



## ki11erDM (Jan 20, 2016)

Mirtek said:


> that would suck for all returners




Humm... OR maybe it is a perfect way to skip the whole spell spellplague!


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 20, 2016)

Nikosandros said:


> Are you actually arguing that people like Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Frank Mentzer, Dave Cook, etc. didn't play extensively back then?




A rather weak strawman.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 20, 2016)

goldomark said:


> A rather weak strawman.



A strawman? You were stating that designers now are people who actually play the game. This implies that it wasn't the case in the past and I disagree with this statement. I listed some people who are famous for writing old modules.

Note that I didn't argue your other point, since I agree that "modern" design cares far more about plot than older modules.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 20, 2016)

delericho said:


> To a large extent, it was actually I6 that saw the start of the move towards more plot-driven adventures.



Oh, I agree that it was an important module that did change the game for the better. It is a classic. As it aged well? That is less certain.



> Funnily enough, one of those "better story telling techniques" you mentioned up-thread would be the scene-framing advice to arrive late and leave early - getting the PCs to the _start_ of the adventure is something that shouldn't be allowed to take any more time than it absolutely needs. Hell, they should treat it as backstory if they can get away with it.



Your approach is a matter of taste. What they've actually did is another matter.



> It might.



Yup. I wouldn't be surprised if a few pages have been dedicated to having the PCs investigate or chasse after something that leads to Madame Eva. If only to avoid the intro to be too railroadie some found OotA to be. Enough pages to get the PCs pass level 1 while still in the FR? Very unlikely, but possible.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 20, 2016)

Nikosandros said:


> A strawman? You were stating that designers now are people who actually play the game. This implies that it wasn't the case in the past and I disagree with this statement.



Then you are wrong. There was a period of time when TSR hired some people who were able to produce 30 pages of text within a set deadline, but didn't really play the game. It lead to some classic bad modules. It doesn't all writers did that, but some. 

D&D has a fascinating history. Check it out.


----------



## delericho (Jan 20, 2016)

Nikosandros said:


> Are you actually arguing that people like Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Frank Mentzer, Dave Cook, etc. didn't play extensively back then?




_Those_ guys did, but there were quite a lot of designers in the 2nd Ed era who didn't. Indeed, I've heard reports that for some of the designers it was actually a point of pride that they _didn't_ play the game. Which sounds unbelievable, but there it is.


----------



## delericho (Jan 20, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Oh, I agree that it was an important module that did change the game for the better. It is a classic. As it aged well? That is less certain.




I ran through it a few years ago, and it seems to have aged reasonably well. It could have done so better, of course, but on the other hand I'm yet to see a better take on the material.



> Your approach is a matter of taste.




"Arrive late and leave early" actually isn't one of mine, though it is something I try to at least keep in mind.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 20, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Then you are wrong. There was a period of time when TSR hired some people who were able to produce 30 pages of text within a set deadline, but didn't really play the game. It lead to some classic bad modules. It doesn't all writers did that, but some.
> 
> D&D has a fascinating history. Check it out.



That's not at all what happened during the classic 1e era. I've heard of things like that during 2e, but that's when plot was already considered important in modules and that's why I thought you were referring to the earlier period.


----------



## jokersmile72 (Jan 20, 2016)

This will be great, getting to catch up with Strahd and having a more fleshed out region to explore.  Everyone has been clamoring for some Ravenloft, here you go, and with Hickman in the background.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 20, 2016)

Nikosandros said:


> That's not at all what happened during the classic 1e era.



Indeed. That was the time when they also worshipped You Know Who.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 20, 2016)

delericho said:


> I ran through it a few years ago, and it seems to have aged reasonably well. It could have done so better, of course, but on the other hand I'm yet to see a better take on the material.



Well, Ravenloft, House of Strahd and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, are rather the same material. Compering them to other material is another matter. 



> "Arrive late and leave early" actually isn't one of mine, though it is something I try to at least keep in mind.



Being rude is something I should keep in mind? How odd.


----------



## dead (Jan 21, 2016)

delericho said:


> Whatever they want it to be. Time doesn't necessarily pass the same way in all settings or on all planes. And it would be entirely appropriate for Ravenloft to be in a weird stasis where things don't really change, where time doesn't really pass, and so where a century on the Sword Coast is a day in Barovia.




