eirip's page

The reason that I posted this thread in the first place was because I play from time to time in five different groups. Out of those five groups I would say we have approximately twenty players. Out of those twenty players we have ONE guy who has played 4.0. The first group which consists of six of us, I am the only one considering playing 4.0. All the other guys aren't going to switch mainly because they have been playing for 20-30 some odd years and are just sick of the edition changes. It has nothing to do with the new rules, they stated this before 4.0 even came out.

Group number two, my main group, has nothing against 4.0, we just love 3.5 and have no plans anytime soon of switching over, hell, now that the pfrpg is here, I can honestly say we wont switch over.

Group number three we have one guy who plays 4.0 while still playing 3.5. He loves it and even asked me to be in that group, but as you can see I have no time for another one.

I have an old rpg buddy who has played 4.0 and he likes the game. But he still prefers 3.5 and says 4.0 is enjoyable, but if he had to choose, which he doesn't, he will stick with 3.5.

Although this isn't a good representation of the entire role playing community it just got me thinking well if all these guys aren't going to switch over then I wonder how many people are. Of course there is no way to answer this accurately. I just wanted to get a general feel of what everyone thinks.

I have just started role playing again within the last three years so this is my first edition change that I have gone through.But I do think with Paizo coming out with an alternative to switching over to a brand new system that there will be fewer people switching over now then in the past with other edition changes.I think it makes a difference that a company is still putting out products for the game that you are currently playing, as opposed to before where there weren't. Make sense??

Well thanks for all the feedback. These forums are kinda fun, I can now see what I have been missing. Great response to my post zombie, thanks.I completely agree with your statements.

eirip wrote:

I am going to be running the adventure paths using the beta rules beginning the first of the year. How easy/hard is it to convert these modules from 3.5 to pfrpg?

Not too hard and really somewhat arbitrary - i.e. You don't really need to convert the monsters if you don't want to as long as you use the modified spells/spell-like abilities (...like the changes to polymorph, etc.).

I'm doing a "full conversion" because:

- One or two folks might find them useful,

- I'm playing with the stat block format (attempting to include the minimum info to keep you, the DM, from "flipping through the book" every round,

- and, finally, its a good exercise to learn what's different between 3.5 and 3.PFRPG.

As you look at using any adventure path (Curse of the Crimson Throne, etc.), just focus on the critical encounters and, even then, the primary abilities.

Here's a (quick, not-too-thought-out) recommendation (FOR ON-THE-FLY MONSTER/NPC/BBEG CONVERSION):

• Rogue, Ranger, Wizard, Sorceror, Bard = +1hp per level;
  
• Spellcasters = 0-level spells cast at will
  
• Barbarian = gets the equivalent to smite (+2 attack, +<level> damage) 1/day for every three levels
  
• Bard = +1 1st level spell
  
• Wizard = 1 spell recall per day; and +1 spell of less than highest level or "hand of the apprentice" ability
  
• Fighter = +1 AC (I'd just make it that simple) if above 10th, +2 feats;
  
• Rogue = +1 feat
  
• Sorceror = +1 metamagic feat
  
• Monsters = no change (unless they have a class)
  
• Half-orcs = get the Diehard feat
  
• Skills = I'd leave the points alone but adjucate using the new rules (as I've been doing conversions, the match is very close, so why spend the extra time, unless you have another motive such as I)
  

That's it! Simple = Better (unless it's 4E! heh);

Most of the changes should be for the PCs; Don't spend your time doing too much conversion on the "monsters". If you are running Second Darkness, you can take advantage of the conversions I am...

Thanks a lot. Should help a ton!!

It would be nice if i had the time to sit down and convert adventure after adventure to the new format...but I don't...a young family and long shift hours just preclude it...I have years worth of unrun 3.5 stuff and I intend to use it.

What really put me off was the fact that H1 and H2 are essentially the same adventure for different levels of power

That was my main gripe,or should I say reason, about not going to 4E. I just recently got back into gaming in 2005 after 20 years off and I have about 400 dollars in books that I bought that I am not ready to put by the wayside yet.

Just a thread to post some conversions for those using PFRPG;

SPOILER ALERT - Do not click any links if you are a player...

Questions about format: See -> THIS THREAD

Here are Angvar and Thuvalia converted to 3.PFRPG -> CLICK HERE

Let me know where I got stuff wrong

~D

I am going to be running the adventure paths using the beta rules beginning the first of the year. How easy/hard is it to convert these modules from 3.5 to pfrpg?

