You got your 3.5 in my PF!

[Volos]

As the title says, I'm curious as to why so many members of these forums are under the impression that Pathfinder rules should be used in harmony with much of the old 3.5 material (mostly splatbooks, but some core as well). The pattern that I have observed is that online everyone wants to mix certain parts/classes/feats/spells/PrCs/ect from 3.5 into the exsisting Pathfinder Core while most every gamer I meet in person or know personally outside of these forums feel that 3.5 and Pathfinder are very different games and should not mix. I agree with keeping the two systems seperate, but that is just my opinion. I would like to know what you think. Should they be mixed? Why or why not? And what parts should(n't) be mixed, and why? And finally when starting threads on either 3.5 mixed with Pathfinder or strictly Pathfinder, should we denote which we are talking about before starting a discussion?

[137beth]

I agree that it doesn't make sense to mix everything in them, simply because they have different standards. A PF race would not be balanced in 3.5, and vice versa. However, there are some material from various 3.5 splatbooks that would fit into a PF game. Discretion is key.

[AlexTheGreat]

But... PF is 3.5. :smallconfused:

[Dead_Jester]

In essence, because Pathfinder is really D&D 3.6 (or 3.75 wtv), there is absolutely no reason that the good things in 3.5 couldn't or shouldn't be imported. Even if pathfinder has done a lot to create a semblance of balance in the mess that is 3rd ed D&D, the major problems inherent to the system still stand. Meleers still only hit stuff, and casters are still gods.

As such, you could (and, IMO, should) bring things like ToB and other unique tier 3 classes that still haven't been converted. As far as the balance difference, it's actually very minimal; for races, you could probably reduce the LA of all 3.5 races by 1 and they would probably be balanced, and for classes, it's only a matter of adding more (mostly fluffy) abilities to classes with lots of dead levels.

In the end, I firmly believe that the "good" parts of 3.5 (especially the later classes that focused on a more "balanced" power level) should also be used in pathfinder because they are already made to mesh with a slightly more balanced version of D&D which Pathfinder is trying to create. There are no mechanical reasons to limit access to things that, for all practical intents and purposes, were made for a Pathfinder-esque game, and doing so would solely penalize the players and the Dm's by removing and/or limiting access to content that is generally praised as being some of the best in both 3.5 and Pathfinder.

[Volos]

I agree that it doesn't make sense to mix everything in them, simply because they have different standards. A PF race would not be balanced in 3.5, and vice versa. However, there are some material from various 3.5 splatbooks that would fit into a PF game. Discretion is key.

What sort of material are you refering to? And is there something within Pathfinder that isn't already covering that niche (rules wise or flavor wise)?


But... PF is 3.5. :smallconfused:

If Pathfinder were 3.5, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Pathfinder is Paizo's 'fix', 'update', 'natural advancement', or what have you of the 3.5 rules. If there were problems with the old system that they sought to address, then why are so many of their potential players remixing in old 3.5 material? It would be like re-creating a recipie for a cake, only to use the old outdated ingredients for the sake of nostalgia.


In essence, because Pathfinder is really D&D 3.6 (or 3.75 wtv), there is absolutely no reason that the good things in 3.5 couldn't or shouldn't be imported. Even if pathfinder has done a lot to create a semblance of balance in the mess that is 3rd ed D&D, the major problems inherent to the system still stand. Meleers still only hit stuff, and casters are still gods.

As such, you could (and, IMO, should) bring things like ToB and other unique tier 3 classes that still haven't been converted. As far as the balance difference, it's actually very minimal; for races, you could probably reduce the LA of all 3.5 races by 1 and they would probably be balanced, and for classes, it's only a matter of adding more (mostly fluffy) abilities to classes with lots of dead levels.

In the end, I firmly believe that the "good" parts of 3.5 (especially the later classes that focused on a more "balanced" power level) should also be used in pathfinder because they are already made to mesh with a slightly more balanced version of D&D which Pathfinder is trying to create. There are no mechanical reasons to limit access to things that, for all practical intents and purposes, were made for a Pathfinder-esque game, and doing so would solely penalize the players and the Dm's by removing and/or limiting access to content that is generally praised as being some of the best in both 3.5 and Pathfinder.

I can see your argument good sir. Mixing in the 'good' parts of the old game into the new since they are so compatable, provided the DM is willing, could make for a very flavorful game. So I will present a new question to you, and point you back to the last of my first series of questions. Why, when presented with a PF rules question or a PF build question, do the posters of these forums automatically point toward 3.5 material that their DM may or may not accept rather than point to PF materials? As this seems to keep happening, should we use 3.P and PF as seperate designations of the mix between 3.5 and Pathfinder vs strictly Pathfinder?

[AlexTheGreat]

PF is (suposed to be) backwards compatible with 3.5. True or not, they're similar enough for it to be possible and not that hard to convert.