The Ravenloft setting has had a metaplot like all the other campaign settings. The Grand Conjunction, the Grim Harvest, the imminent Time of Unparalleled Darkness. It would be nice to at least give a nod to all of that even if they want to return the setting to how it was (like they did with FR).

I found an excellent fan-made Ravenloft timeline online and they've put the dates as 1370 DR = 751 BC based on the Castle Spulzeer and Forgotten Terror cross-over adventures. That would make the Barovian year 870 BC if it is now 1489 DR in the Realms.

I wonder if the Time of Unparalleled Darkness has occurred (it was prophesied to take place on 775 BC). Maybe this event is RL's Spellplague/Sundering. There is upheaval and then all returns to how it was in the beginning…


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 21, 2016)

dead said:


> The Ravenloft setting has had a metaplot like all the other campaign settings. The Grand Conjunction, the Grim Harvest, the imminent Time of Unparalleled Darkness. It would be nice to at least give a nod to all of that even if they want to return the setting to how it was (like they did with FR).
> 
> I found an excellent fan-made Ravenloft timeline online and they've put the dates as 1370 DR = 751 BC based on the Castle Spulzeer and Forgotten Terror cross-over adventures. That would make the Barovian year 870 BC if it is now 1489 DR in the Realms.
> 
> I wonder if the Time of Unparalleled Darkness has occurred (it was prophesied to take place on 775 BC). Maybe this event is RL's Spellplague/Sundering. There is upheaval and then all returns to how it was in the beginning…



My point is that I don't think WotC is interested in the larger setting of RL, so I'm 90% sure they aren't going to address any of that. I'll be shocked if anything else besides Barovia is mentioned, aside from an easter egg or two.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 21, 2016)

Remathilis said:


> My point is that I don't think WotC is interested in the larger setting of RL, so I'm 90% sure they aren't going to address any of that. I'll be shocked if anything else besides Barovia is mentioned, aside from an easter egg or two.




But then again, maybe not. Since the adventure will have the same page count as the other APs, but unlike them only cover 10 levels instead of 15, that means there is plenty of room for other things to be in there. Obviously a lot of it will be stuff to build up the atmosphere and role-playing opportunities, as well as rules and suggestions for the DM on how to properly run the setting. But I could also see room for a page or two dedicated to an appendix giving a quick overview of the rest of the Domains. Not necessarily, but it could be done...


----------



## delericho (Jan 21, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Well, Ravenloft, House of Strahd and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, are rather the same material.




Yeah, but with two decades of experience between "I6 Ravenloft" and "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft", and if production values and story telling techniques had advanced so much, you'd think we'd see an improvement in how it is handled.



> Being rude is something I should keep in mind? How odd.




It's only advice to keep in mind in the specific context it's meant - specifically when framing a scene. It's not intended as a manta to live your life by!


----------



## delericho (Jan 21, 2016)

dead said:


> The Ravenloft setting has had a metaplot like all the other campaign settings.




Nitpick: _some_ of the other settings.



> The Grand Conjunction, the Grim Harvest, the imminent Time of Unparalleled Darkness. It would be nice to at least give a nod to all of that even if they want to return the setting to how it was (like they did with FR).




Sure, but that amounts to a few years of time in Ravenloft. There's nothing equivalent to the century-jump experienced by FR during the 3e -> 4e transition. So they could move the Barovian calendar forward 5 years and still recognise the RL metaplot; there's no need to move it forward the full century.


----------



## spectacle (Jan 21, 2016)

Barovia doesn't really seem like the kind of place that would change much in just a hundred years anyway. 
There is little in the way of outside influences and Strahd remains in charge, so there is no reason why anything would be significantly different. The innkeeper may be the great grandson of the one from I6, but the inn is the same.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 21, 2016)

delericho said:


> Yeah, but with two decades of experience between "I6 Ravenloft" and "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft", and if production values and story telling techniques had advanced so much, you'd think we'd see an improvement in how it is handled.



I agree. There certainly ain't any garanty of quality in adventures. Including the "new" Ravenloft one that is coming out in March. 



