[3.P] Adapting RHoD

[The Glyphstone]

I've got a hankering to run RHoD, after having read so many entertaining campaign journals about it, but my local community is heavily dedicated to PF instead of 3.5 (and, for some reason, many of them treat them as entirely separate systems). So, how much work would it be to 'convert' the adventure into an entirely 3.5-compatible format?

Anything else that should be converted/updated/restatted as well, from experienced RHoD GMs would be appreciated.

[Tyndmyr]

I've run it once, will likely do so again in the near future.

I presume you mean adapting to PF, since it's already 3.5?

I would say it'd be terribly easy. Lots of hobgoblins, lots of dragons. Sure, technically a few spells are a bit different, and PF is a bit more generous with feats and stats, but there is pretty good amount of statblock reuse, so you get a lot of mileage for your conversion efforts.

[Circle of Life]

There's basically nothing that needs to be adapted, save for the obvious skill and feat swaps. The baddies are mostly generic hobbos and dragons, except for the dragon-derivative stuff from MM IV, but those are included in the statblocks with the module, so...

As for general advice, well, there's always this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171284)

[Starbuck_II]

I've got a hankering to run RHoD, after having read so many entertaining campaign journals about it, but my local community is heavily dedicated to PF instead of 3.5 (and, for some reason, many of them treat them as entirely separate systems). So, how much work would it be to 'convert' the adventure into an entirely 3.5-compatible format?

Anything else that should be converted/updated/restatted as well, from experienced RHoD GMs would be appreciated.

I believe there are bad guys that use some 3.5 non-core classes so you'd have to change them.
I remember ninjas mentioned once (so use the new Ninja archetype in PF might be a exact fit).

[The Glyphstone]

I've run it once, will likely do so again in the near future.

I presume you mean adapting to PF, since it's already 3.5?

I would say it'd be terribly easy. Lots of hobgoblins, lots of dragons. Sure, technically a few spells are a bit different, and PF is a bit more generous with feats and stats, but there is pretty good amount of statblock reuse, so you get a lot of mileage for your conversion efforts.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

I'm mainly concerned with the enemies being far too weak, since they're apparently lackluster even against low-medium-op 3.5 parties, and PF raised the minimum power bar on all the base classes (plus stuff from APG, UM, and UC).


As for general advice, well, there's always this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171284)[/QUOTE]

Oh, delicious.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, that's what I mean.

I'm mainly concerned with the enemies being far too weak, since they're apparently lackluster even against low-medium-op 3.5 parties, and PF raised the minimum power bar on all the base classes (plus stuff from APG, UM, and UC).

They're solid against low op. I ran it last time as written against an E6 group, but we have pretty decent op-fu. I added a slight amount of mooks in a few fights, but overall difficulty level was mostly unchanged.

Honestly, some basic feat shuffling in the generic footies and certain bosses(ghostlord, IIRC) is usually enough, if you use good tactics. Sure, the mooks tend to not be mostly fodder after the first coupla fights, but given the setting of it...that's pretty reasonable.

Of course, starting a level low is a decent way to touch the difficulty up a bit.

[Coidzor]

Considering you're mostly fighting a set of types, a bit of tweaking to 3 or 4 hobgoblins to get their feats and skills in line deals with the mooks and frees up the bosses and sub-bosses.

Which you're generally going to want to customize to tailor to your group/table preferences anyway.

Biggest problem is if your PF group is on the high side of middling OP or higher, the general options for beefing up the mooks, like adding in a dash of ToB are verboten.

So you'd have to figure out what you could grab from the APG or UC or any feats for fighting as a unit that could be used in order to compensate for that.

[BlueInc]

Considering you're mostly fighting a set of types, a bit of tweaking to 3 or 4 hobgoblins to get their feats and skills in line deals with the mooks and frees up the bosses and sub-bosses.

Which you're generally going to want to customize to tailor to your group/table preferences anyway.

Biggest problem is if your PF group is on the high side of middling OP or higher, the general options for beefing up the mooks, like adding in a dash of ToB are verboten.

So you'd have to figure out what you could grab from the APG or UC or any feats for fighting as a unit that could be used in order to compensate for that.

As I just said on another topic, ToB works great in Pathfinder. I'm hoping to run this campaign sometime in Pathfinder; looks like it should work out pretty well, especially because a lot of stuff is "3 of mooks A, 4 of mooks B"; rebuild and substitute mooks A and B and you're golden.