[Taelas]

As the title says, I'm curious as to why so many members of these forums are under the impression that Pathfinder rules should be used in harmony with much of the old 3.5 material (mostly splatbooks, but some core as well). The pattern that I have observed is that online everyone wants to mix certain parts/classes/feats/spells/PrCs/ect from 3.5 into the exsisting Pathfinder Core while most every gamer I meet in person or know personally outside of these forums feel that 3.5 and Pathfinder are very different games and should not mix. I agree with keeping the two systems seperate, but that is just my opinion. I would like to know what you think. Should they be mixed? Why or why not? And what parts should(n't) be mixed, and why? And finally when starting threads on either 3.5 mixed with Pathfinder or strictly Pathfinder, should we denote which we are talking about before starting a discussion?

The reason you see that disconnect is because one group is a community working together, whereas the other is a bunch of individuals who have no connections to one another. There is a great gulf in the consolidated knowledge between the groups.

A group of individual gamers with no real connections to one another will not have shared the lessons each learn with the others, whereas in an online community, everything gets shared -- and while not everyone learns everything, most people learn a little, and they share that knowledge with others.

We say to mix Pathfinder and 3.5 because it creates a better game. You can take the things that Pathfinder did better, and avoid the ones it did not. You can keep the things 3.5 did well, and seek Pathfinder replacements for others. It isn't perfect, but a 3.5/Pathfinder game where the best aspects have been taken from both is a stronger game than either 3.5 or Pathfinder alone.

[AlexTheGreat]

I can see your argument good sir. Mixing in the 'good' parts of the old game into the new since they are so compatable, provided the DM is willing, could make for a very flavorful game. So I will present a new question to you, and point you back to the last of my first series of questions. Why, when presented with a PF rules question or a PF build question, do the posters of these forums automatically point toward 3.5 material that their DM may or may not accept rather than point to PF materials? As this seems to keep happening, should we use 3.P and PF as seperate designations of the mix between 3.5 and Pathfinder vs strictly Pathfinder?
Maybe because it's more likely then not that the DM is allowing mixing 3.5 with PF? I mean, it's said by the devs that it's possible, so...

[tyckspoon]

I can see your argument good sir. Mixing in the 'good' parts of the old game into the new since they are so compatable, provided the DM is willing, could make for a very flavorful game. So I will present a new question to you, and point you back to the last of my first series of questions. Why, when presented with a PF rules question or a PF build question, do the posters of these forums automatically point toward 3.5 material that their DM may or may not accept rather than point to PF materials? As this seems to keep happening, should we use 3.P and PF as seperate designations of the mix between 3.5 and Pathfinder vs strictly Pathfinder?

I'm pretty sure it's A: Because we're not all as deeply familiar with Pathfinder's available material as we are the canon of 3.5 (and Pathfinder was nominally designed to maintain back-compatibility, so why *not* use the 3.5 stuff?) and B: Pathfinder doesn't have the depth of splat 3.5 does yet, so there are relatively large areas of material that only exist as 3.5 items and don't have a working Pathfinder equivalent.

[Greenish]

If there were problems with the old system that they sought to address, then why are so many of their potential players remixing in old 3.5 material?What problems did PF fix that 3.5 material would reintroduce? : Never mind, there's already a long thread on that.


Why, when presented with a PF rules question or a PF build question, do the posters of these forums automatically point toward 3.5 material that their DM may or may not accept rather than point to PF materials?Because people want to help (gasp!) but are more familiar with 3.5. Terrible, horrible thing indeed, getting wrong kind of help from an internet forum. I mean, it's not like you could ignore things like that!

[Gnaeus]

As the title says, I'm curious as to why so many members of these forums are under the impression that Pathfinder rules should be used in harmony with much of the old 3.5 material (mostly splatbooks, but some core as well). The pattern that I have observed is that online everyone wants to mix certain parts/classes/feats/spells/PrCs/ect from 3.5 into the exsisting Pathfinder Core while most every gamer I meet in person or know personally outside of these forums feel that 3.5 and Pathfinder are very different games and should not mix. I agree with keeping the two systems seperate, but that is just my opinion. I would like to know what you think. Should they be mixed? Why or why not? And what parts should(n't) be mixed, and why?

Most people who played pathfinder played 3.5. Many of those people have large libraries of cherished 3.5 sources. Favorite classes, spells, items, rules, supplements, etc. People who hated 3.5 mostly hate PF for the exact same reasons. Many people bought PF only because it supported the 3.5 content they already enjoyed. I think, (with absolutely 0 proof) that most people play either pure PF or PF with limited 3.5 additions (as my group does), but their are certainly lots of people who do play open content PF +3.5.


And finally when starting threads on either 3.5 mixed with Pathfinder or strictly Pathfinder, should we denote which we are talking about before starting a discussion?

In my opinion, yes. In my opinion, the pathfinder default for forum purposes should be PF with no 3.5 material, and if you are playing with 3.5 splats you should clarify. But other people feel strongly that because PF was meant to be backwards compatible, 3.5 + PF should be the default and PF only is the exception. Given that dispute, yes, it will make discussion easier if everyone is on the same page on what rules are allowed.

