DMing for 3.5 with players who play PF

[Reshy]

I'm looking to DM a 3.5 game with players who have mostly played pathfinder and are more familiar with it's rules than with 3.5's. I am aware that they are fairly similar but looking at the differences there are several and I was hoping to find some happy medium without turning house rules into a massive spread sheet. Mainly stuff I'm looking at is the tweaks to core classes, the reduction of MAD, and the reduction in the skill sprawl. But it seems pretty expansive and I'm worried that having too many house rules will make the game confusing. Any thoughts on this?

EDIT: Any common house rules that should be implemented?

[Codenpeg]

You should, at least, keep the skill system of Pathfinder. But I'm just wondering why you aren't playing PF instead, perhaps make a daring raid back for some spells, a prestige class, or even a class (Binder, etc).

[JimboG]

IMO, I would argue the two systems are too similar to try and blend together, while also being too different to use reference sheets to easily replace the differences. You're best bet is deciding to commit to one system or the other and sticking with it. Neither are hard to learn if you're already familiar with the other. It took me and my friend's a single day of analysing the core book of Pathfinder to switch out of 3.5. The most glaring differences between the two are the mechanics for combat maneuvers and grappling, and the descriptions of the feats and spells. Most everything else are just added abilities to the classes and more streamlining of the skills.

[DarkSonic1337]

You could simply play Pathfinder while allowing 3.5 material, and make houserules for individual cases that you don't like (this is very common actually).

[Reshy]

I do not actually possess any PF books, I have only the 3.5 ones. I'm trying to rectify that but it's still problematic. I prefer 3.5 because that's what I am more familiar with, PF would be entirely new to me.

[Sir Chuckles]

I do not actually possess any PF books, I have only the 3.5 ones. I'm trying to rectify that but it's still problematic. I prefer 3.5 because that's what I am more familiar with, PF would be entirely new to me.

If I'm not mistaken, all of PF is online.

[JimboG]

I do not actually possess any PF books, I have only the 3.5 ones. I'm trying to rectify that but it's still problematic. I prefer 3.5 because that's what I am more familiar with, PF would be entirely new to me.

Then just play 3.5. All you need to do is give your PF players the 3.5 core book to go over the classes they want to play, explain to them how to do skills in 3.5 for the 1st level, and tell them to make sure to reread any feats and spells they plan on using, and you're practically golden. Any other differences in the rules you come across after playing should be easily clarified as they come up.

[Reshy]

If I'm not mistaken, all of PF is online.

As I said I'm not entirely aware. I'm only doing this because they mentioned that they have no experience with 3.5, while I have no experience with PF. So it comes down to, should the players adapt to what I am familiar with or should I adapt to what they are familiar with? I do like some of what PF did, mainly the simplification of the skill system.

[Sir Chuckles]

As I said I'm not entirely aware. I'm only doing this because they mentioned that they have no experience with 3.5, while I have no experience with PF. So it comes down to, should the players adapt to what I am familiar with or should I adapt to what they are familiar with? I do like some of what PF did, mainly the simplification of the skill system.

Take that up with your players.
Ask them directly: "Do you want me to learn Pathfinder for you, or would you like to learn 3.5 from me?"

Both sides are easy to do.

[Reshy]

Take that up with your players.
Ask them directly: "Do you want me to learn Pathfinder for you, or would you like to learn 3.5 from me?"

Both sides are easy to do.

Generally speaking the DM is supposed to have a better grasp on the rules than the player and even assist the players in creating their characters, correct? I think it makes more sense for us to play 3.5, maybe with some house rules, but not too many.

[EisenKreutzer]

Generally speaking the DM is supposed to have a better grasp on the rules than the player and even assist the players in creating their characters, correct? I think it makes more sense for us to play 3.5, maybe with some house rules, but not too many.

This is more a myth than anythng else. I easily have the least grasp of Pathfinder's mechanics in our groups, yet I regularly GM it. In fact, having a rules-savvy player or two at the table is a real godsend for any GM, system mastery or no.