[Coidzor]

As I just said on another topic, ToB works great in Pathfinder. I'm hoping to run this campaign sometime in Pathfinder; looks like it should work out pretty well, especially because a lot of stuff is "3 of mooks A, 4 of mooks B"; rebuild and substitute mooks A and B and you're golden.

Except for when you'd get nothing but grief for using non-pathfinder material in a pathfinder game like the OP had indicated was the case in his area.

[BlueInc]

Except for when you'd get nothing but grief for using non-pathfinder material in a pathfinder game like the OP had indicated was the case in his area.

Point taken.

Also, as the handbook says, a lot depends on your optimization level. If your players are playing un-optimized, not much needs to change. Channel energy will mean Clerics get better out of combat healing, rogues will be able to sneak attack undead, etc.

Make some Magus mooks and Archetype'd fighters and barbarians to keep your players on their toes?

[The Glyphstone]

Except for when you'd get nothing but grief for using non-pathfinder material in a pathfinder game like the OP had indicated was the case in his area.

This is, sadly, the case. Though I can probably get away with ToB classes on the bosses/minibosses, because 'everyone knows' 3.5 material is cheesy and unbalanced, and ToB is the cheesiest and most unbalanced of all.:smallfurious::smallfrown:

[Coidzor]

Make some Magus mooks and Archetype'd fighters and barbarians to keep your players on their toes?

Come to think of it, I do think duskblades are one thing that had been recommended at times to spice things up w/out ToB, so that Magus thing can probably be played up to a bit more interesting effect due to their expanded versatility and power over the common duskblade...

The main thing is that rather than being a quick-ish change-up, there might need to be a bit more of archetype delving and customization of teams of the horde.


This is, sadly, the case. Though I can probably get away with ToB classes on the bosses/minibosses, because 'everyone knows' 3.5 material is cheesy and unbalanced, and ToB is the cheesiest and most unbalanced of all.:smallfurious::smallfrown:

Strange how people buy into new orthodoxies so quickly.

[Fizban]

Best answer I can think of would be to just run it as is and smack anyone if they try to look under the hood. PF is a variant of the exact same system, RHoD is mostly underpowered, and they have the gall to complain about power levels because you won't convert?

Conversion work would depend on how much you think you've gotta do to please these people. The Red Hand of Doom Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171284) is incomplete in some areas, but still gives a very good overview of what to change to adjust it to a more optimized power level. Or the short version: restat the rank and file types (which you'll get to reuse a lot so it's an easy investement) with updated classes and rebuild all the bosses. For monstery types, just look at how old they are: generic Ogres and Hellhounds are ancient and suck, but the Spawn of Tiamat are from the latter days and can be ridiculous strong. (Blackspawn Raiders with 8 full BAB HD for CR4? What?).

How much actual work will be depends on how long it takes you to stat up an individual build. Quick and easy ballpark is maybe 8 rank and file guys, 8 more wyrmlords and boss level guys, maybe 2-4 monster types that need replacement, and 4 dragons that could use upgrading and feat tweaking (and one that might need to be nerfed). I didn't want to use ToB on everything, so I made custom feat and occasional dip builds for the basic rank and file, changed one boss's feats and spells but nothing else, upgraded two dragons with DM fiat size increases sans HD and rebuilt their feats, replaced Hellhounds with Dire Wolves, replaced Ogres with smaller numbers of Skullcrusher Ogres, tweaked spells and feats on another boss flunky, and completely overhauled the second wyrmlord so far. Funnily enough, even though my party's got some decent optimization, they waste actions and go in unprepared so often they're usually fighting from a negative position. And since they don't pack big area spells like the campaign expects, they've almost been swarmed a couple times.

[Saintheart]

Shameless plug: if people would like to suggest changes to adapt RHOD to Pathfinder, I would love to hear from them so I can expand the handbook to that subject as well.

The duskblades suggested are Hobgoblin Duskblades from the MM 5. The Hobgoblin Warsoul and Hobgoblin Warcasters also make for nice out-of-the-box replacements for the hobgoblin clerics and mages of the module.

[deuxhero]

This is, sadly, the case. Though I can probably get away with ToB classes on the bosses/minibosses, because 'everyone knows' 3.5 material is cheesy and unbalanced, and ToB is the cheesiest and most unbalanced of all.:smallfurious::smallfrown:

Why do they need to know you are using 3.5 stuff.

[Coidzor]

Why do they need to know you are using 3.5 stuff.

ToB generally has a recognizable impact in the game, and would be distinct compared to typical pathfinder play from what I've been able to tell.