The Red Death wrote:

...

We will know progressively, but right now, we're still in 4E's infancy.

And this is truly why all these threads make me smile. Everyone has a prophecy of doom for the other side, based on 3 months of release for 4E and Pathfinder JUST coming out in BETA form! I mean really folks, let's think of some other things we could judge with these criteria:

Mother, pregnant with child and a carrying an infant talking to father:

M: "Well, I think Junior will kick Sprout's butt! He's so much more active!"
F: " Sprout will go to Harvard, and community college will be Junior's fate, he's so stupid."

Two kids playing with puppies:

One: "Rex is so much cooler than your dog Fluffy. He'll win Westminster for Best Dog when he's older."
Two: "Please, compared to Fluffy, Rex is an idiot. Why I wouldn't be surprised if he is stupid enough to chase cars and get hit."
One: "Whatevar! Rex is strong, smart and knows his moves! Your dog Fluffy never learned his tricks right, it takes forever for him to do anything, and he's ugly just like his master!"

The whole point of this long-winded silly post is that NO ONE knows how things will shake out. Saying 4e or Paizo are doomed is plain silly. We should enjoy our gaming choices without attacking each other. Both games have their points, no sense in dissing either, as you are not convincing anyone. All you're doing by flame/troll posting is being a jerk.

I agree with you totally Patrick. We should be able to discuss something without all the excess bull**it. And I probably stated a couple things about 4E that I shouldn't have said. I really didn't think that people would take such offense to a comment about a game.

I certainly am not hoping for the failure of 4E. I don't think it would be good for the industry. Personally I would like to get into a 4E game and then I could play both.

Eirip I suggest you give the game a chance, most 4E detractors I have met havent even played the game and have just dealt a judgement based on mostly web comments.

If you do play it and decide its not for you, well thats good, there are other stuff you can play. Go 3.5, 3.75.pathfinder,heck even go into any non D&D fantasy rpgs (there are tons and some are awesome).

Oh yeah, I do plan on playing. There are actually some stuff in there I thought were pretty cool. Again, I just wasn't prepared for such a drastic change. But remember, I did say what I wrote were my first impressions. I do realize my opinion will probably change after playing.

My reaction to 4.0 and those who say it's doing well is simply to say that, in my OPINION, 4.0 is just a video game on paper, and that, in my OPINION, its apparent success is going to fade by the end of its first year because of that.

Before you go off on "unsupported statements", I have to say that I have played 4.0, I have played games like Diablo and Warcraft, and 4.0 seems, in my OPINION, nothing more than an attempt to make D&D play the same way.

In my OPINION, if you like to play video games with pen & paper, it's fine. I don't think I'm abandoning 3.5 anytime soon, because, in my OPINION, 3.5 is the last version of true D&D that has been put out. In my OPINION, 4.0 is really a different system.

So as to how it's doing, sales might be a good indicator, but the problem with that is that some people will buy a game as a knee-jerk response, just because it's there, billed as the latest version of a thing. What you really need to do to determine how it's doing is to ignore blogs and message boards and look at an objective consumer survey concerning the viability of future sales - exactly the kind of thing a corporate marketing plan relies on.

You want to know how it's doing? Ask Hasbro. They may not know anything about RPGs, but they do know marketing and profits.

Oh, and just one caveat; it is really not fun to have to preface my statements with "in my OPINION" in what is probably a wasted attempt to avoid flaming, simply because I disagree with the people who have positive opinions of 4.0, and I am trying to express my opinions in a civilized manner.

I agree you shouldn't have to preface your statements with " in my opinion". I have always found it funny to see people arguing on these posts. As if there isn't anything better for people to do then have an argument with people over forums. Seems kind of pathetic to me. Probably the number one reason why I haven't posted much.

eirip wrote:

Hi all, eirip here. I have been skimming the boards for awhile but since I am not a very good conversation starter I do not post very often.

Here is what I wanted to talk about. How is 4.0 doing as far as profitability, likability, and bringing in new players?

According to an interview with the developers very recently at GenCon, amazingly well. The core books are in their third printing, and even H2 (their second published adventure) has gone into a second printing).

eirip wrote:

I myself have bought the phb but I wasn't really prepared for what a difference it was. To me it seems like a decent game but not at all what I grew up playing and currently am playing in 3.5. They have really dummied it down for lack of a better term. I guess that is good for people who are brand new to the game but I found it to be a bit tedious to read, like reading an abc book. Again, I suppose that is good that they explained it down to the nook and cranny for newbies, but for me it just turned me off.