[Sir Chuckles]

Generally speaking the DM is supposed to have a better grasp on the rules than the player and even assist the players in creating their characters, correct? I think it makes more sense for us to play 3.5, maybe with some house rules, but not too many.

Even if that makes sense, it makes the most sense to do something everyone agrees on.

Either way, we can help you do just about anything, so long as we know what you're doing and the general attitude of your group.

[Pex]

One way to think of it is it's easier for 1 person to learn a new system than 5 people. If it helps just stick with the Core Rulebook. It offers enough stuff for players, and you won't have to relearn a lot. The refined skill system is easy. It's not a big deal if you say "Make a spot check". Players will just roll Perception. What you'll have to concentrate on is the reworking of some feats and spells.

[shizukanashi]

I am of the opinion that PF is vastly superior to 3.5. Having to make a Move silently check AND a hide check when I should just make a Stealth check is ridiculous! Not to mention it takes twice the skill points to maintain them both. I can not even think of a reasonable scenario to justify two separate skills. The same goes for Listen/Spot/Search being Perception and Tumble/Jump being Athletics. It is just common sense. The whole x4 skill points at first level is clunky at best. For the Skill refinement alone PF is a better system hands down.

Besides that though and the CMB, perhaps the improved classes and faster feat gaining, there is very little difference. It was built to be compatible and lots of people play "3.P"

I would learn Pathfinder, it is really not a huge stretch, but as someone experienced with both systems, I just cant play straight 3.5 anymore. It just annoys me to do so, Pathfinder fixed most (but not all) of the bugs in the system.

[Reshy]

I am of the opinion that PF is vastly superior to 3.5. Having to make a Move silently check AND a hide check when I should just make a Stealth check is ridiculous! Not to mention it takes twice the skill points to maintain them both. I can not even think of a reasonable scenario to justify two separate skills. The same goes for Listen/Spot/Search being Perception and Tumble/Jump being Athletics. It is just common sense. The whole x4 skill points at first level is clunky at best. For the Skill refinement alone PF is a better system hands down.

It's probably the part of the system I enjoy more, but the problem is that a lot of the 3.5 content probably won't translate properly to PF. That happens to make up a majority of what I happen to have on hand at the moment. I do like the skill system, if there was a way to implement in 3.5 without having to juggle a boat load of numbers I'd just do that but it seems like more trouble than it'd be worth.

[Sir Chuckles]

Well, it's fairly worth it. I've done it, and things went surprisingly well. Then again, I have more free time than a normal person should.

Really, if you're looking toward the class tweaks, skills, and MAD issues, it's not too difficult.
For skills, I'd recommend using the PF skill list, and keeping the numbers for 3.5. You avoid the number crunch from changing DCs, without fiddling too much with other things.
For classes, go through the pfsrd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) and do on a case-by-case basis.
For the MAD issues, that's a whole different thread you'd have to open.

[Amphetryon]

Players used to the CMB/CMD rules are going to be flummoxed by 3.5's rules for Tripping, Disarming, and Grappling (but Players who've never looked at PF are flummoxed by 3.5's Grappling rules, so, yeah). Find out how extensively your group plans to use these 'special' Combat maneuvers, and decide if it's more worth your trouble to import CMB/CMD, or to teach everyone Grappling et al as it 'works' in 3.5.

[Thorvaldr]

It's probably the part of the system I enjoy more, but the problem is that a lot of the 3.5 content probably won't translate properly to PF. That happens to make up a majority of what I happen to have on hand at the moment. I do like the skill system, if there was a way to implement in 3.5 without having to juggle a boat load of numbers I'd just do that but it seems like more trouble than it'd be worth.

It's not a perfect solution, but for the 3.5 campaign I'm running I used (mostly) the Pathfinder skill list. To make up for all of the combined skills, I decreased the number of skill points some classes get.

