Strahd 3.5 vs Strahd 5e

[Waazraath]

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2094b8c542803d90c7eb978507a1f178

Eh... nope, despite the artwork, this isn't about a 'who would win King Kong vs Godzilla' scenario.

I ran Expedition to Castle Ravenloft (3.5) as DM. It was a nice stand a lone adventure, my players enjoyed it a lot. What I've seen of Curse of Strahd (which isn't a lot) in 5e is that it seems to have more fluff, its own demi-plane, and a lot more encounters and NPC's. I didn't read too much on purpose, cause I'd might play it again in this edition, either as DM or player.

So my question: are there people here who know both? And if so, can you tell me (without too much spoilers on the 5e edition please!) if they are different enough to be enjoyable to play the 5e if you already played the 3.5 one?

[Sol0botmate]

Yes and no.

There is more interesting locations, secrets, side-encounters and awesome NPCs that heavy interacts with party in 5e version, so it's "richer" experience. Tons of side-quests can also be resolved in many different ways, which will impact outcome and affect PCs and world around.

However, the main theme of the game is being constantly chased, bullied, tested etc. by Strahd himself, leading to inevitable final showdown in his castle. That feeling you got once- you won't get twice. So it's richer adventure, but when it comes to atmosphere for horror etc. and the main plot I don't think you will get same feeling second time.

But if you want to play just to experience more new added content, it's worth to do it.

Think of it as of a PC game that you already played main plot, but after few years you heard they added bunch of DLCs, more content to main plot, tweaked and addes side quests etc. so now it's better experience. But you already now the main plot and outcome. So you play just to check what they added/changed.

That is of course only my opinion.

[Grey Watcher]

I've read both. Never had a chance to run them. So weigh my thoughts accordingly, I guess.

The biggest difference is that Expedition is a multi-session adventure while Curse is basically a campaign unto itself.

I also feel like Curse is intended to be a bit more RP heavy. Fewer non-random encounters. But the encounters are, on the whole deadlier, meaning you're less likely to be able to Simon Belmont your way through things.

There are two whole towns added, plus a second Vistani camp, each with their own side quests, secrets, and NPCs with agendas.

There are several new locations to explore, with varying degrees of combat, traps and hazards, and roleplay encounters.

Overland exploration is more important, since the valley is much larger to accommodate all these extra locations. Even locations that have clear analogues in Expedition are more spread out.

As for the Castle itself, they rolled back a lot of the changes that Expedition made from the original I6, alongside some changes of their own, so that should be reasonably surprising. With a handful of exceptions, I like the Curse version better than the Expedition one, but that's probably much more down to personal taste.

Basically, while there will no doubt be elements your recognize, the overhaul is thorough enough that it's a whole new game.

[Unoriginal]

Are there changes in how Strahd is portrayed in Expedition compared to Curse?

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm gearing up for an ultimate CoS experience for a few veterans that requested it, and have been pouring over the old lore in order to change things to keep stuff fresh. Expedition is one of the few sources I haven't read yet, so I just went out and found it. I'll give my thoughts once I've digested it.

* * * * *

Okay, so first- this sounds stupid, but seriously, Expedition's front cover art is... ugh. I know, I know, don't judge a book by it's cover. Right? But one of the very first things I do when I get one of these is to show my players the cover! It's artwork, it's great for setting the mood! Like seeing a poster for a movie. So why do they have Strahd's disapproving dad on the cover?

..What? Oh, that is Strahd. I thought he was going to be eternally young? Why is he part turtle now? What? How? Why?!

Ahem. Don't show this to your players. Please, please, please, grab I6 or something. Show them that cover. Not this one. This might be the only 3.x cover that I actively hate. The interior art is mostly fine, so why is it like this? CoS definitely had the better cover, it made people want to play it.

Most of CoS' interior art is markedly superior as well, but whether that's useful to you depends on how you runs things. It's a lot more evocative. Expedition clearly still wants to be more heroic fantasy than gothic horror, and it shows.

Expedition has a lot more character options in it for really involving the party more directly in the world, which was pretty common of 3.x of course. CoS has like, two backgrounds and that's it. This is something I'm personally correcting with Heroes of the Mists (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/176659/Heroes-of-the-Mists). I know not everyone cares, but... no, scratch that. Players love it when you give them extra options in distinct themes. Expedition is much better in this regard.