[Tvtyrant]

Anytime someone asks for help they should put the limitations they are under in the OP. Back before the forum got split up it was considered courtesy to put the game in brackets in the title of the post, so

"You got your 3.5 in my PF! [3.P]" would denote that the discussion was within the context of 3.X+P.

As for why, the reasoning seems pretty clear to me; Pathfinder cannot convert the none OGL 3.X materials. Binders and Totemists and Swordsages are all 3.5 exclusive, and have mechanics that are unique and interesting.

[Fax Celestis]

One of Pathfinder's design goals was maintaining backwards compatibility. Why else would that be a goal unless the intention was to allow 3.5 and PF material to be used interchangeably?

[AlexTheGreat]

It would be nice if there was a rule that you have to have "[3.5]" when your thread is about 3.5, "[PF]" if it's about PF only and "[3.P]" if it's about PF/3.5 mix.

[LansXero]

Also because people usually have more experience with 3.5, by virtue of it being older alone, so they will recommend what they know.

[Eldariel]

I'm quoting page 4 of the Core Rulebook now:
"One of the best things about the Pathfinder RPG is that it really necessitates no “conversion” of your existing books and magazines. That shelf you have full of great adventures and sourcebooks (many of them very likely from Paizo)? You can still use everything on it with the Pathfinder RPG. In fact, that was what convinced me to come on board the Pathfinder RPG ship. I didn’t want to see all the great stuff that had been produced thus far swept under the rug."

[Gnaeus]

One of Pathfinder's design goals was maintaining backwards compatibility. Why else would that be a goal unless the intention was to allow 3.5 and PF material to be used interchangeably?

Why would that be a goal? To lure the 3.5 fans into playing their game, of course.

And really, you mix up 2-3 questions there.

1. Did they intend 3.5 + PF to be used interchangeably? In my opinion only, no. Backwards compatibility could just as easily mean "we expect you to play with our rules, but if you want to port in a class/spell/adventure/setting from 3.5, we have designed our game so that it will be possible, but get approval from your DM first, because not all 3.5 content will work unmodified in a PF game."

2. Are 3.5 + PF used interchangeably? Pretty clearly, the answer is "not always". We have seen threads like "How much 3.5 do you use in your PF". Personally, I have played in 3 PF games. Pathfinder Society (PF only), Cheesegrinder (a game played at cons) (PF only), and my local DM's PF game (PF + 3.5 material with special approval from DM if there is no good PF equivalent and it isn't considered too strong). Clearly, some groups do use 3.5+ PF, and some don't.

and
3. Given 1 & 2, how should we deal with it on the forums, considering that some PF players will have no access to 3.5 sources, and others will be in games where it isn't allowed?

[Fax Celestis]

I'm quoting page 4 of the Core Rulebook now:
"One of the best things about the Pathfinder RPG is that it really necessitates no “conversion” of your existing books and magazines. That shelf you have full of great adventures and sourcebooks (many of them very likely from Paizo)? You can still use everything on it with the Pathfinder RPG. In fact, that was what convinced me to come on board the Pathfinder RPG ship. I didn’t want to see all the great stuff that had been produced thus far swept under the rug."


1. Did they intend 3.5 + PF to be used interchangeably?Eldariel's quote above says "Yes."

[Knaight]

I'm quoting page 4 of the Core Rulebook now:
"One of the best things about the Pathfinder RPG is that it really necessitates no “conversion” of your existing books and magazines. That shelf you have full of great adventures and sourcebooks (many of them very likely from Paizo)? You can still use everything on it with the Pathfinder RPG. In fact, that was what convinced me to come on board the Pathfinder RPG ship. I didn’t want to see all the great stuff that had been produced thus far swept under the rug."

Because, clearly, all your existing books are from D&D 3.5.

On a side note, I have noticed that there is a decent knowledge of non D&D systems on these forums, by D&D forum standards. If, for instance, you are familiar with Mouse Guard, Reign, and Unknown Armies, 3.5 and Pathfinder will look pretty much identical. There is a lot of variety, and a scant handful of minor changes does not a new game make.

[Eldariel]

Because, clearly, all your existing books are from D&D 3.5.

I didn't want to quote the full page of text but it's clear from the context that it's referring to 3.5 books and magazines.

[IthroZada]

Because, clearly, all your existing books are from D&D 3.5.


Well, if you don't like that interpretation, then the alternative is that all d20 materials are meant to be compatible with Pathfinder, which would include 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

Eldariel's quote above says "Yes."


I'm quoting page 4 of the Core Rulebook now:
"One of the best things about the Pathfinder RPG is that it really necessitates no “conversion” of your existing books and magazines.

And yet, when I go to the PF boards, I find one of their sub headings to be listed "conversions" and it seems to have several hundred posts on it. Headings seem to include how to convert individual 3.5 characters to PF, how to convert 3.5 classes to PF, how to convert 3.5 class abilities (like bardic music) to PF. Considering that PF themselves issued a conversion document, which itself did not answer all these questions,

it really necessitates no “conversion” of your existing books and magazines. seems to be a bit of an overstatement.