If a class gets 6 skill points, they get 1 less per level.

If a class gets 8 or more skill points, they get 2 less per level.

This allows classes with fewer skill points (like sorcerer) to be able to at least be able to do something, and balances (a bit) what classes with more skill points can do.

[Reshy]

It's not a perfect solution, but for the 3.5 campaign I'm running I used (mostly) the Pathfinder skill list. To make up for all of the combined skills, I decreased the number of skill points some classes get.

If a class gets 6 skill points, they get 1 less per level.

If a class gets 8 or more skill points, they get 2 less per level.

This allows classes with fewer skill points (like sorcerer) to be able to at least be able to do something, and balances (a bit) what classes with more skill points can do.

The rogue is the last class I see that needs to be less useful, being fifth tier. Albeit since it's not pathfinder one is still necessary just to locate traps. It works for the cloistered cleric though if anyone tries to play one.



Well, it's fairly worth it. I've done it, and things went surprisingly well. Then again, I have more free time than a normal person should.

Really, if you're looking toward the class tweaks, skills, and MAD issues, it's not too difficult.
For skills, I'd recommend using the PF skill list, and keeping the numbers for 3.5. You avoid the number crunch from changing DCs, without fiddling too much with other things.
For classes, go through the pfsrd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) and do on a case-by-case basis.
For the MAD issues, that's a whole different thread you'd have to open.

How would you recommend doing so in a way that makes sense without being convoluted? As for the classes I'll have to look at it but I'd aim for going for the important changes (like the Paladin's MAD being reduced) rather than trying to implement several new abilities from pathfinder. Again, I'd have to see what the players think. If the players don't pick that class than it's not of any concern.

[Thorvaldr]

The rogue is the last class I see that needs to be less useful, being fifth tier. Albeit since it's not pathfinder one is still necessary just to locate traps. It works for the cloistered cleric though if anyone tries to play one.

...that's actually a really good point. It's a rule-change I've only implemented recently (as the players just leveled), but may go back on. So far the other two players are Tier 2, and we do have a rogue.

[RedMage125]

As far as house rules, I incorporate the following house rules when I DM 3.5e, some of which are adopted from 4e:

1) Healing from negative hit points starts at 0. What that means is, if a target is at -6 hp, and you heal them for 5 hit points, they are at 5 hp, not -1.
2) Hide and Move Silently are one skill, Stealth. Nothing makes sneaking around less fun than having to make 2 rolls, and succeeding at one while botching the other.
3) Listen and Spot are one skill, Perception. This is related to the Stealth rule. If the stealthy guy only makes one check, defenders should not get 2 to detect him. Search remains a separate, INT-based skill, because it represents actively searching as opposed to a passive chance to notice something.
4) Read Magic is such a narrowly useful spell that it's almost never worthwhile to prepare, but sometimes necessary. I remove Read Magic as a spell, and fold its effects into the spell Detect Magic. So when a player uses Detect Magic, they get the effect of both spells.
5) On that note, the ability to detect magic is such a basic function of being a spellcaster that all arcane casters should have it. Sorcerers get Detect Magic as a spell known at 1st level that does not count against their normal number of 0-level spells known. Wizards already know the spell, but have other 0-level spells they will want to prepare for the day. So, like a cleric spontaneously casting healing spells, a wizard may swap out any prepared 0-level spell to cast detect magic. Both Wizards and Sorcerers still must spend a 0-level spell slot to actually CAST the spell, making the Warlock's ability to use it at-will still unique and useful.

These are the only deviations from RAW that I run with when I run 3.5e. My players all heartily approve. My goal with these rules was to make some of the redundant mechanics more streamlined, and to make gameplay more fun. The player at negative hit points who gets healed, but is still at negative is still sitting on his hands instead of getting to act when his turn comes up in initiative. Sitting at the table not getting to do anything is not fun. Also, for the healer's player, getting a low amount of healing when rushing to an ally's aid makes him feel less effective. Getting the result of his ally being back on his feet makes him feel like his action that turn was well-spent.

