Is it normal for a 3.5e DM to run material from 3e, 3.5e and pathfinder?

[atemu1234]

Is it? I recognize a couple differences which I've for the most part fixed, but is it common to do this?

[Zweisteine]

It's not that unusual. Just try to be sure to use the updated versions of things whenever possible.

(Of course, using full-on PF classes and such with 3.5 might not work so well...)

[Sir Chuckles]

Not at all. In fact, I'd consider it more unusual for a DM to not be open to the idea of retrofitting or mildly editing 3e and 3.P things into a 3.5 game.

[The Trickster]

While I can't speak for anyone else, my DM's usually don't mix systems very much. However, they are pretty good about letting some things cross over, such as some PF classes (like the alchemist) or a 3.5 PrC every once in a while.

So yeah, I would imagine it not being that uncommon.

[rollforeigninit]

I'd say it would go one way (all-inclusive) or the other (NO! NO! NO! Not EVER!!!) Personal styles vary widely.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Never heard of them using 3.0 material as well, but it's not a big stretch.

[Sir Chuckles]

I'd say it would go one way (all-inclusive) or the other (NO! NO! NO! Not EVER!!!) Personal styles vary widely.

There's a lot of in between.

I cherry-pick pathfinder (better gun rules than the DMG), allow anything that hasn't been updated from 3.0 (with approval for editing and clarification), and the Dragon Magazine is free game for my group.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Never heard of them using 3.0 material as well, but it's not a big stretch.

By rules for 3.5 anything not updated from 3.0 is actually fair game. Savage Species says hello.

But OP, 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder are all the same game with minor tweaks here and there. It really doesn't take that much effort to use different things from each.

[squiggit]

Rarely do I see 3.0 come up (except for a few books that were never printed into 3.5 like BoVD).

But I do find it pretty damn common to see 3.5 material that doesn't have a 3.P equivalent ( a ton of PrCs, factotums, warblades, dread necromancers, etc. etc. etc) along with a bunch of 3.5 feats mingle into pathfinder tuff.

[Godskook]

Porting 3e into 3.5 is exceedingly common among more permissive DMs. Porting PF isn't that abnormal either, and to some degree, isn't that hard to do.

I think the biggest question isn't "is this normal" but rather "why does the OP care?" If you're having troubles with your DM it'd be faster and more accurate to deal with them directly rather than discussing the original question put forth.

[Malimar]

Most DMs I play with stick with one system and only use/accept material from other systems extremely rarely.

Me, I usually run 3.5, and I frequently use 3.0 material (hardly anything in A&EG got updated, and that book is filled with useful stuff). I'm less likely to use Pathfinder stuff, though for awhile I did try out, e.g., Pathfinder's solution to the balance problems of polymorph, and also I tried infinite cantrips/orisons.

I'm going to be running a Pathfinder Spelljammer game sometime in the coming months, so that's going to be the broadest net I've ever cast, content-wise: pulling from Pathfinder, the 3.5 and 3.0 material I'm used to (Spelljammer got a semi-official 3.5 update, but not a Pathfinder one), and possibly some 2e Spelljammer material that got missed in the 3.5 update.

[Coidzor]

(Of course, using full-on PF classes and such with 3.5 might not work so well...)

Why do you say that? The new classes don't really change things up all that much and the modifications to the classes which existed in 3.5 aren't game-breaking. The biggest thing that comes to mind would be the potentially jarring difference between PF PrCs and 3.5/3.0 PrCs.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I forgot to add that I've seen 2e and 4e items ported over to 3.P games.

Specifically...

2e: Fighter combat options, they don't take an AoO to do maneuvers and such and things like using a dagger to pin a creature a wall or floor works.

Facing rules. They actually wasn't as horrible as some people say they were. This actually helped the Rogue out since they didn't need a flank buddy all the time (tumble to get around the enemy then sneak attack/backatab).

4e: Skill Themes (gain the fluff and bonus skills, DM allowed these 2 or 3 skills to always be maxed), Paragon Paths (as template add-ons, was very interesting in 3.5 starting at level 7), Races (racial ability and stat system of +2/+2 or +2), and Movement Rules (none of this 5ft 10ft 5 ft crap).

[Crake]

Rarely do I see 3.0 come up (except for a few books that were never printed into 3.5 like BoVD).

Thats because alot of 3.0 material was converted into 3.5 stuff in the complete series. Stuff like song and silence and sword and fist were put into complete adventurer and complete warrior and so on, so forth.

I think barring savage species and BoVD, there isn't much 3.0 stuff out there that hasn't been converted barring some campaign specific material and monster manual 2 (but that's all mostly easily convertible)

[Erik Vale]

From what I see, it's normally a no, or 3.5 with heavily vetted 3.0 or PF material, but some do allow all. And the ones that do normally also allow good homebrew.