Given that was that passage included for use as a rule, or was it a marketing ploy.

[IthroZada]

And yet, when I go to the PF boards, I find one of their sub headings to be listed "conversions" and it seems to have several hundred posts on it. Headings seem to include how to convert individual 3.5 characters to PF, how to convert 3.5 classes to PF, how to convert 3.5 class abilities (like bardic music) to PF. Considering that PF themselves issued a conversion document, which itself did not answer all these questions,
seems to be a bit of an overstatement.

Given that was that passage included for use as a rule, or was it a marketing ploy.


A lot of those "conversions" involve powering up the class, and are really more homebrew. If I wanted to "convert" a Warblade, all I would need to do is change the skill list, and find a replacement for Concentration. The truly most difficult class to convert is the Artificer, since its main class feature, crafting, has changed quite a bit.

[Psyren]

"...They taste great together!"


A lot of those "conversions" involve powering up the class, and are really more homebrew. If I wanted to "convert" a Warblade, all I would need to do is change the skill list, and find a replacement for Concentration. The truly most difficult class to convert is the Artificer, since its main class feature, crafting, has changed quite a bit.

You don't really have to, the PF Artificer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/artificer) is perfectly playable on its own and can do many of the same things.

[Gnaeus]

A lot of those "conversions" involve powering up the class, and are really more homebrew. If I wanted to "convert" a Warblade, all I would need to do is change the skill list, and find a replacement for Concentration..

That sounds a lot like conversion to me. Now, admittedly, it isn't HARD to convert. But when you are changing class skills and rewriting ability descriptions, you have entered the realm of houserules. And as you mentioned, some other classes are harder. Warblade might be balanced in PF, but Swashbuckler isn't. You could PFize it easily, but not without houserules. And artificer, as you say, has abilities that just don't make sense in PF. Do you cut them, or replace them?

Again, when I say this people act like I don't like PF. I LOVE PF. I am playing in 3 PF games now. I love 3.5. I think the 2 can get along. But I think that the argument that they are identical and Pathfinder includes all 3.5 by default is either oversimplifying or is a marketing ploy, depending on whose mouth it comes from.

Heck, the thread right next to this one involves a question on how to convert Warlock, and whether the version on the SRD is "official".



You don't really have to, the PF Artificer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/artificer) is perfectly playable on its own and can do many of the same things.

And that looks fine. I would play one. But it only opens up more questions. Does 3rd party content for PF trump 3.5 content? Or does it become "official" the moment it goes up on the PFSRD? Or does it need to be included on a list somewhere, or in an adventure path? I don't think Paizo runs the PFSRD. There are too many issues like this for me to be comfortable with a viewpoint that says that PF by default includes all this other material that Paizo didn't publish.

[Luckmann]

There could be several reasons for this, such as:


You didn't mark your thread appropriately, preferably with [PF]
You did not specify that it was for Pathfinder or that only Pathfinder things were allowed in the campaign.
They were not intimately familiar with the Pathfinder ruleset and thus offered advice based on their knowledge of 3.5.
What you wanted could not be done appropriately with the still fledgling ruleset of Pathfinder (compared to 3.5).

[IthroZada]

That sounds a lot like conversion to me. Now, admittedly, it isn't HARD to convert. But when you are changing class skills and rewriting ability descriptions, you have entered the realm of houserules. And as you mentioned, some other classes are harder. Warblade might be balanced in PF, but Swashbuckler isn't. You could PFize it easily, but not without houserules. And artificer, as you say, has abilities that just don't make sense in PF. Do you cut them, or replace them?

Again, when I say this people act like I don't like PF. I LOVE PF. I am playing in 3 PF games now. I love 3.5. I think the 2 can get along. But I think that the argument that they are identical and Pathfinder includes all 3.5 by default is either oversimplifying or is a marketing ploy, depending on whose mouth it comes from.
I don't think anyone has said they are identical (except maybe Paizo) but the difference is trivial enough that most (not all) conversions are easy and quick enough to be negligible. I do it all the time. So no, PF doesn't include all 3.5, just so much that it would be easier to list the few discrepancies than the massive similarities.

[Gnaeus]

I don't think anyone has said they are identical (except maybe Paizo)


I'm quoting page 4 of the Core Rulebook now:
"One of the best things about the Pathfinder RPG is that it really necessitates no “conversion” of your existing books and magazines. That shelf you have full of great adventures and sourcebooks (many of them very likely from Paizo)? You can still use everything on it with the Pathfinder RPG.


but the difference is trivial enough that most (not all) conversions are easy and quick enough to be negligible. I do it all the time.

Agreed.


So no, PF doesn't include all 3.5, just so much that it would be easier to list the few discrepancies than the massive similarities.