[T.G. Oskar]

The first and foremost thing you'll have to understand is that, no matter the changes, the Core Mechanic (d20 + bonuses vs. target number) is the same in both.

It all depends on your players' tactics. Spellcasters will regain the utility on some nerfed spells (Alter Self, Grease, etc.), but for the most part will play the same. Martial characters will have less feats, but some of the skills will be collapsed. Skill monkeys will suffer a bit more because they'll lack the collapsed skills, so they have to invest in two/three skills on what they would otherwise invest in one, and the cross-class notion in 3.5 is far more unforgiving than in PF (1/2 ranks will seem like a hassle for them).

If you're intending to implement house rules, take from PF what mostly works. For example: the collapsed skills in PF (Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Linguistics, Perception and Stealth) can be ported pretty easily. I would, though, make a slight distinction: Jump HAS to be removed out of Acrobatics. I'd tell them Jump is a skill on its own, and then go with "if you see Balance or Tumble, replace with Acrobatics; if you see Speak Language or Decipher Script, replace with Linguistics, etc." Second, keep the feat progression; that'll give everyone three extra feats to play, which is something that plagues D&D pretty badly.

The classes will be something you'll have to speak with everybody clearly. In fact, bit by bit:
Overall: PF Players will be shocked by the loss of archetypes. Substitution levels work like archetypes, so start with that. Make sure to explain the difference between Variant Classes (from Unearthed Arcana), Substitution Levels (the closest to Archetypes around) and ACFs. Substitution levels HAVE to be explained carefully, because while they resemble Archetypes, you don't have to take them all, something that you have to do with Archetypes.

Barbarian: Loses all Rage Powers, which can be a blessing and a boon. Rage has uses per day rather than rounds per day, which is both a blessing or a boon. Personally, once you get to 10th level, 3.5 Rage blows PF Rage out of the blue due to its duration: [3 + boosted Con modifier] x4 versus 4 + 2xlevel + Con modifier means you need a Constitution modifier of +7 or higher to meet or outlast the amount of rounds per day the PF Pathfinder has, and this remains almost constant as levels progress. Otherwise, the porting isn't exactly difficult to explain. Beast Totem Barbarians will love the Spirit Totem (Lion) ACF because it allows them to pounce much, much earlier, and they'll be quite surprised with the variant Rages (UA's Whirling Frenzy, PHB II's Berserker Strength, Cityscape WE's Ferocity, the Goliath Barbarian's Mountain Rage from Races of Stone).

Bard: They lose quite a bit: some additional Bardic Performances, the Versatile Performer/Jack-of-all-Trades features, and the Lore Master ability. Like Barbarians, Bards gain uses of Bardic Music per day rather than rounds of Bardic Performance; unlike Barbarians, though, Bards blow the PF version of the class out of the water by 4th level, where they get enough uses to last them a day, and then they get far too many for their own taste. They also lack infinite Cantrips, and Inspire Competence doesn't increase.

Cleric: In a way, Cleric players are the easiest to port. Aside from telling them "you're no longer proficient on your deity's favored weapon unless you take the War domain, but you get free heavy armor prof.!" and telling them that they get the Turn Undead feat as a class feature rather than Channel Energy, there's no big loss. Well, no big loss EXCEPT for the domains, which are less complex here. Most Cleric players will expect getting stuff at 8th level, which they won't get. Otherwise, the changes are mostly on the spells (also, no infinite Orisons)

Druid: The Druid is also pretty easy to port, though some stuff will have to be explained. Tell Druid players that they're "locked" into their Animal Companion (unless they decide to replace it via ACF), they get no infinite Orisons, and they get some Wild Shape forms at later levels (and they get a separate pool of Wild Shape for elementals). Note, though, that while PF Druids get daily uses of Wild Sense (gee, why they didn't settle for rounds per day of Wild Shape like with the Barbarian and Bard?), PF lacks Wild feats, so you might want to explain them. For the most part, somewhat easy to port players.