Strahd himself is more and less dangerous in Expedition. On the whole he's got a lot more going for him against your average party, but beware competent 3.x veterans, they will embarrass him. I've run the 5e Ravenloft three times now (not all of CoS, I've only done that once so far), and Strahd in CoS is a joke once you get to the right levels. This is an issue with 5e solo fights on the whole, and you must plan him around appearing with backup if you want to use him natively. I'll also be using Strahd Triple Threat (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/317340/Curse-of-Strahd-Strahd--Triple-Threat) to make him more dangerous, and there's the... uh, somewhat poorly edited and over-wordy Real Devil Strahd (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/226077/The-Real-Devil-Strahd--A-CR27-Version-of-the-Devil) if you want him to act more like a 3.x ultra boss with way, way too many abilities. I'd say Expedition does this better than CoS on the whole and I really like the interplay with the Fanes, though CoS does get some points for being a lot more user-friendly for a DM to run.

Varikov and Kavan are fun enemies, I'm absolutely stealing them. But none quite have the panache and danger of, say, Rahadin and Baba Lysaga from CoS. I'd say CoS has the better NPC brood, but that shouldn't be surprising. It's much longer and there's far more of them.

I really like that Expedition has the old I6 multiple motivations thing for Strahd. This can help keep the game fresh, so long as you remember to lean into it. Don't just wait until the final confrontation for some big speech. That said, CoS benefits from having you slowly uncover Strahd's one motivation in a more traditionally gothic horror manner, even if it's a bit of a dull one (he's bored). This one's a bit of a wash, and depends on the DM; a clever one can do a lot with the differing motivations of Expedition while one that's pressed for time or less clever is going to be better served by the broader but singular focus in CoS when characterizing Strahd.

The information on running campaigns of differing lengths is a nice touch. CoS only has the one mode mentioned, really- everything. You can cut chapters out and run them as-is very easily thanks to level guides, including just Castle Ravenloft itself (as I've done twice now). If this is useful comes down to what you intend to do with it. Though the 'long campaign' setup for Expedition is extraordinarily skimpy by comparison. And as is pretty typical of 5e, CoS is much more of a free roaming sandbox on the whole.

The opening- Zombie Incursion versus Death House. This is so unfair. You start this awesome D&D gothic horror story with the most rote and overused nothing of villains, zombies?! It also kinda wrecks the mood of Barovia, in my opinion. Even if you choose 3.x and Expedition, check out Death House. It's really good, it's free anyway, and wouldn't be that hard to adapt. It sets the tone way better, with mystery, slow burn terror, revelation, and what can be described as an extremely small scale Ravenloft in general structure.

The town of Barovia in general... I vastly prefer CoS. I really don't like Ashlyn and the Lightbringers, they're lame. The idea that there are these super powerful pure good heroes running around in Ravenloft is really dumb. It's like, imagine if you took Dracula, but now Superman goes up to Van Helsing and says he'll help. And more zombies! I'm already tired of them! Blech. Give me that strange atmosphere of paranoia and mystery. Give me the weird old lady selling pies. Let me feel unwelcome by superstitious peasants, not assaulted every five minutes by yet another band of roaming zombies. Expedition has more combat if your group is filled with hack and slashers, but CoS has a better feel here, with a lot more story to work with, too.

Ireena is kinda shafted a bit in both books, but I think she's more interesting in CoS. Part of that's because it's a plot thread that's available and easy to use for the DM at any time, and partly because Ireena being pre-dominated to harm the party whenever is liable to lead to your average party deciding she isn't worth the hassle and getting murderous, and hoo boy do I not want to see that. That said, only Expedition mentions a player being Ireena, a possibility I actually really like.

While I like the Fanes, making Madame Eva an annis hag...? Bleh. She's far more interesting in CoS, though mentioning why is a spoiler. Baba Zelenna was clearly the inspiration for Baba Lysaga, but they're incomparable in presence and role; Baba Lysaga is far better developed. The last of the hags, the Drowned Lady, is practically a non-entity, she's that boring. Besides the other two, compare and contrast with CoS' three hag sisters at Bonegrinder Mill. Those three have an entire chapter dedicated to them, and are memorably creepy. They have basically nothing to do with Strahd unlike the Fanes, but they're a lot more fun and dynamic.

