Alright, this draft is done and I hope and would appreciate some testing feedback from as many people as possible so if others would be inclined to actually use, it would be much appreciated. So basics out of the way. These are fan based rules, all art and such belong to their respective owners. These rules are not replacements and you will still need the appropriate products to utilize them fully (5e Rulebooks, Ravenloft rulebooks, etc) and these rules are not mandatory for use, just guidelines.
This project of mine is a labor of love as I do love the Ravenloft setting. I was doing my best, as far as the rules were concerned, to maintain the spirit and feel of Ravenloft as it was in the 2nd edition of DnD, and try to bring that forward into 5th edition. I tried to pay as much respect to all the various writers of the past, and maintain the work to the best of my abilities.
I hope everyone enjoys and I would appreciate feedback. Some things I decided not to work on, at least at this time, such as altered magic since that can be easily left up to common sense for now. Please share this with as many Ravenloft fans so I can continue to strive to improve and update the rules for streamlining.
5th Edition Ravenloft Rules Update <-- click link for original PDF file.
5th Edition Raveloft Rules (redraft) <-- click for updated rules
It looks very interesting, Ravenspyre. I might wait myself for the DMG, given that I think fear and such will be handled there, but it's not a bad first shot.
A few suggestions: (1) In 5th edition, fine-grained bonuses/penalties tend to be avoided. Take a look at your handing of the Outcast rating, where you have a range from +1 to +3. I know the effect you are trying to reproduce from the White Wolf/3e version of Ravenloft, but I think it's more in the spirit of 5th edition to make a flat +2/-2 for any race with an "outcast" feature (viz., +2 to intimidate, -2 to persuade).
(2) You are too hard on divine magic and channel divinity in a way far more than Ravenloft ever was. Giving undead advantage vs. turning is too good, and more a bonus than in classic Ravenloft. Bear in mind that making turning harder was originally based on the fact that clerics were not limited how often they could turn. Clerics now cannot simply turn at will, so I think there's little harm in leaving the turn undead mechanic as it is. I would agree, however, that destroying undead should be harder in Ravenloft. As far as spells or other channel divinity effects, you shouldn't reduce the amount of healing, for example, or the damage caused by divine smites. Cleric spells were never limited in this way in Ravenloft. It was one of its ironies. The clerics knew they were distant from their gods, and yet somehow, they received spells as usual. Finally, I wouldn't alter divine intervention as such, but I would note that the entity responding is just as likely the Dark Powers as not, and so no use of divine intervention will directly undo the basic structure, moral and otherwise, of the Land of Mists, unless the DP feel like punihing the Dark Lords a bit...
I'll look a little more and see if I have anything else to suggest!
1) I made the outcast rating a Disadvantage roll naturally but for extraordinary races that are either hard to disguise as human or too weird to be anything but alien to the mostly human people of Ravenloft is the only real time I give a penalty. I will look further once the DMG comes out.
2) First for turning. Undead in 2nd edition were considered to b 2 HD stronger. Since the new system is trying it's best not to overburden with tons of bonuses or penalties, the easiest solution is the Advantage on saving throw. With sinkholes of evil making it just a flat +2 bonus to saving throws might run into the whole too many bonuses territory. As far as the other stuff, their divine powers are a direct hotline, as I read them, in the 5th edition handbook. Since Ravenloft disrupts that connection then I felt that getting direct divine aid shouldn't be as strong. I mulled it over for a while, and still debating on it, but as it stands, clerics are still one of the most powerful classes in DnD. Divine Intervention, however, I do believe should not be as reliable, as that is directly asking for your deity to step in for you. It's something to consider.
I am still constantly reviewing the rules in 5th edition and reading over my books. I haven't bothered with the altered magics, just yet, even though I need to since I know many of the spells from long ago have different effects in 5th edition (prime example; detect good and evil). I am also considering, once I get my Monsters Manual, making a list of The Who's Doomed of Ravenloft edition, updating all teh stats for 5th edition properly and making sure the abilities of said creatures make sense, especially for their powers. Been working on Strahd in fact, but still waiting for my MM to see the final rules for 5th edition vampires before I lock it all down.
I also mulled over some of the feats from 3rd edition for Ravenloft. Dead Man Walking I flip flopped back and forth on. I decided to keep it out for now but I might put it back in.
Anyways, hope for more reviews and input later.
My first rule of 5e Ravenloft would be: "DMs warn your players that if they make a Dragonborn or Tiefling they probably will not last very long." 
You seem to have put a lot of effort into this PDF, with artwork, page layout and everything. I'll give it a proper read soon!
