[PF] versus [3.PF]

[maysarahs]

What do people think of using 3.5 material in Pathfinder games? I am going to DM my first pbp game and I am wondering whether to allow 3.5 material. On one hand, the reason why 3.5 is a good addition because it has so many options and choices for your character, on the other, you get things that break the game, and I doubt the "fixes" Pathfinder introduces fixes very much if you allow 3.5 material, since you fall into the same patterns, continuing the lack of balance. Your thoughts and opinions playgrounders?

[Mojo_Rat]

our group severed all connection to 3.5 when we started Pf. the only material I use now is modules and paizo 3.5 suff if a player asks. it's never been an issue and I can make almost any char i want.


but ALOT of people on these boards seem to mix thing. though as paizo introduces new stuff the game becomes less compatable as new books balance themselves with pfg materials only.

ultimately to each their own though the modules convert up easily.

[Akal Saris]

I've allowed my PCs to use most 3.5 material in my PF games, but they've shown surprising interest in keeping their characters mostly limited to PF sources.

If you're worried about balance, it's best to allow or disallow specific things rather than ban all of 3.5. The 3.5 dread necro or factotum, for example, are balanced fine with most of PF, and both fill some character concepts that PF hasn't fully explored yet - but allowing 3.5-style polymorphing (through Draconic Polymorph or Master of Many Forms, for example) would probably be a mistake.

I banned Divine Metamagic in one of my PF games, on the basis that it was cheesy and the previous four cleric PCs in the gaming group had all relied on it. So instead the cleric picked up lunge and power attack/cleave, and by all indications he's enjoyed those feats tremendously.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I think people playing Pathfinder should feel free to draw upon 3.5 material, but I also think that allowing that material forces the DM to take more responsibility for character balance. I think allowing 3.5 material with approval is best.

[The Glyphstone]

Exactly like 3.5, in other words.

PF, at this point, has only "replaced" 3.5's core, though you could make an analogy between Complete Arcane/Divine and the APG. If you would ban a supplement in 3.5 for balance reasons, ban it in PF for the same reasons. If you would consider something in 3.5 to not be over/underpowered, there's no harm in allowing it in PF. A lot will be incompatible anyways (pretty much anything related to combat maneuvers, or turning, for instance - more specifically, something like the Master Transmogrifist would be unplayable due to how drastically polymorph has changed), so it's not terribly difficult.

[Eldariel]

I'd allow everything bar stupidity (no, I wouldn't allow Incantatrixes outside superhigh powered games even with casters having class features now). I'd definitely allow ToB, Binders, Incarnum, Psionics and Factotum. None of those are redundant with what PF offers and the issues ToB addresses are still present in PF, so ToB is a no-brainer. I'd also allow the semi-caster classes like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer; they basically serve as superspecialists.

But yeah, basically all normal 3.5 stuff with the normal limitations I'd place (depending on optimization level); PF really did not change much in the grand scheme of things and thus all the good and bad from 3.5 still exists. I'd allow the same stuff (that is, everything with exceptions) I would in 3.5.

[Telasi]

Pathfinder is kinda lacking if you don't draw on 3.5 stuff, in my opinion. It's perfectly playable, just like 3.5 core, but it's more fun with the extra material. As long as you use good sense in what material you allow, it works quite well.

[Gnaeus]

I think people playing Pathfinder should feel free to draw upon 3.5 material, but I also think that allowing that material forces the DM to take more responsibility for character balance. I think allowing 3.5 material with approval is best.

This is what we do. So far, in our low level PF game, we have added the Healing Belt, and the Benign Transposition spell. But most of our players are pretty low-op, and they have had plenty of options within PF.

[Luckmann]

Take anything from 3.5.
See if it needs some tweaking to be in tune with Pathfinder content.
Fudging tweak that botch up in this shizzle (Optional).
Check with others players if this would be fine with them (Optional).
Check with DM if he'll allow it.
Incorporate into game.

Congratulations, you are now using 3.5 content in Pathfinder. :smallwink:

[John Campbell]

Our group's policy regarding 3.5 material is: If it's been replaced, either explicitly or in basic function, by something officially Pathfinder, use the Pathfinder version. If it hasn't been, run it by the DM, and it'll be considered. If it relies on a mechanic that's been majorly altered, probably not.

When our game started, we only had the just-barely-released Player's Guide, though... most of our character generation was actually done off the beta because the final wasn't out yet. The APG added a lot of stuff that replaces, to some degree or another, 3.5 material that we were using. (I heavily revised my build plans after the APG came out, because one of the 3.5 prestige classes that my build revolved around can be replaced in all salient features by an APG feat, and sticking with Ranger rather than prestiging out gives me the bonus feat to do it with.) If we were starting the game now - or, especially, starting the game after the PF magic and fightin' supplements come out - we might not bother with 3.5 material at all.

Well, we'd probably still use the Magic Item Compendium, just because of the sheer volume of neat widgets in it that PF is probably never going to specifically replace all of.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

While I probably would never run a "3.PF," Pathfinder's selling point is that it is supposed to be backwards compatible, and while it does a lot of nice things, it also does a lot of derp things, too. That said, I see no problem with allowing most of 3.X alongside of Pathfinder, too!

[McSmack]

As a DM-
I allow players to choose things from 3.5 then work with them to convert them to PF, with the caveat that if I don't think it's working/balanced I can adjust or disallow it without complaint.