I don't like that they have gotten rid of the spells, or replaced them with powers. I like my wizards to have spell books.

Wizards in 4th Edition have spellbooks.

eirip wrote:

I HATE the skill system, as I the majority of the time play skill based pc's.

Why? Skills are even more useful now than they were in 3.5. I find it difficult to believe that you somehow aren't able to have as much fun with your character's skills - and now, of course, your character doesn't have to suffer in other areas just to be good at skills.

eirip wrote:

Scrolls, potions, are there any of those???

Yes. There are all of those.

eirip wrote:

As far as what paizo is doing with pathfinder I think it is totally awesome. I think it just needed a little tuneup of 3.5 and not a complete rewrite of the rules with them putting a video game on paper, binding it up and calling it a book.

That's a really, really horrifically inaccurate way of describing 4th Edition, for a variety of...

Actually Mr. Scott I HAVE read the book up to 202 from page to page. And if you look at my post I said those are my first impressions of the game. Maybe my opinion will change when I play the game, and I do plan on playing. I do realize that the game could play out differently then it reads.

I don't need to puppet the ideals of someone else when I have my own voice.

Hi all, eirip here. I have been skimming the boards for awhile but since I am not a very good conversation starter I do not post very often.

Here is what I wanted to talk about. How is 4.0 doing as far as profitability, likability, and bringing in new players?

I myself have bought the phb but I wasn't really prepared for what a difference it was. To me it seems like a decent game but not at all what I grew up playing and currently am playing in 3.5. They have really dummied it down for lack of a better term. I guess that is good for people who are brand new to the game but I found it to be a bit tedious to read, like reading an abc book. Again, I suppose that is good that they explained it down to the nook and cranny for newbies, but for me it just turned me off.

I don't like that they have gotten rid of the spells, or replaced them with powers. I like my wizards to have spell books. I HATE the skill system, as I the majority of the time play skill based pc's. Scrolls, potions, are there any of those???

As far as what paizo is doing with pathfinder I think it is totally awesome. I think it just needed a little tuneup of 3.5 and not a complete rewrite of the rules with them putting a video game on paper, binding it up and calling it a book.

So how are the people on the WOTC message boards liking it?? I used to go on the boards here and there but since I discovered pathfinder and Paizo I spend all my internet time here.

That being said, despite my complaints, I do plan on playing 4.0. I just think it may get a little old after awhile. I am sure I will get bashed for complaining about a game without playing it but those are just my first impressions. Maybe I will change my mind when I do play, who knows, but I do know I am sticking with paizo from here on out.

In my opinion you can use both power attack and combat expertise in the same round. I think that the penalties would stack.

For reference take a look at page 92 of the players handbook for Combat expertise, and Page 98 of the players handbook for power attack.

For combat expertise take a look at the first sentence in the description. The operative word is “When”. To me this means that using the Combat expertise is a “non action”. It is part of your attack or full attack action.

For Power attack feat, look at the first sentence of the power attack feat description. I would also call using the power attack as a “non action” because you decide to make use of your power attack feat, on your turn but before you make your attack roll.

I would say that the penalties stack, because the text states, in both descriptions of the feats power attack and combat expertise, that you have to take a penalty to your attack roll in order to get the bonus the feat allows for.

I am not sure where in the player’s handbook or the DMG where a “non action” is defined, but I found a definition on page 7 of the Rules Compendium. I am sure a non action is defined somewhere in the SRD.

I hope this helps. I am not a rules lawyer and dislike dealing with them. I have found a good way to shut them up is to give them a notebook. Tell them you are making a ruling now, add the caveat that you might make a mistake here and there, and if they have an issue with your adjudication of the rules, ask them to write down the points they would like to go over with you. Tell them that you will go over these points at either the end of the gaming session, or if there isn’t time, you will read the points over the week, and at the beginning of next games session, you can go over the rulings with them.
I have found that this strikes balance between shutting a player down entirely and letting someone tie the game up for 20 minutes as the rules are parsed this way and that.

I have also found that some people simply like to argue a...

Oh I dont mind you going on. I appreciate your help.

Can you use power attack and combat expertise in the same round, and would the penalties stack? If yes could you please provide a reference so I may show to my group.

I need to cancel my Pathfinder Subscription. Thank you.

LOL! What, are you kidding??

I received my first edition of the pathfinder adventure path and I must say, AWESOME! The color and quality of content is far superior to any other module I have ever seen. And for the price it is truly a bargain.