From a quick glance, though, I would suggest this one thing:
The idea of splitting Fear, Horror and Madness between the three mental abilities is nice. I had tought of something like that too. However, I'd put Charisma for Fear saves, and Wisdom for Madness. This kind of stuff is always debatable, but it makes more sense to me this way. Charisma, the force of your personality, helps you overcome sheer fright. Intelligence lets you rationalize your way out of a shock when seeing a Horror scene. And Wisdom, your force of will, lets you maintain your sanity when faced with a madness check.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Ravenspyre wrote:
I get what you are saying re: clerics and the gods, but the 5th edition view isn't really much different from the perspective of really any edition other than 4e, i.e that the cleric's powers come from the gods. My point was that your suggestion is a deep departure from Ravenloft lore, which holds that while the clerics feel distant from their gods, and indeed their faiths can over time depart quite dramatically from what they were, indeed that even clerics of gods who do not or no longer exist can grant powers, clerical magic is unchanged (apart from the general influence on all magic in Ravenloft). As it says in Domains of Dread (2e), p 261,
"Priests, clerics, and other men of faith have long been a subject of controversy among scholars in the Demiplane of Dread. None doubt that these folks are cut off in some way from the gods of other realms when they travel within the Mists, and yet they retain their miraculous powers.
One commonly voices explanation for this phenomenon is that the dark powers, whoever and whatever they might be, cannot prevent a god from bestowing upon his followers the benefits of faith. Given the absolute control which the dark powers seem to have over all of Ravenloft, this seems unlikely, However, the though that any force is so strong as to block out the will of a god seems equally implausible.
The second theory is that the dark powers themselves begin to respond to the prayers of a priest, granting him the spells that he requests in lieu of the deity that he serves. While this seems to run contrary to some of the most commonly held beliefs concerning the mysterious masters of the Mists, it defies none of the known tenets of their existence. As such, this theory has become more and more accepted in recent years.
Whatever the case, the end result is the same. Priests retain their ability to cast spells even among the swirling vapors of the Demiplane of Dread."
Ravenspyre wrote:
By the way, I hope I don't seem to be nitpicking! I really appreciate the work you are doing!
You've done some great work, and I'm looking forward to going through the new updates.
One thing I noticed though: In the 2e Domains of Dread, and in the Ravenloft 3e errata, the Half-Vistani are known as giomorgo, not giogoto (though giogoto is also mentioned in the errata [..."or "giogoto" if we let the switch stand"], and I found some other online references to it as well, but I have no idea where that came from since most sources refer to them as giomorgo). Just thought I would point that out. If a source later changed them to giogoto instead of giomorgo, does anyone know what the source was?
Again, thanks for the great work!
Let me start by saying you obviously put a lot of effort into the document. I looks like you spent some time finding art, working on the layout, and even bits of presentation like the sidebars. It's a nice looking fan document.
I'm working on my own update of Ravenloft to 5e, and your document is currently setting the bar.
However, the document is really not an update of the 2e/3e Ravenloft to the 5e rules so much as an update of the 2e/3e Ravenloft to the language of 5e. Direct literal updates seldom work well. Such as the Half-vistani, where it looks like you took the 3e version of the race and just adapted its abilities to how they would work in 5e without seeing if the result is comparable to a 5e race.
This is particularly obvious in the feats, which seem to be almost direct updates of the 3e feats, despite 5e feats being very different. 5e feats are larger. They're have much more impact to a character, having the same mechanical impact as a +2 to one ability score or +1 to two ability scores (which, in a game where ability scores are important, is a big benefit). And many have multiple effects, both passive and active. Advantage on fear checks is not as good as a +2 to Wisdom, which is a +1 bonus to all Wisdom saving throws, skill checks, and the like (including Perception and Insight).
In general, very little thought seems to have been paid to balance, which is a big part of 5e. All the classes are roughly the same power level. In many cases, the power of certain classes is greatly reduced, especially the cleric, who have many of their major class features reduced with no added benefit. The class is simply weaker.
This is a tricky matter, as the tone of the world does suggest that certain classes and powers should be less potent. In practice, I've found it's easier to shift the world customizations to the DM side of the equation. So rather than mechanically nerfing the cleric, provide advice to the DM for how to adjust and empower undead.
The_Jester wrote:
Ravenspyre wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
OrdoVeth23 wrote:
Alright, as I am going over my rules here are the highlights of some of the major changes in my next PDF I will be putting up later you can expect;
- Expanded the Fear, Horror and Madness section. Also included a brief explanation of their ability score reasoning. These changes will include suggestions for DC modifiers, bonuses and when Advantage and Disadvantage might be appropriate.
- Made Outcast an optional rule.
- Changed Turn Undead from an Advantage roll to just a +2 bonus to the save.
- Channel Divinity is not penalized anymore, and the only changes that might occur are cosmetic and are just an optional rule at that.
- Expanded upon Closed Domain Borders.
- Added Necromancy to the rules to clarify.
- Added Magical Travel to the rules for clarification.
- Added Curses to the rules to provide rules on how those are to be handled.
- Updated Sinkholes of Evil to also modify Fear and Horror checks.
- Updated Half-Vistani with their proper Vistani name in their description. They are now giomorgo or giamarga as they were described in Domains of Dread.
- Barbarian rage gives a flat +2 bonus to fear, horror and madness checks now.
- Clerics gained back a lot of power again. Divine Intervention is not a guarantee at level 20, so chance is base in PHB again. However, the Dark Powers may now interfere with the intervention and an intervention cannot be used against a domain lord.