I think it would be easier to assume that PF means PF only as published by Paizo. 3.P or something similar includes 3.5 + PF with whatever houserules or content limitations poster specifies. And 3rd party content is only available if mentioned by poster.

[Psyren]

And that looks fine. I would play one. But it only opens up more questions. Does 3rd party content for PF trump 3.5 content? Or does it become "official" the moment it goes up on the PFSRD? Or does it need to be included on a list somewhere, or in an adventure path? I don't think Paizo runs the PFSRD. There are too many issues like this for me to be comfortable with a viewpoint that says that PF by default includes all this other material that Paizo didn't publish.

Only you can answer the question of what trumps what at your table and what doesn't. This 3.5 mindset of needing the publisher's logo to help you make up your mind is completely passé - not only does it not mean a thing balance/playtest wise (Truenamer anyone?), but there's already huge resources of players/forums/handbooks out there that let you know up front what a class is really capable of and therefore where it will fit in your campaign power-wise.

[Lastgrasp]

I think paizo is ultra cool with using 3.5 material. If you subscribe to the Adventure Path Series how many times do you find 3.5 material from Advanced Bestiary and Tome of Horror? At least once or twice an issue. Now the rest of the closed content that can't use so we have to convert. Which really isn't hard.

If I walk into a room and saw two groups of gamers playing 3.5 and PF I really couldn't tell the difference unless I started examining things very closely.

As far as third party material. I only consider Dreamscarred Press Psionics material kosher since it updates the 3.5 srd to PF. The rest I really don't use. Plus paizo has no desire right now to do a psionic book. Next year is pretty much scheduled out and there is no psionics on the schedule. They will do an epic book before psionics.

For me official stuff is Paizo & Wotc. Dreamscarred for psionics. Nothing else. I use some material for monsters from 3PP but that's it.

[Alaris]

Well, I have a few beliefs on this. I am currently playing in several different games.

-3.5 Only games
-Pathfinder Only games
-Pathfinder/3.5 Mix

I believe I can provide some insight into the matter.

Pathfinder on its own is not a very expansive system. It has the CORE RULEBOOK, and ADVANCED PLAYER'S GUIDE for player materials. It wasn't until recently that they added ULTIMATE MAGIC and ULTIMATE COMBAT.

D&D 3.5 has a MASSIVE list of books, both CORE and outside of CORE, that outmatches Pathfinder's resources 100 to 1. Probably more. This, I believe, is the primary reason people look to 3.5 for their suggestion for Pathfinder.

In addition, there is a guide on the Pathfinder website ( http://paizo.com/store/downloads/v5748btpy89m6 ) that allows "semi-perfect" conversion of any D&D 3.5 material into Pathfinder material. Classes, Prestige classes and the like will be converted appropriately. Obviously, you'll need to speak to your DM about this, so it all works right, but I believe it can balance.

I believe that, as long as you speak to your DM about bringing 3.5 stuff in, that there won't be a problem. If anything, Pathfinder Characters are generally MORE POWERFUL than 3.5 characters, and any classes or prestige classes from 3.5 are generally WEAKER. But that is my opinion, from experience in both types of games.

[Luckmann]

I think it would be easier to assume that PF means PF only as published by Paizo. 3.P or something similar includes 3.5 + PF with whatever houserules or content limitations poster specifies. And 3rd party content is only available if mentioned by poster.

This. I love this idea. We should have a sticky asking people to mark their threads appropriately. Sometimes they're marked [PF] and sometimes it's [Pathfinder] and sometimes it's [3.P] and then all variants but with regular parenthesizes instead.

It may sound silly, but it infuriates me. I want to be able to do a quick scan on a page for [PF] threads without having to enter 6-8 different search terms. :smallannoyed:

[Lastgrasp]

Threads should be.....

3.0 - 3rd Edition. 3e only
3.5 - 3.5 Edition and stuff not updated from 3e
3.P - Pathfinder with 3.5/0 Material
PF - Pure Pathfinder

[Gnaeus]

Only you can answer the question of what trumps what at your table and what doesn't.

Yessss. But when we answer questions about how things work, or whether something is balanced, or almost any other question, we refer to RAW or RAI. If Bob says "Is fighter balanced with wizard in 3.5", the answer is "No", not "Yes, because in Frank & K's Tomes, the fighter got......". If you ask me how Psionics works in PF, I haven't a clue. Does it use 3.5 converted? Does it use the 3rd party supplement by Dreamscarred? My answer would be: PF does not currently include psionics. If YOU wish to use psionics in your PF game, here are some supplements you could look at.

[Psyren]

If Bob says "Is fighter balanced with wizard in 3.5", the answer is "No", not "Yes, because in Frank & K's Tomes, the fighter got......"

Why would you include more than one variety of a class in the same campaign? :smallconfused:
Pick one version of the Fighter (or anything else) and answer all such questions with that. Similarly, pick one Artificer (preferably the PF one, since it requires no conversion) and stick with that.