I'm not gonna harp on Expedition for having a smaller overall world map with less to do, but it's worth mentioning again. Even the places it has in common with CoS, CoS doesn't feel like an afterthought for DM's that simply feel it's necessary. I will mention that their depiction of Madame Eva is less interesting, again.

The Tarokka reading in Expedition is vastly inferior. It's more complicated, less random, and wasn't actually built to use Tarokka cards. I'd just use I6 instead if I were running Expedition. That's exactly what I do when I run 5e Ravenloft as well.

Though, Expedition is much more laden with combat, and the combat scenarios are more involved and complex. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on your party and mastery of each gameplay system. For my groups, CoS is going to be better, but I know plenty of players that would prefer Expedition's more tactical approach. Consider also whether your players will want more mystery and roleplay punctuated occasionally with combat, or a full on bloody trail, heaping bodies across Barovia in the search for loot and XP.

The layout of the castle is the same as it ever was in both. At this point I must believe that making any serious alteration to Castle Ravenloft will result in the offending mapmaker spontaneously bursting into flames. This does make a certain thing jump out that bothers me in Expedition- they don't tell you what monsters or NPC's you're encountering in a room in the map section, they give you a reference number for a tactical battle section. I really hate that, would it have killed them to at least mention what's nearby? It's hard to have enemies act dynamically, moving from room to room as the players make too much noise or attracts attention. This back and forth could get annoying in other places, but it really harms the castle. It's the price you pay for the more tactical encounters, but weirdly, the more interesting tactical encounters I just mentioned? The ones in Castle Ravenloft, the meat of Expedition? Pretty lackluster comparatively. More straightforward, less imaginative, and too sterile on the whole. There's some good ones to be sure, and stuff you can borrow if you're running CoS. But ultimately, I much prefer the castle in CoS for it's accessibility. I'd rather nab a few of Expedition's better ideas than vice versa.

Oh, there's also several more magic items in Expedition. 5e likes to keep them rarer and CoS is no exception to this rule, but it's worth mentioning if your players are in it more for the loot.

The player handouts in CoS aren't ideal, but they are a sight better than the brief paragraphs in Expedition. Those are just lazy.

A lesser point if you and your players just don't care, but Expedition definitely violates preestablished Ravenloft lore a lot less. It still does in places (Lightbringers, seriously? And everything about Madame Eva), but you can very easily explain or change things in ways that will make sense to old fans of Ravenloft. CoS needs a straight up rewrite to make certain things work. Amber Temple in particular is egregious, though I've recently been having trouble with Saint Andral (Andral wasn't a Saint, he was their primary god! The one the Sunsword, Holy Symbol of Ravenkind, and Icon of Ravenloft were all dedicated to!) and this weird retconning of the Morninglord to have always been a thing. I literally spent all of yesterday rewriting the Tome of Strahd into a 3,930 word novella in order to rectify a few things. It was a headache.

All in all? Expedition is going to appeal more to players that aren't really interested in a horror campaign, but love fighting and earning loot. It's defanged of horror potential, but not everyone likes the idea of playing actual horror in D&D. CoS is better suited to the roleplayer, and especially to actual fans of horror that like the idea that their game might terrify them. I'd say a good DM could definitely crib ideas from whichever one they aren't planning to run, but I'd only do this if you have easy, cheap access to both. Especially if you plan on doing Expedition and would need to buy CoS wholesale, that's quite the price for more interesting lore and roleplaying. You could manage this yourself with a few days of prep and the Fraternity of Shadows wiki.

[OldTrees1]

Honestly not much is majorly different between them. I did reintroduce the fanes from Expedition into CoS.

I have run both although only 1.5 of my players are the same. They are having a great time in CoS, so it is definitely playable for those that already played Expedition.

[Waazraath]

Thnx, lots of useful comments! Going by this, I got the feeling 1) yeah, I can run it in 5e and still have fun with it, but 2) I'll prolly run another camaign first, especially with the same group.