> It's only advice to keep in mind in the specific context it's meant - specifically when framing a scene. It's not intended as a manta to live your life by!



Yeah, I wouldn't want a ixitxachitl to live my life.


----------



## delericho (Jan 21, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't want a ixitxachitl to live my life.




Gah! Speling let me dowun.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 21, 2016)

delericho said:


> Gah! Speling let me dowun.




I was lucky to see it. English being a second language and all.


----------



## Bloodsausage (Jan 21, 2016)

You know, I've been wondering what Duncan Macleod has been doing since that last movie. Now I know.


----------



## KahlessNestor (Jan 21, 2016)

spectacle said:


> Barovia doesn't really seem like the kind of place that would change much in just a hundred years anyway.
> There is little in the way of outside influences and Strahd remains in charge, so there is no reason why anything would be significantly different. The innkeeper may be the great grandson of the one from I6, but the inn is the same.



I haven't run or played any Ravenloft,  but from the descriptions I've seen (the fact that it's a prison demiplane) they sound a bit...Sisyphian to me. It wouldn't surprise me if they're a bit of a less fun Groundhog Day. All fruitless striving for the thing the Dark Lord wants most, only to see it slip out of his fingers, doomed to start over again and again.


----------



## IgnatiusJ.Reilly (Jan 21, 2016)

Here's a podcast with Perkins and Hickman discussing Curse of Strahd a bit.


----------



## dead (Jan 21, 2016)

delericho said:


> Sure, but that amounts to a few years of time in Ravenloft. There's nothing equivalent to the century-jump experienced by FR during the 3e -> 4e transition. So they could move the Barovian calendar forward 5 years and still recognise the RL metaplot; there's no need to move it forward the full century.




Fair enough. I guess it could be explained as a temporal anomaly brewed up by the Dark Powers (or Strahd himself) to explain why the FR heroes go backwards in time.


----------



## rookrock (Jan 22, 2016)

During the podcast, Tracy off handedly talks about sheltered teenage girl Gertrude. For anyone familiar with I6, Gertruda (with an a) is described almost exactly this way, with other similarities. With this in mind, it might be that either A) this is a retelling of the classic with some new spins, B) Gertrude and Gertruda are relatives that both happen to fall victim to the lures of Strahd, or perhaps the just as likely C) they repeated the plot element without even realizing.

Or something.

Edit: So with regards to the time line it could be we're back at the beginning retconning everything, or we have time jumped like the FR. Or perhaps something else entirely.


----------



## Jabborwacky (Jan 22, 2016)

I love the fact they're bringing Ravenloft back into play, but I think I'll pass on the adventure league if its going to take fourteen adventures to reach 8th level. It sounds far too drawn out, to be honest.


----------



## gweinel (Jan 23, 2016)

Jabborwacky said:


> I love the fact they're bringing Ravenloft back into play, but I think I'll pass on the adventure league if its going to take fourteen adventures to reach 8th level. It sounds far too drawn out, to be honest.




On the other hand i like the slow pace and i think it is missing from the APs.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (Jan 23, 2016)

goldomark said:


> The RPG industry has changed since then? Better story telling techniques? Less railroading? Refreshing an adventure that has been done three times already?




Better story telling? You do realize that all the adventure books WoTC has released so far, (with the exception of the Starter Set adventure,) are based on old adventures from earlier editions right? Even Out of the Abyss has elements of Descent into the Depths of the Earth and Vault of the Drow.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 23, 2016)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> Better story telling? You do realize that all the adventure books WoTC has released so far, (with the exception of the Starter Set adventure,) are based on old adventures from earlier editions right? Even Out of the Abyss has elements of Descent into the Depths of the Earth and Vault of the Drow.




Yes, I do realize that. That doesn't contradict the fact that today's story telling methods are better than the old ones. That doesn't mean those methods will lead to better modules thought.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Jan 23, 2016)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> Better story telling? You do realize that all the adventure books WoTC has released so far, (with the exception of the Starter Set adventure,) are based on old adventures from earlier editions right? Even Out of the Abyss has elements of Descent into the Depths of the Earth and Vault of the Drow.




What is tyranny of dragons based on?