[Tyndmyr]

Shameless plug: if people would like to suggest changes to adapt RHOD to Pathfinder, I would love to hear from them so I can expand the handbook to that subject as well.

The duskblades suggested are Hobgoblin Duskblades from the MM 5. The Hobgoblin Warsoul and Hobgoblin Warcasters also make for nice out-of-the-box replacements for the hobgoblin clerics and mages of the module.

I'm doing a complete conversion of statblocks/encounters for a level higher(hey, it's one way to up the difficulty).

I'll try to recall to ping you with it when it's done.

[Starbuck_II]

ToB generally has a recognizable impact in the game, and would be distinct compared to typical pathfinder play from what I've been able to tell.

But Ultimate Combat used ToB maneuvers in their new Style feats.
Snake Style is Baffling Defense in everything but flavor text. Just tell them you homebrewed new Style feats.
They will never know you use ToB.

[Tyndmyr]

But Ultimate Combat used ToB maneuvers in their new Style feats.
Snake Style is Baffling Defense in everything but flavor text. Just tell them you homebrewed new Style feats.
They will never know you use ToB.

Well, unless one of them knows 3.5 particularly well. And if he does...he's probably your ally.

I sympathize...I had a game shop tell me they only allowed pathfinder games, because they only allow game systems they sold. They had a chronic shortage of DMs though, so they changed their tune.=)

[Hiro Protagonest]

This is, sadly, the case. Though I can probably get away with ToB classes on the bosses/minibosses, because 'everyone knows' 3.5 material is cheesy and unbalanced, and ToB is the cheesiest and most unbalanced of all.:smallfurious::smallfrown:

If any of the enemies are spellcasters, op them to Hell and back (using PF rules), then make the martial mooks that they face after them unoptimized warblades and crusaders (like barely any White Raven, lots of Stone Dragon stances, no Stone Power, etc). And don't tell them. When it's done, ask them who the toughest non-boss was. Then tell them the melee guys were made using 3.5 ToB, and the casters pure PF.

[Tyndmyr]

The casters already are the nastier mobs....I mean *mild spoiler ahead* things like an invisible caster buffing others and summoning mobs is completely normal. Those guys are a lot more memorable than the mooks you slaughter in piles. And of course, the dragons are spellcasters...

[Hiro Protagonest]

The casters already are the nastier mobs....I mean *mild spoiler ahead* things like an invisible caster buffing others and summoning mobs is completely normal. Those guys are a lot more memorable than the mooks you slaughter in piles. And of course, the dragons are spellcasters...

But are there any low level caster mooks? Because I'm thinking the fighter will love Grease, Vanish, and Ray of Enfeeblement from wizards, Murderous Command from clerics, and Ray of Sickening from both.

[Coidzor]

But Ultimate Combat used ToB maneuvers in their new Style feats.
Snake Style is Baffling Defense in everything but flavor text. Just tell them you homebrewed new Style feats.
They will never know you use ToB.

Well, that's a surprise. And here I'd heard the lead designers had some kind of blood oath against the guys behind ToB.

Guess they were just dragging their feet, then, huh. :smallconfused:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, that's a surprise. And here I'd heard the lead designers had some kind of blood oath against the guys behind ToB.

Guess they were just dragging their feet, then, huh. :smallconfused:

The prime targets for the feats are monks, since they all require Improved Unarmed Strike and most of them allow monks to get them earlier.

[The Glyphstone]

If any of the enemies are spellcasters, op them to Hell and back (using PF rules), then make the martial mooks that they face after them unoptimized warblades and crusaders (like barely any White Raven, lots of Stone Dragon stances, no Stone Power, etc). And don't tell them. When it's done, ask them who the toughest non-boss was. Then tell them the melee guys were made using 3.5 ToB, and the casters pure PF.

Because I need more reasons to be accused of being the 'resident powergamer' because I say things like 'ToB is good' and 'psionics aren't broken'.

This isn't really a thread about 'proving' ToB isn't cheese, though. If it drifts too far in that direction, it'll get shut down before it turns into another flamefest; I've got most of what I need (that awesome RHOD guide, primarily.)

[Frosty]

The prime targets for the feats are monks, since they all require Improved Unarmed Strike and most of them allow monks to get them earlier.
Do you feel that with the addition of Ultimate Combat, Monks are finally decent, or are they still too feat starved?

[Coidzor]

The prime targets for the feats are monks, since they all require Improved Unarmed Strike and most of them allow monks to get them earlier.

