Café de Nuit

Yes, but I doubt the spirit makes it known that it's +30hp for 10 days and you're cursed for ever.

And flock of warlocks, as in it's a nice place to go, pray in a dark coffin, perhaps sleep in it, and wake up with a fiend patron.

As for light sensitivity: on the contrary, my characters were throwing daylight spells all over when fighting drow. It really helped. They would actually be annoyed if I didn't do it.


As for the lich: He knows the passwords? Is there any inkling whatsoever that the weird undead in the room should be... discussed with instead of dispatched? It sounds like an evil temple, PCs open a door... and find an undead there. I wouldn't expect anyone to try and set the lich right.

They're not that sort of sarcophagi. Picture an 8ft tall, 5ft wide, 5ft thick block of solid amber with an inches-long sliver of pure darkness at its heart, and you've got them.

Well, the flavor text says that the first thing that he does upon sighting the PC's is ask "Do I know you?" and notes that it only attacks if attacked first.

Still, it doesn't address why the PCs might be coaxed into helping it; personally, from the flavor text and notes, I'd portray him as doddering and clearly confused, but non-hostile, unless the PCs start swinging their swords first.

Also, the Lich assuming they're here for the knowledge and power isn't explicitly mentioned as something he does when his memory is restored. So, I'd have him launch into a spiel about the amber sarcophagi upon seeing the PCs, instructing them on how to use them, only to trail off as he recalls that there was something else, clearly fumbling to try and figure out what it is.

Honestly, though, the book doesn't really give the DM any tips on how/why the PCs should be coaxed into making nice to it. Beyond the unwritten inferral of "you're 9th-10th level, it's challenge rating 21, it's not hostile, do you really want to piss it off whilst it doesn't seem inclined to fireballing your ases?"

Hell_Born: Thank you for the review. I gotta say my interest has peaked even moreso since reading it. I'll hold my thoughts until I can properly feed them. March 28. Looks like I got my in-flight entertainment. I have yet to watch the new Star Wars in its entirety on those pissy little screens, but that can wait..

Very cool write up Hell Born. Thanks!

I can see that my prediction was correct; this is "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" for 5E. Not that there is anything wrong with that; I just figured this was not going to be a guide to the campaign setting as a whole.

Some interesting changes made. Not sure how I feel about Madame Eva; I liked her original portrayal and her bit of story with Jacqueline Montarri, etc.

Also the bit about Van Richten having a saber-toothed tiger made me raise my eyebrows. But I don't have the book yet, so I'll reserve judgement.

One thing I would suggest is alhoon, you made a comment about "reality wrinkles aren't cannon anymore." I wouldn't view anything in this module as "canon." Yes, technically it's an official product, but I personally see it as merely one adventure (or series of adventures). I mean, if you consider the number of things printed in 2E that are in books but have been decided as "non-canon" to the setting as a whole, it's easy to picture.

Hell_Born wrote:They're not that sort of sarcophagi.

Well... now they are.

Mortavius, when I'll play (parts) of this adventure, reality wrinkles will be there.

Mortavius wrote:Mortavius, when I'll play (parts) of this adventure, reality wrinkles will be there.

That's...what I'm saying. None of this is canon, just because it's published in a single adventure. If they made an actual campaign setting, and said reality wrinkles are no more, then I'd agree with you. Until then, I wouldn't regard anything in Curse of Strahd as canon.

Got mine today, but couldn't do more than to paw a bit through it yet. I've seen some nice bits (like all the souls being trapped in the domain rather than to be allowed to pass to the afterlife, with nasty consequences for resurrection magic), but also some bits that made me scratch my head (such as Strahd being depicted as a dark-grey vestige binder from the get-go, rather than the noble warlord who falls from grace over Tatyana).
It's probably best to treat it like Expedition to Castle Ravenloft for 3.5 - a rules update and possible adventure expansion of the classic module that doesn't particularly care about the campaign setting, but could yet be fitted in with some work and elbow grease.

Mortavius wrote: I've seen some nice bits (like all the souls being trapped in the domain rather than to be allowed to pass to the afterlife

Personally, I've always ruled this in my own games. It made sense for 3E for a few reasons. One, you could have Geists wherever you wanted them, or more powerful spirits. Secondly, it allowed those PCs who took the Ghostsight feat to really get some use out of it.

Hell_Born wrote:...the need for appeasing grognards...
Consequently, I probably have a much higher opinion on Curse of Strahd than many others will. Especially since I don't revere many of the setting's "sacred cows".

I haven't gotten much farther in the book yet, so I haven't read your review in full, but speaking as one of the "grognards" (but not presuming to speak for all of them), I think I've given up on the sacred cows. I recognize that it's highly unlikely at this point that the old setting will come back as we knew it, and I've made my peace with that. The old stuff still exists, and any new stuff that comes down the line can always be crammed in to fit. In our interview, Chris Perkins called this "a bloodstained love letter to the Hickmans," and that's what it seems to be, which is fine. It's not what I'd prefer to see, but I realize I'm a fading minority. It's still Ravenloft, and more Ravenloft-y than we've seen in years. The simple fact is, we grognards don't need to be appeased at all. And that's ok.

Truth be told, fellow Grognards, if it's a good adventure that's worth the money and it is good enough to open gothic horror themes in future D&D fan projects or official projects, I'm fine with it.
It's not the Strahd we know, he may be (IMO) more hollow, but if he works for the adventure that has lots of other gothic elements... so what? I am appeased.