Fighter: Here's where I throw the curveball. You should adopt the PF Fighter, for the most part (all of it, archetypes and all). No matter what, it is a direct improvement over the 3.5 Fighter, and the set-up makes it so that its compatible with 3.5 ACFs and Substitution Levels. This will ease the transition (and make for a better Fighter overall), particularly once they wake up from the shock of seeing the original Power Attack in action, or that Improved Trip works like Greater Trip after all. Some archetypes will make the class a powerhouse, BTW (see: Two-Handed Fighter and Greater Power Attack, which would work in 3.5 exactly as that of the Frenzied Berseker).

Monk: This is mostly for completion, since not everybody plays a Monk in 3.5 unless they've good some good optimizing skills, and very rarely over 9th level (with Invisible Fist, anyways). They lose quite a bit: the loss of CMB/CMD screws them over, they lose the ki pool and bonus feats, Abundant Step and Quivering Palm are now far more limited... On the other hand, PF Monks aren't much of an improvement over 3.5 Monks, save for Hungry Ghost/Qigong Monk. Your call on this one, but even the most diehard PF Monk will be surprised at the Swordsage using its unarmed adaptation. Might as well start teaching them about Tashalatora (Secrets of Sarlona, if you forget where it is) or take one of the many Monk homebrews from here.

Paladin: So far, aside from Monk, the changes are fair. The only thing I can tell you if you have a diehard Pally player is: be gentle. They lose their mark ability (since I REFUSE to call that ability a smite, no matter if it's better in the long run) and get less uses, LoH is a different monster, no Mercies, and virtually nothing beyond 6th level, plus they need to get good Wisdom to cast spells. On the other hand, they get Turn Undead (and therefore access to divine feats), the ACFs that replace a mount are fairly good, their choice of mounts is FAR better (because you can get some magical beasts with you), and 3.5 Paladin spells are better overall. Be VERY careful if you intend to port the PF incarnation, because while it may be an improvement, it screws some of the ACFs Paladins get access to (Cursebreaker, for example), and you'll have to make the tough decision over letting Channel Positive Energy remain (and thus, their AoE healing) or permanently lose access to Divine feats (because the latter requires turning or rebuking; NOTe, if you treat them as equivalent, you'll be sacrificing LoH uses to power them up). Quite easily the most controversial of the changes. BTW: if you have Anti-Paladin players for some reason, introduce them to the Paladins of Slaughter and Tyranny, but note that it'll be the same as the changes between rulebooks.

Ranger: Mixed bag in here, but not as drastic as the Paladin or the latter classes. The ranger loses Favored Terrain as a class feature (or rather, it gains it by replacing Favored Enemy, so it's either one or the other), the Combat Style only grants three (fixed) feats, and also loses Quarry. The Animal Companion from the Hunter's Bond isn't the same (it's weaker), and you're fixed into the companion (unless, again, ACF to replace it). Aside from that, there's not many changes into the Ranger, save for the increase in Hit Dice to d10.

Rogue: Just like the Paladin, be gentle to Rogue players. I've heard that they're still not the best class in PF, but there they get more special abilities (AKA Talents), of which there are minor and major variants, and get them earlier. They also lose their Death Attack-esque Master Strike, which is their capstone. Their Hit Dice was also increased to a d8, so they lose some hit points, and some of the talents made them better at fighting or gave them some minor magic.

Sorcerer: One of the classes that got the biggest change, but ironically one of the simplest to grasp. Tell your Sorcerer players that they get no bloodlines (or rather, that their bloodlines are feat-based), but otherwise they play exactly like in PF (save for the lower HD and lack of UMD).

Wizard: Same as Sorcerer, except replace "bloodlines" with "arcane school". They also have lower UMD, and they can only bond with familiars.