... That's... ...That's just.... peachy keen.

Hey, Glyphstone you might actually have a reason to keep the DoomFist Monks in your game at this rate.

[The Glyphstone]

... That's... ...That's just.... peachy keen.

Hey, Glyphstone you might actually have a reason to keep the DoomFist Monks in your game at this rate.

Doomfist Monks? I haven't finished reading the module yet, what are they and when do they show up?

[Coidzor]

Doomfist Monks? I haven't finished reading the module yet, what are they and when do they show up?

Mostly appear in the Ghostlord's Lair section, and, IIRC, are one of the suggested possibilities for things to encounter in the Fane of Tiamat or on the way to it.

[BlueInc]

Monks look pretty playable in Ultimate Combat. Shouldn't be too hard to make a tier 4 monk with it.

[Togath]

Also don't overlook the pf ranger; the shield and weapon fighting style could be good for boosting the low rank mooks.
If your using firearms the gunslinger could also be good for boosting the effectiveness of the hobgoblins in general, even without firearms they still gain fairly useful class features(d10 hd, good reflex and fort saves, and martial weapons proficiency), though if you use gunslingers you may want to adjust loot, as the cheapest firearm in pf is 740gp(the pistol dagger), and the cheapest standard one is the pistol at 1000gp, and gunslingers gain at least one firearm free at 1st level.

[BlueInc]

Monks look pretty playable in Ultimate Combat. Shouldn't be too hard to make a tier 4 monk with it.

[The Glyphstone]

If anything will eventually redeem Paizo in my eyes, it's all the love they're giving the Monk as more and more books are released.

[Starbuck_II]

Also don't overlook the pf ranger; the shield and weapon fighting style could be good for boosting the low rank mooks.
If your using firearms the gunslinger could also be good for boosting the effectiveness of the hobgoblins in general, even without firearms they still gain fairly useful class features(d10 hd, good reflex and fort saves, and martial weapons proficiency), though if you use gunslingers you may want to adjust loot, as the cheapest firearm in pf is 740gp(the pistol dagger), and the cheapest standard one is the pistol at 1000gp, and gunslingers gain at least one firearm free at 1st level.

Gunslingers initial firearm is worth 2d4 gp (it is treated as broken condition in anyone's hands but owners as well).
So not a problem: also Gunslingers are only allowed to get Blunderbus, Pistol, or musket. No special stuff unless you buy/craft it.

You could sell the ammo for decent money though (1 gp per bullet).

[The Glyphstone]

The bridge fight seems like an excellent place for me to use some hobgoblin snipers, I'll keep that in mind.

[Hiro Protagonest]

If anything will eventually redeem Paizo in my eyes, it's all the love they're giving the Monk as more and more books are released.

Dragon Style really helps charger types too, letting you ignore difficult terrain and giving you a few other bonuses. Monks don't get it earlier than other classes for this one, but it still requires IUS. Here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dragon-style-combat).

[The Glyphstone]

Doesn't one of the style feats allow Pounce?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Doesn't one of the style feats allow Pounce?

I heard of Tiger's Pounce, but that's apparently the same as Shock Trooper's Heedless Charge. Not on the SRD yet. And you have to choose between Tiger Style and Dragon Style at any given time.

[Starbuck_II]

I heard of Tiger's Pounce, but that's apparently the same as Shock Trooper's Heedless Charge. Not on the SRD yet. And you have to choose between Tiger Style and Dragon Style at any given time.

Unless you have a level in Master of Many Styles Monk (hey can have 2 active at once at level 1, later more). Give up Flurry in exchange.

[Frosty]

Giving up Flurry of Misses isn't too bad right?

[Coidzor]

Giving up Flurry of Misses isn't too bad right?

I was just thinking the same thing.

[Curious]

Every Monk needs to take the Dimension chain of feats for move + full attack, and be a Quinggong monk to get Cold Ice Strike as a swift action.

[BlueInc]

Every Monk needs to take the Dimension chain of feats for move + full attack, and be a Quinggong monk to get Cold Ice Strike as a swift action.

Hmm...not sure if all those archetypes stack.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Giving up Flurry of Misses isn't too bad right?

Except you're treated as having full BAB for FoB in Pathfinder, so your attacks actually hit, and more often than if you don't use it.

[Starbuck_II]

Hmm...not sure if all those archetypes stack.

Quigong stacxks with everything but Martial Artist (you need a Ki pool). You choose what to give up with Quigong.