For the most part things can be brought over without too much work. I run in Eberron, so I had to adjust the races a bit to bring them up to PF standards. I also have to bump up low CR enemies from 3.5 so they don't get steamrolled.

If you decide to mix them, just pay attention and be ready to stomp on anything that gets out of line.

As a Player-
The one game I actually play in is pure PF, and we haven't had any problems. There is a small but noticable decrease in character options, but this is only becuase there's simply not as much splat material to go through. Refreshingly most of the options that PF has seem more solid and better balanced than the crap-or-awesome policy Wizards employed. So yeah, fewer options, but most of those options are good. For the record so far I've only played a sorcerer, but I've read the books. I'm anixous to try out their version of the Paladin and fighter.

One thing I would consider is using more of the 3.5 PrCs. PF did a good job of balancing PrC's vs. Archetypes vs. Core classes, but personally I feel that they focused a little bit too much on archetypes (good for character creation) and less on PrC's (which are not as useful unless you're willing to do a rebuild.)

[subject42]

Well, we'd probably still use the Magic Item Compendium, just because of the sheer volume of neat widgets in it that PF is probably never going to specifically replace all of.

The MIC has been a definite sticking point in going to All-Pathfinder for my games. There's just too much stuff in there to ignore it.

Overall, it seems pretty easy to bring 3.5 stuff over. The only thing that I tend to clamp down on is the spell selection for prepared divine casters. At least Wizards need to spend gold and time to get new spells. My general rule for divine casters is "if you want something from 3.5, you need to sacrifice a spell from Pathfinder in order to get it". It helps keep spell-list creep under control.

[maysarahs]

What about the pricing in the MIC? One of my players (a more experienced DM) blanches at the mention of the healing belt. Such an item CANNOT be priced so low. I heard that the MIC doesn't follow the pricing rules of 3.5 very well, and even then, the pricing in 3.5 system doesn't match with PF's?

[The Glyphstone]

It's priced so low because out-of-combat healing is more-or-less free.

Look at a Wand of Cure Light Wounds. Also costs 750GP, same as the Healing Belt. The wand can heal a total of 50d8+50HP, average 275HP. The belt can heal up to 6d8/day (average 27) if you break it down as far as possible. So, the belt only outlasts the wand if you use it at its maximum capacity for 10 days straight, during which you will have earned enough money to pay for a new wand five or ten times over. If you use the belt at full power, it'll take 15 days to outstrip the wand. The belt is superior only because it uses a swift action, meaning you can still hit back while healing and not lose out on actions.

The MIC doesn't follow the core PHB pricing rules because they realized everyting in the base book was ridiculously overpriced for the levels it'd be useful at.

[Gnaeus]

What about the pricing in the MIC? One of my players (a more experienced DM) blanches at the mention of the healing belt. Such an item CANNOT be priced so low. I heard that the MIC doesn't follow the pricing rules of 3.5 very well, and even then, the pricing in 3.5 system doesn't match with PF's?

PF mostly matches 3.5. Lots of prices are unchanged.

The healing belt (and other items) are intentionally priced below DMG prices for 2 (related) reasons. (I think. Exactly why WOTC did stuff is a mystery, but these seem like the reasons.)

1. The DMG formula often results in items that are priced at a level that is WAY above their functional usefulness. If you priced a 3/per day cure moderate wounds item by DMG rules, no one would buy it. MIC costs tend to be a lot closer to the value that most items actually have. Just like they poorly judged how useful certain abilities (like full casting) were in comparison with other abilities (like armor use) they also poorly judged how much items should cost.

2. Its good for balance. HP are the big limitation that melee has in facing additional encounters in a day. Having cheap, readily available healing that a muggle can use is really important for a low level fighter or rogue, somewhat useful for a wizard, and really not that big a deal for a cleric.

[Grommen]

I didn't have any trouble useing the 3.5 splat books. You do have to do some digging to make sure that their is not a PF feat, class, or something that would be better to use though. All in all it was fine.

One would need take care when dealing with feats for Grappling, Tripping, Disarming, etc. The base feats are re done in PF, but some of the 3.5 splat books might be way wrong.

Some feats you'll have to tweek on a case by case basis. Shock Trooper, for example, needs adjusted for that you can use the feat if you simply power attack.

Biggest pain in my butt was converting 3.5 NPC's to PF. Long and short. Just run them as is and and don't worry about it. The changes are not enough to completely wreck the NPC. And for sure not worth the effort of conversion. :smallfurious:

[PinkysBrain]

What do people think of using 3.5 material in Pathfinder games? I am going to DM my first pbp game and I am wondering whether to allow 3.5 material.
Magic items in PF are overpriced, MiC is a shoe in (just houserule the belt of battle to give standard action attacks and full attacks, so it doesn't become a cheap metamagic wand of quicken spell).

ToB is always relevant.

you get things that break the game, and I doubt the "fixes" Pathfinder introduces fixes very much if you allow 3.5 material, since you fall into the same patterns, continuing the lack of balance.
PF has removed some broken stuff and nerfed the melee cleric, but I wouldn't call it balanced ... for every one broken thing they removed they introduced 10 trap options, which just creates another form of unbalance.

Look at the animal companion list in PF for the best example of this.

[BobVosh]

Biggest pain in my butt was converting 3.5 NPC's to PF. Long and short. Just run them as is and and don't worry about it. The changes are not enough to completely wreck the NPC. And for sure not worth the effort of conversion. :smallfurious:

I just slap on the advance template once or twice then move on with my life.