Races also had changes, but for the most part they're similar (just say that all races lack one of their bonuses to ability scores, and in the case of Humans and Half-Elves they get no ability score increases. Some of the races lose a few minor benefits as well. Also, explain that favored classes don't grant bonuses here, but rather restrict your multiclassing a bit (a good thing to houserule would be to remove favored class or adapt the PF version).

Finally, combat maneuver checks. Many things in PF depend on them, being mostly "like Strength checks, but you add your BAB; you add your attack bonuses if you're the offender, or some of your AC bonuses if you're the defender". I could go and say "they're basically attack rolls", but it's a bit surprising to see combat maneuver checks in the Web spell, of all spells.

To familiarize better with PF, you'd do well to see (and recommend your players to see) the the 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136890-The-3-5-Pathfinder-Handbook) by Saph, who got most if not all of the changes out. If you see the changes as too overwhelming, then make the judgment call; bite it and play PF with them, or hybridize the experience so that you and them can stay at equal footing (it'd be a heavy houseruled game, but most of the houserules will be merely referencing the other handbook). 3.5 has good things, PF has a few good things, and it's up to you what to do with them.

[Larkas]

Seconding everything T.G. Oskar said. Furthermore, I'd also get Search out of Perception. And maybe fuse Climb, Jump and Swim into Athletics (Str) and Appraise, Forgery and Search into Investigation (Int). This is walking into homebrew territory, though.

[T.G. Oskar]

Seconding everything T.G. Oskar said. Furthermore, I'd also get Search out of Perception. And maybe fuse Climb, Jump and Swim into Athletics (Str) and Appraise, Forgery and Search into Investigation (Int). This is walking into homebrew territory, though.

I disagree with Jump. It's time to reinvent the wheel on that one, because it's right in the middle of Acrobatics (gymnastic leaps) and Athletics (long and short jumps), so it merits being its own skill, but one that uses the best of two stats instead of one (Str or Dex).

Forgery is one of those odd skills that should have another way to be detected, rather than using the same skill (Forgery in 3.5, Linguistics in PF). This makes the skill insanely powerful because you need that very same skill to detect it.

Investigation makes sense within one context, but not within another. I'll mention d20 Modern and its Investigation skill as an example. Investigation, by its nature, rarely related to finding the worth of things (the realm of Appraise). In d20 Modern, Investigate was the realm of clue-finding, which evidently is already encompassed on the Search skill, except that a bit more specific. There was a second skill that has more relation (Research), but they were left deliberately separate as one is used to search for clues, while the other is used to search for information.

Forgery is an odd skill because it is both a craft skill (in the same vein as writing) and the skill used to detect it. IMO, Forgery should remain separate, or folded into the Craft skill (as you're crafting a document, which happens to be false), and have another skill to detect it (Spot or Search/Perception is the ideal counter).

There's a proposal dealing with changes in skills (Google "Tome of Prowess" whenever you can; I rarely do promotion to stuff, but this one is relevant to the discussion), and while their changes may not be exactly what everyone looks for, the way the skills are collapsed in very broad, yet fittingly narrow categories makes for an interesting and useful skill system. Amongst the changes, the "Knowledge" skill is spread out, with some skills becoming slightly more powerful: Spellcraft and Use Magic Device are split and devoured by the Arcana (which covers Knowledge [arcana]) and Religion (which covers the Knowledge [religion] skills, but each dealing with arcane and divine magic, respectively. Even if not taken whole, the way skills are arranged makes for a good start.

In any case, if the OP chooses to adopt some PF skills, a good advice would be to take Jump back from the Acrobatics skill, particularly since it returns the skill to some classes (Fighter!!!) that desperately need it, and makes some odd choices (Acrobatics on a Barbarian!? It makes sense for some, but not for all!).

