(2e AD&D) Dragons of Autumn Twilight- OOC (need someone to play Caramon)

[HolyMan]

Wanted to ask everyone an important question.

What do you think about changing the system for this game from 2e to Pathfinder?

Couple reasons I ask.

The most important one is the need to find players. Right now I think we are at 5 out of the 7. But pretty soon the group will escalate up to 10. That means I would need 5 more PC's (not something I fancy in pbp) or at least 2 or 3 more. Because while the group may be 10 PCs that is in addition to the 2-3 NPCs that will be tagging along.

Rules and combat. I am finding it hard to get into these old rules. I remember when I first played 2e and it was more in your imaganation when it came to combat than on paper. The dice just let you know if you hit or saved and that was it. Moving, who was attacking who, or what not was not a big deal. It seems not to be so as everyone is so use to the way of minis and battlemaps.

So I would like to know what you all think of starting with a new system after this first module is complete. (We are on the last three pages btw, )

HM

 

[Orius]

We should really stick to the classic rules. It's DL, so it was written for AD&D rather than 3e/PF.

 

[Walking Dad]

My 2e-Fu got really weak over times. Maybe we could change to one of this free retro-clones? They boast to be fully compatible with the old adventures, but include some 3e familiar stuff. They are also easily to find on the Internet for free.
Would be a middle-ground.

 

[ghostcat]

I don't really mind. I like Pathfinder so wouldn't object if you changed. There again I've played 2e before now; I'm just very rusty.

On reflection I would vote for Pathfinder 7 to 3.

 

[Strahd_Von_Zarovich]

I’m not familiar with the Pathfinder rules and I do not have the sufficient time and will to learn them. I do know 3e and 3.5e. I don’t mind staying with 2e.

 

[possum]

I wouldn't mind converting to Pathfinder, personally.

 

[HolyMan]

Hmm that is two for - two against - and one for the middle ground.

I have posted a new thread in Talking the Talk

http://www.enworld.org/forum/talking-talk/310648-hm-converting-his-dragonlance-game-pathfinder.html

Before we decide to do this I want to see if anyone would join us. Also will be using that as character conversion should this go through, as we will still be playing and finishing this part of the game.

@ SVZ if you know 3.5 than you know more than half of Pathfinder. I think you would like the system and I would be around to help you with the few odd rules. The only question is in Pathfinder is Tanis a fighter who specializes in the bow, or a ranger, or a rogue1/fighter4(archer-archtype).

If this is done it will be kept on the simple side, maybe no arch-types used.

HM

 

[HolyMan]

Well it does look like this will be going through.

After we finish the first module in 2e we will switch over to the Pathfinder rules for the remainder.

It looks like we netted three new players and I hope everyone playing now will try this out with us. Till then let's see about killing draconians and finding those disks.

HM

 

[Orius]

Do you have the 3e Dragonlance book? That might help make conversions to PF easier.

 

[HolyMan]

WD does and I am looking at getting a copy of the campaign guide.

I have had some thoughts on Sturm - Would you say he might follow the Combat Expertise tree

Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Improved Feint

I only believe these would be good feats because I see him disarming a foe he doesn't want to kill RP wise. And crunch wise when you get tied up in a combat you normally just attack and miss out using your move action. With this he could Feint (causing opponent to lose DEX to AC) as a move and have a better chance of hitting.

I also think he might make a good cavalier instead of going fighter.

HM