- Paladins gained back a lot of power to. Their Disruptive Presence description has been reworked and shouldn't make life unbearably difficult for them in early levels.
- Clarifications on other class abilities and powers.
- Updated Anchorite Background.
- Removed several feats that were a bit too fantastical.
That's the extent of the major changes. I dunno if I am ready to tackle altered magic just yet, and think that should remain in the hands of the DMs judgment for now. However, I will probably include those in a future PDF update. I will post when I have altered the link in the original post as I am still editting and prettifying the work, as usual.
Alright, OP updated with the redrafted rules. For those who don't want to scroll up, click here for them.
Next update to my PDF, since I got my MM today, will contain updated rules for Ravenloft variants of lycanthropes, mummies, vampires, ghosts and the like. I will also probably place a few of the more popular domain lords, like Strahd, within such writings.
Ravenspyre wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Ravenspyre wrote:
For what it's worth, there's another Ravenloft update in the works over on the Fraternity of Shadows website.
The_Jester wrote:
Ravenspyre wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Okay, reading through the revised document I have a few things you might want to look at.
You don't really describe the results of failing a fear/horror check
Pg.4. "Witnessing a malign paradigm shift ... should easily be considered a +10 to the DC number."
+10 is HUGE. I mean, that might bump the DC from 10 to 20. DCs don't scale much with level; it's very possible for a 20 level fighter to be unable to make a DC 20 horror save.
Pg.8 Look at the dwarven stonecunning racial ability and consider something simmilar for the Kamii.
Pg.18 Compare the feats Courage, Jaded, and Open Minded to the Resilient feat in the PHB.
Ravenspyre wrote:
That's the point of a Paradigmn Shift, if your world has been flipped upside down (which shouldn't happen often) your chances of remaining sane are fairly remote. This easy peasy stuff invoked by 3e and 4e is bad. Ravenloft should not be a world where the heroes always win. They should have to earn it, and sometimes the chips don't fall as you want them to. This is another reason that Ravenloft didn't work for 3e and 4e, because the rules of those editions required the heroes always win, and that's just not how Ravenloft is. So the very possibility that they can't make such checks should be a very real possibility. It's not a matter if they can't succeed the check or not, it's a matter of how they handle it in the story after the results.
Basically with Dragonborn I only provide rules for people that bring them from another world, otherwise I wouldn't allow them or Drow to begin with. Honestly, playing a non-core race within DnD in general, let alone Ravenloft (non-core being any race not part of the main four in the book) should be something that has to be discussed with a DM anyways. But that's my personal preference as I would like a logical reason why a non-core race is a part of this group and randomyl adenturing the world. Especially in Ravenloft when elves and dwarves alone already have more than enough trouble without getting ran out of town on a rail... or worse. It starts eating away at the suspension of disbelief when you just hand wave a really fantastical race away like Dragonborn.
The structure of the edition is also flexible, it's not set in stone, and honestly, you lose soemthing when you generic a race like that. If all welves were just elves instead of having the various sub races, then you've lost the meaning. Just like trying to say all Vistani are Vistani and there is no difference between tribes. That is a planet of the hats scenario and loses a lot of the core reasons they even exist.
And there is a reason I dropped cold oen or ghost sight completely from feats. these little flaws shouldd be apart of the backgrounds for Ravenloft, adding another complexity goes against the simple character creation premise with more complexity coming as they level up. I might sit back and help with those backgrounds and expand upon the ones I got. While you present it as optional it's still a bit more than needed beyond what backgrounds can already provide.
I was kind of joking about the 3d6 (kinda), but I think gothic horror characters need to be a little more flawed. They are rarely paragon characters IMHO. But I really like your work. Hope you are enjoying the creative process. Keep it up.
Have you considered something along the lines of 2e character kits for abilities like cold one and such, as they were originally designed? 4e Dark Sun brought in Themes, which are essentially the same thing as the 2e Kits. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that return for 5e, and I feel like some of the attributes of the Champions of the Mists kits are better suited for a kit/theme than feats or backgrounds (such as Accursed, Cold One, Ghostwatcher, etc.), partially due to the drawbacks. I can see Fugitive being a variant of the Criminal background, and I can see Knight of Shadows possibly being a Paladin oath (Oath of Shadows?) the way that paladins have been redesigned, but some of the original CotM kits seem too massive for feats or backgrounds, but also being too narrow for prestige classes.
Just a thought. Until I see something better come along, that's probably how I'll run my own homebrew Ravenloft, so I thought I would mention it.
Thanks for all the great work that's going into this conversion!
OrdoVeth23 wrote:
I'm only commenting on the things I have issues with, but I like what you did overall. You did a really good job with the layout as well.
I just don't like all the +1s and +3s to reactions. Getting rid of most all of them is one of the things I liked about 5e. Would you considered replacing +1 and +3s with halving the result of 1d4s and 1d6s? That is how bless, bane, etc have been handled, and I really think it makes it easier to remember when it is associated with dice.