[Kennisiou]

I think barring savage species and BoVD, there isn't much 3.0 stuff out there that hasn't been converted barring some campaign specific material and monster manual 2 (but that's all mostly easily convertible)

A fair amount of Forgotten Realms stuff, as well as Oriental Adventures, Deities and Demigods, Manual of the Planes (or Planar Handbook, I forget which), and a number of feats from the X and Y books (sword and fist, tome and blood et al) all received no update. Likewise there's some lines of rules text that are super relevant and even common argument ending in 3.0 supplementals that didn't get reprinted in 3.5 -- like the very beginning of Sword and Fist saying that virtual feats like ranger's combat styles allow you to meet the prerequisites for feats/prestige classes/magic item use just as well as actual feats, but if you lose virtual feat access (like by putting on heavy armor as a ranger) you lose everything for which the virtual feat was a prerequisite until you regain virtual feat access. Seriously, the number of times I've seen someone tell a samurai that they don't actually have TWF so they can't get any feats that have it as a prereq.... that's a line of rules text that probably should've been put into Complete Warrior or even just the PHB.

Also, be careful when porting stuff from 3.0 to 3.5, some things received "updates" but didn't get the same name. For example, the 3.0 Prestige class "Shifter" was updated into 3.5's "Master of Many Forms." 3rd ed's shifter really should not see the light of day at a 3.5 table.

[BrokenChord]

I can't answer the exact question, because I only run 3e games, but when I do I tend to allow 3.5 and PF stuff on a case by case basis.

[Psyren]

I've been fortunate - every DM I've ever had so far has been a fan of 3.P.

[Captnq]

Combining 3.0/3.5 with 3.P is grounds for excommunication and a declaration of jyhad. But that's just me.

[Sir Chuckles]

Combining 3.0/3.5 with 3.P is grounds for excommunication and a declaration of jyhad. But that's just me.

I'd like to know why.

[TuggyNE]

I'd like to know why.

Questioning a declaration of heresy is heresy, citizen.

[HammeredWharf]

I use 3.0 material quite often, but prefer not to use PF. Not because I'm against it, but because the rules are different enough it's a bit of hassle. Besides, 3.5 and 3.0 have more than enough content, anyway.

[atemu1234]

I'm the DM. I'm just making sure I'm not breaking the game or something. I let the PCs run classes from pathfinder with some minor tweaks- mostly porting their skills to the 3.5e equivalent. Apart from the skills, I've had little more hassle than 3rd edition to 3.5e.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I use 3.0 material quite often, but prefer not to use PF. Not because I'm against it, but because the rules are different enough it's a bit of hassle. Besides, 3.5 and 3.0 have more than enough content, anyway.

Actually I would say there is about the same difference between 3.0 and 3.5 as there is between 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Pathfinder really didn't change all that much.

Skill System is mostly the same (kinda a mix between 3.5 and 4e)

CMB/CMD parts are in 3.5 and I've seen homebrewed version of this back before pathfinder came out.

Polymorph spells got fixed in pathfinder (except PaO). Most other spells are just as effective as their 3.5 counterparts except grease (because screw you rogue) and a couple others.

All the classes are pretty much in the same tier. The Paladin is closer to tier 3 (at least high tier 4) and the sorcerer is tier 2 unless you are human then you can be low tier 1.

Feats... Got nerfed for the most part, but there are some that exist that wotc never wanted to touch (pirahna strike). There are still a lot of trap feats and feat chains that need to go away sooo overall it is about the same as 3.5.

[Zanos]

When I run 3.5 I treat PF material as I would homebrew. It's available upon request but I'm going to take a long hard look at it.

3.0 material is fair game. That's actually part of the 3.5 ruleset.

I do prefer to use PF's skill changes and give a feat every odd level.

[hemming]

I can't answer the exact question, because I only run 3e games, but when I do I tend to allow 3.5 and PF stuff on a case by case basis.

Case by case basis - I can't imagine saying "anything from all three systems goes" but I would never arbitrarily ban something if I think it is (or can be made) compatible

[BrokenChord]

Case by case basis - I can't imagine saying "anything from all three systems goes" but I would never arbitrarily ban something if I think it is (or can be made) compatible

Well, yeah, the things I say no to are usually to avoid introducing game mechanics not present in 3e, rather than anything to do with balance or my own being lazy. Of course, there are exceptions to this as with any other rule, but for the most part I just have them ask for each thing so that the least amount of extra material is added to any given game.

[Psyren]

3.0 material is fair game. That's actually part of the 3.5 ruleset.

"With minor adjustments." And do note some 3.0 stuff was officially updated.

@OP: There is some pretty problematic stuff in 3.0, e.g. Hive Minds, so be sure you go over anything from 3.0 with a fine-toothed comb.

[hemming]

Well, yeah, the things I say no to are usually to avoid introducing game mechanics not present in 3e, rather than anything to do with balance or my own being lazy. Of course, there are exceptions to this as with any other rule, but for the most part I just have them ask for each thing so that the least amount of extra material is added to any given game.

Oh yeah - I was trying to agree with your original post :smallsmile:

[danzibr]

As a DM, I allow it. Specifically, PF did some stuff way better than 3.5 (*cough* Soulknife).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

As a DM, I allow it. Specifically, PF did some stuff way better than 3.5 (*cough* Soulknife).

Well Dreamscarred Press did a good job on Psionics, I'm soooo glad Paizo didn't touch them.

[Psyren]

Well Dreamscarred Press did a good job on Psionics, I'm soooo glad Paizo didn't touch them.

Paizo actually supported them - they even incorporated some of the psionics material into an Adventure Path.