Well said Gonzoron.

As to this canon talk I read in other posts...I think at this point it's fairly obvious that there is no canon Ravenloft. The setting is constantly changing (Misty Borders), the designers constantly being replaced (like ill-used henchmen), and "official support" seems to be of a transient nature (Monkey's Paw). How then can there actually be canon Ravenloft?

I personally think it's straight-up foolish to even consider the definitions of "canon" and "non canon" (terms created to separate/dog imaginative differences, not encourage) as appropriate in regards to the nature of this hobby.

IMO canon Ravenloft is table Ravenloft, but that answer is dogmatic at best and a side dish to this post (that I don't want to and won't get into).

Five wrote:As to this canon talk I read in other posts...I think at this point it's fairly obvious that there is no canon Ravenloft. The setting is constantly changing (Misty Borders), the designers constantly being replaced (like ill-used henchmen), and "official support" seems to be of a transient nature (Monkey's Paw). How then can there actually be canon Ravenloft?

I have to say, I would disagree with you Five. There is a majority of material that would be considered "canon" by the majority of folks. Of course, everyone has their own spin on things, but as an example, if you said it was "canon" that Azalin was currently the ruler of Darkon, and Death ruled Necropolis, everyone should know what you mean. There might be DMs out there who didn't like Azalin, and never had him come back, or DMs who didn't like the Grim Harvest, and for them it never happened, but we can all accept that in the canon timeline, at a high level, these things occurred in the setting as a whole.

Again, individual mileage may vary, but I think to work from a designer standpoint, you need to have a baseline of canon material that everyone can agree on and work from.

Having said all that, that doesn't mean there isn't official published material in 2E and 3E products that has been deemed "non-canon" by the community at large, or simply by future developers by changing or outright ignoring it.

On the subject of the grognards...

I could consider myself one of them, being a die-hard fan of the setting since the early '90s and owning all of the books. Having said that, I'm glad they made changes in Curse of Strahd. I've always been able to find usable things in every Ravenloft book, and I look forward to seeing what Curse brings me. The Amber Temple in particular stands out. Maybe it IS time we started defining the Dark Powers a bit more. We've left them nebulous for so long. I can say for my games, that's never done anything for them. My players ignore them, and so do I as a DM, in an effort to preserve that "sacred cow."

Maybe playing around with them a bit more directly will bring some cool interactions and scenes to my games. And ultimately, that's the more important thing for all of us.

About defining the Dark Powers, it takes away from their mystery and for me diminishes the setting as a whole. When I know the makers' opinion on what the Dark Powers are, what they can do and what they can't do... then I know too much.

I prefer the DPowers to be the Gothic, uncomprehensible and uncomprehending forces that for reasons of their own, put Ravenloft together. I want these reasons to be alien and incomprehensible to the human mind. I want the same about their powers.

I'm afraid I've been very underwhelmed with CoS so far, and I think it is mainly for the reasons Hell_Born outlined in his first review. I was hoping they'd be true to the setting rather than the original adventure. I'm a Black Box player, and because of that I came to I6, even House of Strahd, much later in my love-affair with the setting. Barovia in a vacuum never made sense to me, it was more effective as part of a larger world. Elrod's version of Strahd is my favorite, propaganda or no. He has more depth and goes through changes that don't seem evident in the 5th edition incarnation. Our new villain seems to be the opposite of what Hickman writes about in his prologue; he somehow falls short of being more than a random encounter with more hit points. Maybe it's the portrayal of his history; he was a bad guy before now he's just a bad guy that lives forever.

With that complaint out of the way, I have to say the fleshing out of Barovia around the dungeon crawl is superb. This is a sandbox adventure that suits my sandbox style wonderfully. There are good NPCs everywhere, with different motivations and intertwined relationships that make Barovia feel alive. Pity they spell right out that 90% of the residents are soulless husks; that's a matter of DM preference (the debate raged years ago already) that didn't need to be spelled out for any reason really that I could think of. It adds nothing to the adventure and if it were to somehow leak to the players, it makes Barovians harder to fight for or take seriously. The OTHER 10%, however are some great personalities and some terrific twists, all setting up camp in unique locations that are impressively unlike anything we've seen before.

I'm going to run this adventure for a bunch of first-time D&D players and the low level stuff is very welcome to me. I'll swallow my contempt for the silly names in the crypts and give them my best turn and hopefully keep them in the hobby. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the material that will be released throughout the year as it can only add to what's already a great sandbox. But for my collection, I'll wait for the bloodstained love letter to William W. Connors.

/grognard

Mortavius wrote:but we can all accept that in the canon timeline, at a high level, these things occurred in the setting as a whole.

Did I read in somebody's review that there were some "discrepancies" in the timeline presented in CoS?

Can anybody verify or deny?

Makes no matter to me ( I don't roleplay calendar years outside of rare past tense fluff in the form of journals), I'm just curious.

Also, does anybody else find it ironic that the setting inspired by the creators has become (or is seemingly) more popular than changes made by the creators, and arguably that of the original module? By that i speculate: the most ignored/unpopular opinions of Ravenloft seem to be those of the creators'.

We as a community back more changes wrought by fanboys (such as SotK and the FoS) than we do the creators.

I use fanboy not as a derogatory term but one of blunt practicality. I actually really dig some of the (proposed) changes, and I love the commitment. Makes for a great library of potential hooks, as far as me and mine are concerned.

Just some thoughts from the rafters. I'm not looking to goad or cause spit to fly.