If you're worried about the PFSRD having too many books, everything on it has a source at the bottom of the page; allow the sources you're comfortable with and deny the ones you aren't.



D&D 3.5 has a MASSIVE list of books, both CORE and outside of CORE, that outmatches Pathfinder's resources 100 to 1. Probably more. This, I believe, is the primary reason people look to 3.5 for their suggestion for Pathfinder.

The other reason is WotC's damnable closed-content - many useful classes, feats, spells etc. simply aren't available in PF and must be gleaned from 3.5. For instance, something as simple and useful as Practiced Spellcaster or Practiced Manifester hasn't been converted yet. PF also doesn't have a divine/psionic theurge, a bard/druid theurge etc.

[Gnaeus]

Why would you include more than one variety of a class in the same campaign? :smallconfused:
Pick one version of the Fighter (or anything else) and answer all such questions with that. Similarly, pick one Artificer (preferably the PF one, since it requires no conversion) and stick with that.

If you're worried about the PFSRD having too many books, everything on it has a source at the bottom of the page; allow the sources you're comfortable with and deny the ones you aren't.

Not the point. The point is that there isn't an easy way to say what RAW is in PF when you include all this other stuff. I am 100% comfortable with adding or subtracting material at my table. But if you ask me what the Pathfinder fighter is capable of, I would refer you to Paizo products, not Pathfinder + 3.5 + other 3rd party products. I might mention that ToB fixes a lot of issues, but I wouldn't assume that ToB is legal in PF game X, in the way that I would assume that Ultimate Magic or APG is legal in PF game X.


Why would you include more than one variety of a class in the same campaign? :smallconfused:

That isn't a bad rule. But how does it apply? Magus appears to be PF answer to Dusk/hex blades. Does it replace? There is a rogue archetype called swashbuckler. Does it replace the class of the same name? Clearly, PF wants core classes to run 1-20 with less PRCs as a design goal. So do the class archetypes replace comparable 3.5 PRCS, or exist side by side in the same world?



The other reason is WotC's damnable closed-content - many useful classes, feats, spells etc. simply aren't available in PF and must be gleaned from 3.5. For instance, something as simple and useful as Practiced Spellcaster or Practiced Manifester hasn't been converted yet.

I would say that it has. In the form of the Magical Knack trait. And so again we have a question on how to convert. Does it replace? Can you take both for a +6 cl bonus? I would probably rule that you could at my table but I don't think I would say that I feel confident as to what RAW/RAI is.

[Psyren]

The point is that there isn't an easy way to say what RAW is in PF when you include all this other stuff.

There is for me - I scroll to the bottom and look at the source. Even on pages with mixed sources (e.g. the Combat Feats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats) page), the SRD takes pains to cite everything. You couldn't ask for any simpler than that.


I might mention that ToB fixes a lot of issues, but I wouldn't assume that ToB is legal in PF game X, in the way that I would assume that Ultimate Magic or APG is legal in PF game X.

I'd perhaps be more likely to refer to APG than ToB in a PF game, but I wouldn't assume either. The point is that as long as the sources are clear in the SRD (they are), then all you need to do is ask the DM what he allows and bam, you know what RAW is for that table.

[Gnaeus]

There is for me - I scroll to the bottom and look at the source. Even on pages with mixed sources (e.g. the Combat Feats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats) page), the SRD takes pains to cite everything. You couldn't ask for any simpler than that.

Knowing which book it is from means nothing if we (the forum) can't agree on which sources are or are not a part of PF.

Knowing what is RAW for a table is meaningless. MY DM's 30 pages of houserules are RAW for his table. They do not speak to what is RAW in 3.5.

[Psyren]

Knowing which book it is from means nothing if we (the forum) can't agree on which sources are or are not a part of PF.

I still don't understand you. Why does the forum need to agree on anything? Whichever sources you allow, those are part of PF. If all you want to know is which books are published by paizo, that's a no-brainer also.

[subject42]

If you ask me how Psionics works in PF, I haven't a clue. Does it use 3.5 converted? Does it use the 3rd party supplement by Dreamscarred? My answer would be: PF does not currently include psionics. If YOU wish to use psionics in your PF game, here are some supplements you could look at.

I may be wrong here, but didn't Paizo vaguely endorse Dreamscarred press as the official source for Pathfinder psionics?

[Lastgrasp]

Knowing which book it is from means nothing if we (the forum) can't agree on which sources are or are not a part of PF.

The third party material is separated on the pfsrd. The 3PP is usually the last section on the specific topic. So if you click combat feats that all paizo material drawn from PFRPG and the Campaign Setting crunch.

[Lastgrasp]

I may be wrong here, but didn't Paizo vaguely endorse Dreamscarred press as the official source for Pathfinder psionics?

The haven't officially endorse Dreamscarred psionics as part of their game. Erik Mona mentioned that if they tackle psionics it will be very different from 3.5 version. Same thing with epic levels.

Since DSP Psionics are just updated 3.5 material I'm okay with it in my game. During my carrion crown AP campaign I allowed a PC to be a Psion. I trust their material.