----------



## rookrock (Jan 23, 2016)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> Better story telling? You do realize that all the adventure books WoTC has released so far, (with the exception of the Starter Set adventure,) are based on old adventures from earlier editions right? Even Out of the Abyss has elements of Descent into the Depths of the Earth and Vault of the Drow.




"Based on" and "elements of" don't=bad story telling.

Just because one thing is inspired by another doesn't mean it is a carbon copy of that thing. Many suggested Tyranny if Dragons was a clone of the war if the Lance. This is clearly not true beyond the plot of "bad guys want to bring big big bad into the world", but that's a pretty generic plot.

Similarly Princes of the Apocalypse, though inspired heavily by Temple of Elemental Evil is not the same as. A modern retelling, perhaps, but it it's own story.

And Out of the Abyss is just a great adventure and store. I never played either of the modules you mentioned, so I can't speak to how heavily or lightly they borrowed material. But the fact that I didn't play those means that any tribute that OotA can offer is great. 

Curse of Strahd will likely have a lot of recycled material, but so will it be innovative in its own way. 

Again, I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest bad story telling on WotC's part


----------



## KahlessNestor (Jan 23, 2016)

And it was made pretty clear Out of the Abyss was inspired more by Alice in Wonderland than any previous D&D.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 24, 2016)

Yeah, I'm really not seeing the ToD - Dragonlance similarity. Dragons are in the name of the game.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 24, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I'm really not seeing the ToD - Dragonlance similarity. Dragons are in the name of the game.




In fact, they are pretty much the opposite, plot-wise, barring only their ultimate goal - to bring very similar five-headed draconic goddesses into the setting. But the plans and means attempting to do so are completely opposite: One is using huge, dragon-led armies to conquer most of the setting, while the other is using a secretive cult...


----------



## rookrock (Jan 24, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I'm really not seeing the ToD - Dragonlance similarity. Dragons are in the name of the game.




I think that the connection is the bring back of the 5 headed monster baddie into the world. But that's about it


----------



## Farenn (Jan 24, 2016)

I am really excited about this and will buy it for sure.  Actually I have been extremely happy with 5E Dungeons & Dragons in general.  Now if the good folks at Wizards of the Coast can just bring back Dragonlance I will be ecstatic.


----------



## Eltab (Jan 24, 2016)

I got interested enough to pull  out of my Public Library's storage.  (Mmm, the smell of 'old book', -sigh- )

I want to play a setting-specific character, not an FR traveler, given the campaign's background assumptions.  A Half-Vistani sounds interesting.
Can I craft single character who combines the Bluff enhancements (be a charlatan fortune-teller) and the Hypnotist skill (to help fix up my allies who get in over their heads) ?  I'd be a half-Vistani that people WANT to meet again.

Extra page count HAS to go to DM advice for Gothic Horror stories - especially since the universe of potential DMs includes people who saw _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ and _Twilight_ and the _Walking Dead_ TV series(es), and think THAT is "what undead villains are like".   None of those shows are going to help with this material.   Truly Yoda spoke, "You must un-learn what you have learned".  Likewise the modern Horror Movie conceit that "more goop and gore" = "scarier scene".   I hope there is some Recommended Reading / Viewing that includes Hitchcock's classic fright films.

_OotA_ covered Madness in about 1 - 2 pages; Ravenloft has to handle Fear and Horror also.  I can see where the end-campaign PC level max is not going to be as high as in prior APs; no room!  That will not be a bad thing if the material is rich and meaty and helps craft atmosphere.

If this AP is done well, an average-competent DM should be able to provide a game experience such that, if play ends and it is a foggy night outside, all the players hesitate before walking out the door, subconsciously thinking "I don't want to go out there..."


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (Jan 24, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Then you are wrong. There was a period of time when TSR hired some people who were able to produce 30 pages of text within a set deadline, but didn't really play the game. It lead to some classic bad modules. It doesn't all writers did that, but some.
> 
> D&D has a fascinating history. Check it out.




I've read so much on the history of the game, and this blows my mind. Then add what the next post originally states about how they considered this a point of pride!!!!
Now we see why TSR had so many problems.

So I'm going to take the high road, because looking at it from your point of view, I can see what your saying.

The story-telling has gotten better, but I also feel that it has because they have drawn a bit from the classic stories that made this game so great.


----------