[Larkas]

I disagree with Jump. It's time to reinvent the wheel on that one, because it's right in the middle of Acrobatics (gymnastic leaps) and Athletics (long and short jumps), so it merits being its own skill, but one that uses the best of two stats instead of one (Str or Dex).

Forgery is one of those odd skills that should have another way to be detected, rather than using the same skill (Forgery in 3.5, Linguistics in PF). This makes the skill insanely powerful because you need that very same skill to detect it.

Investigation makes sense within one context, but not within another. I'll mention d20 Modern and its Investigation skill as an example. Investigation, by its nature, rarely related to finding the worth of things (the realm of Appraise). In d20 Modern, Investigate was the realm of clue-finding, which evidently is already encompassed on the Search skill, except that a bit more specific. There was a second skill that has more relation (Research), but they were left deliberately separate as one is used to search for clues, while the other is used to search for information.

Forgery is an odd skill because it is both a craft skill (in the same vein as writing) and the skill used to detect it. IMO, Forgery should remain separate, or folded into the Craft skill (as you're crafting a document, which happens to be false), and have another skill to detect it (Spot or Search/Perception is the ideal counter).

There's a proposal dealing with changes in skills (Google "Tome of Prowess" whenever you can; I rarely do promotion to stuff, but this one is relevant to the discussion), and while their changes may not be exactly what everyone looks for, the way the skills are collapsed in very broad, yet fittingly narrow categories makes for an interesting and useful skill system. Amongst the changes, the "Knowledge" skill is spread out, with some skills becoming slightly more powerful: Spellcraft and Use Magic Device are split and devoured by the Arcana (which covers Knowledge [arcana]) and Religion (which covers the Knowledge [religion] skills, but each dealing with arcane and divine magic, respectively. Even if not taken whole, the way skills are arranged makes for a good start.

In any case, if the OP chooses to adopt some PF skills, a good advice would be to take Jump back from the Acrobatics skill, particularly since it returns the skill to some classes (Fighter!!!) that desperately need it, and makes some odd choices (Acrobatics on a Barbarian!? It makes sense for some, but not for all!).

Great points all around. If you don't mind me arguing in defense of my previous statement, though, a few points:

- The main reason I put forward for subsuming Jump in Athletics is because, in D&D, most uses of Jump are athletic: jumping to close gaps or to reach flying foes - at least in my experience. Furthermore, there is, again in my experience, a certain "tiering" in the usefulness of the "athletic" skills, where Climb>Jump>Swim. All of them are more or less obviated by the use of spells, regardless. Hence, the consolidation of the skill like this make it more valuable and likely to be taken, whereas an independent Jump might not (it also just makes sense to me to bundle these together, but this is pure opinion). What about a compromise: Dex-based jumps are covered by Acrobatics, whereas Str-based ones are covered by Athletics?

- On Forgery, I can't really argue with that. What about its dismemberment into Craft (forgery) x Investigation, maybe with investigation getting a synergy bonus from a relevant Knowledge (like nobility or local)?

- On Research, wouldn't that be covered by D&D's Knowledge? Maybe it could make sense to add a function to Investigation where the character, given time and a roll, attempts to uncover information that wasn't revealed by Knowledge directly, but I haven't really thought things through here.

- This Tome of Prowess stuff seems very promising. Is it the one at dnd-wiki? I'll be sure to give it a thorough read.

[T.G. Oskar]

Great points all around. If you don't mind me arguing in defense of my previous statement, though, a few points:

- The main reason I put forward for subsuming Jump in Athletics is because, in D&D, most uses of Jump are athletic: jumping to close gaps or to reach flying foes - at least in my experience. Furthermore, there is, again in my experience, a certain "tiering" in the usefulness of the "athletic" skills, where Climb>Jump>Swim. All of them are more or less obviated by the use of spells, regardless. Hence, the consolidation of the skill like this make it more valuable and likely to be taken, whereas an independent Jump might not (it also just makes sense to me to bundle these together, but this is pure opinion). What about a compromise: Dex-based jumps are covered by Acrobatics, whereas Str-based ones are covered by Athletics?