[Gnaeus]

I still don't understand you. Why does the forum need to agree on anything? Whichever sources you allow, those are part of PF. If all you want to know is which books are published by paizo, that's a no-brainer also.

Player A. Monks are much stronger than wizards.
Player B. No they aren't. Cites reasons.
Player A. Yes, but in MY game, whenever you cast a spell, demons appear and attack you.
Player B: :smallfrown:.......

Houserules are houserules. They are not game RAW. They do apply at the table. They are not meaningfully able to be discussed on a forum when people are trying to discuss the same game.

If we (the forum) agree that 3.P includes all PF + all 3.5 except as specified otherwise, but not usually 3rd party, and PF includes Paizo only but not any 3.5 or 3rd party except as specified otherwise, we can talk about the same, printed, game. Then, when comparing class balance, I can make a statement like "3.P paladin>3.5 Paladin> PF paladin" and we can agree or disagree based on the merits or lack thereof in my statement instead of having another lame argument about whether PF paladin includes 3.5 splats.

[subject42]

I still don't understand you. Why does the forum need to agree on anything? Whichever sources you allow, those are part of PF. If all you want to know is which books are published by paizo, that's a no-brainer also.

From my standpoint, I'd like a shorthand to know what's allowed so I don't make irrelevant posts to topics on this forum. It's always nice to find an easy way to improve the signal-to-noise ratio around here.

[Psyren]

Player A. Monks are much stronger than wizards.
Player B. No they aren't. Cites reasons.
Player A. Yes, but in MY game, whenever you cast a spell, demons appear and attack you.
Player B: :smallfrown:.......

You're deliberately straw-manning here; nowhere on the SRD is any kind of rule like that.

The rules on the SRD have been there for months, giving the same forums you refer to a chance to read, playtest and critique them, including the third-party stuff. More to the point, the ones that alter the basic way classes function are clearly labelled as variants - it's not like swapping out the WotC Fighter for the Frank & K Fighter wholesale or similar. Instead, you start with the PF class that you know and are familiar with, and replace certain class features with others.

Finally, such variants are optional, and it's the player who chooses to use them or not. The DM has final say of course, but that's not the same as waving his hand and transforming all base monks into Zen Archers.


Houserules are houserules. They are not game RAW. They do apply at the table. They are not meaningfully able to be discussed on a forum when people are trying to discuss the same game.

This argument falls very flat for one basic reason; the entire forum has access to the same rules. It's not like my table, and only my table, can read the SRD. Everyone here can, because all you need is an internet connection. So if I refer to the PF Artificer's Exemplar ability (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/artificer#TOC-Exemplar), anyone can go look up what I'm talking about.

So yeah, they ARE "meaningfully able to be discussed on a forum." It happens here every day.

[Greenish]

I may be wrong here, but didn't Paizo vaguely endorse Dreamscarred press as the official source for Pathfinder psionics?They should've. They did okay with the paladin, but there's no way they could handle psionics like DSP.

Hey, lets stir the water a bit more: Dragon Magazine Compendium! It's both Paizo and official 3.5. :smallbiggrin:

[Gnaeus]

You're deliberately straw-manning here; nowhere on the SRD is any kind of rule like that.

I am not straw-manning. I am making an example of why that kind of silliness is not useful, and yes, I remember that exact example here on a thread. And everyone told the poster that they were talking about raw and that that rule was not relevant. Monks may beat wizards in your game with your houserules. Wizards beat monks in 3.5 when using RAW.

PF means pathfinder only means something. 3.P means pathfinder + 3.5 splats means something.

PF means anything published anywhere which may or may not actually be compatible without uncertain conversion guidelines which we may or may not agree on means nothing. I can't evaluate tiers in it, because I have NO IDEA what rules your class is using. Balance becomes impossible to determine because unless I read all books everywhere, I don't know what abilities a paladin even HAS at your table. TO becomes meaningless, because somebody somewhere will print some retarded feat that makes everything infinite or something stupid like that.




So yeah, they ARE "meaningfully able to be discussed on a forum." It happens here every day.

Yes, and when someone tries to argue something from a 3rd party source or a houserule in a discussion about balance or a TO build or Tiers or whatever, the typical response is "Sorry, we are talking about the rules here. That is fine at your table and if you want to start a thread about your game that is well and good, but it has no bearing on the larger discussion we are having."

[Fax Celestis]

A lot of those "conversions" involve powering up the class, and are really more homebrew. If I wanted to "convert" a Warblade, all I would need to do is change the skill list, and find a replacement for Concentration. The truly most difficult class to convert is the Artificer, since its main class feature, crafting, has changed quite a bit.

Take XP craft table, multiply by 25. Use as free craft money. Chill over ice. Serve.

[WarKitty]

There could be several reasons for this, such as:


You didn't mark your thread appropriately, preferably with [PF]
You did not specify that it was for Pathfinder or that only Pathfinder things were allowed in the campaign.
They were not intimately familiar with the Pathfinder ruleset and thus offered advice based on their knowledge of 3.5.
What you wanted could not be done appropriately with the still fledgling ruleset of Pathfinder (compared to 3.5).



This. I love this idea. We should have a sticky asking people to mark their threads appropriately. Sometimes they're marked [PF] and sometimes it's [Pathfinder] and sometimes it's [3.P] and then all variants but with regular parenthesizes instead.

It may sound silly, but it infuriates me. I want to be able to do a quick scan on a page for [PF] threads without having to enter 6-8 different search terms. :smallannoyed:

Then again, I've also found that a lot of people just don't read the title and first post very well. Even if you specifically mark your thread as PF only in the title, people will come in with 3.5 material - or worse, come in with comments like "but that doesn't work because bards can't be lawful!" And it's not just limited to 3.5 and pathfinder - I've had the same thing happen in 3.5 games where the title and/or first post state that only certain books are available. Or they'll say "You should do <<thing you said you don't want to do>>!" Or if I state such-and-such houserule is in effect, allowing me to do x thing I normally couldn't do, or not do y thing that I normally could, invariably someone will post that I can't do x or should do y.

At some point I just decided that a lot of people skim over the title and first post before answering, and don't actually pay a lot of attention to stated limitations.

[Fax Celestis]

I may be wrong here, but didn't Paizo vaguely endorse Dreamscarred press as the official source for Pathfinder psionics?

More than "vaguely" (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/dreamscarredPress/v5748btpy8i42).

[Sarone]

"...They taste great together!"



You don't really have to, the PF Artificer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/artificer) is perfectly playable on its own and can do many of the same things.

Oy, when I first saw it was making my skin crawl. It felt broken beyond all belief, only because there was too much that was weak while too strong as well lacking the flavor of the old Artificer class from Eberron.

Problem is, Paizo/Pathfinder are trying to bring some of the older classes into the Pathfinder Universe with out bringing in lawyers due to WotC and the OGL.

[subject42]

More than "vaguely" (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/dreamscarredPress/v5748btpy8i42).

Is there anything specific on that link, or is it just that Paizo is selling it on their site?

[Lord.Sorasen]

I figure people offer D&D 3.5 information in the same way they offer aijitsu focus in factotum builds. If people here know of a homebrew fix they really like, they'll probably suggest that as well. Most people here who give ideas give the ideas that they think come closest to what you want, and assume the player and the DM will work out what is allowed and what isn't. You see more D&D 3.5 than anything else because it's, as people have stated, what people are most familiar with.

Often enough on these forums we find people requesting for advice for a certain melee build. The first suggestion will almost always be Tome of Battle. If the poster specified a fighter build, the first suggestion will be to reconsider and choose warblade instead. If the poster specified no Tome of Battle, the first suggestion will be to do Tome of Battle, perhaps with an essay on why it would be best). Why bring this up? I figure it's the same with Pathfinder advice. People here are really into optimization, and often enough it's theoretical optimization, so they're going to look around and find the best things regardless of whether they're dragon magazine or 3.0 or the internet or what have you.

You might consider the advice worthless, but when you really think about it, having useless information isn't any worth than not having it. So I find in the long run it's better to take the chance and post whatever comes to mind.

[Luckmann]

Then again, I've also found that a lot of people just don't read the title and first post very well. Even if you specifically mark your thread as PF only in the title, people will come in with 3.5 material - or worse, come in with comments like "but that doesn't work because bards can't be lawful!" And it's not just limited to 3.5 and pathfinder - I've had the same thing happen in 3.5 games where the title and/or first post state that only certain books are available. Or they'll say "You should do <<thing you said you don't want to do>>!" Or if I state such-and-such houserule is in effect, allowing me to do x thing I normally couldn't do, or not do y thing that I normally could, invariably someone will post that I can't do x or should do y.

At some point I just decided that a lot of people skim over the title and first post before answering, and don't actually pay a lot of attention to stated limitations.On the other hand, stuff like that could also happen because they simply aren't aware of the difference between 3.5 and PF. I can't be the only one to routinely fudge my reading rolls. Until quite recently, I totally missed that Paladins no longer need Wisdom to cast spells in PF. I just assumed that it was Wisdom. Until people pointed and laughed at me.

The second post was mostly about my own convenience. It surely can't hurt with keeping cross-PF/3.5 stuff out from a thread and it would make my life easier. :smallbiggrin:

[Fax Celestis]

Is there anything specific on that link, or is it just that Paizo is selling it on their site?

It has the Pathfinder logo on it's cover, and is categorized as "(PFRPG)" on their own site. It's pretty official.


Oy, when I first saw it was making my skin crawl. It felt broken beyond all belief, only because there was too much that was weak while too strong as well lacking the flavor of the old Artificer class from Eberron.

Don't go blaming Paizo for that one. That's Adamant Entertainment (http://www.adamantentertainment.com/)'s work.