That's the thing. Jump fits very well in Athletics; I actually agree in part with your assessment, but then you enter up on the things that really don't require Strength, but rather Dexterity, to work out.

Think about the three typical uses of Jump: High Jump, Long Jump, and Hop Down. High Jump involves leaping as high as possible, which is mostly a strength feat...but the usual representation of High Jump is pole vaulting, which is arguably a Dex thing. Long Jump also has this blend of Strength and Dexterity: you're really taking advantage of inertia, but the arc formed to achieve that distance requires a reasonable leap. Hop Down is mostly a Dex feat, though, because you're using your reflexes to pad the fall.

Because of this, it's better to let Jump be a skill of its own. That also makes me thing: wouldn't it be interesting to have a feat that lets you use your Athletics skill bonus, rather than your BAB, when throwing things? If going by Athletics, a good deal of the athletic competitions involve throwing the hammer (not exactly a hammer, but the idea stands), the javelin, the weight and the disc.


- On Forgery, I can't really argue with that. What about its dismemberment into Craft (forgery) x Investigation, maybe with investigation getting a synergy bonus from a relevant Knowledge (like nobility or local)?

I still say that Spot does a very good work on it. Most of the people who uncover forgeries look for subtle errors in the document, so Spot could easily work them out.

As for Investigation: this and Research are merely how d20 Modern skills work out. To be precise, if going by the way skills work in d20 Past, it says that until the first forensic methods are discovered, Search takes over Investigate. Since the books were designed to be compatible to each other to an extent, but some rules that exist on one rulebook are intentionally absent on the other (hence, why there's no thing like Double Tap on D&D, even with early firearms, partly explained on D&D), the best approximation for the Investigate feat would be Search. Since Appraise is fundamentally distinct from forensic investigation, and the d20 Past sourcebook from d20 Modern has a good basis for why Investigate and Search can exist on their own during the Modern era but not before, and how the "clue-finding" aspect of Investigate is subsumed by Search pre-Modern era, it begs the question of why attempt to essentially rename a feat, when you can expand its functions.

As for Forgery: I don't like the idea of Craft (forgery), much as I don't like the idea of Craft (poison-making) or Craft (trapmaking) available to everyone. On the other hand, I find the restriction on Craft (alchemy) in 3.5 ridiculous (something that PF doesn't have, as far as I've seen); you'd expect someone really smart to make alchemical components without being a spellcaster of some sort, and if you were to restrict it to spellcasters, might as well restrict it to arcane spellcasters, not just everyone. However, this is the chemical engineer student in me talking, and since one of my other players is a fellow chemical engineering student who loves making Fighters with Craft (alchemy), that makes me really torn on whether I should allow Forgery to exist on its own or subsume it with the Craft skill, making it accessible even to Paladins (who have the LEAST reason to use the skill).


- On Research, wouldn't that be covered by D&D's Knowledge? Maybe it could make sense to add a function to Investigation where the character, given time and a roll, attempts to uncover information that wasn't revealed by Knowledge directly, but I haven't really thought things through here.

That would be correct. I didn't intend for Research as a skill: I was just mentioning some of the skills that d20 Modern has and that PF lacks. In fact, in some modules, research is done as an automatic action, with the end result often giving a bonus to Knowledge checks.


- This Tome of Prowess stuff seems very promising. Is it the one at dnd-wiki? I'll be sure to give it a thorough read.

That would also be correct. I reckon the author also posts here in GitP.

--

So, anything else to say? I think that Saph's "handbook" explains things succinctly, so you basically have to backtrack your steps. As he mentions, the lion's share of the explanation will probably be the feats; Fighters used to the Two-Handed Fighter archetype will probably find Power Attack far better here than in PF, despite the better damage returns (plus the fact that you can fine-tweak your penalty, and PA multipliers require only a few feats). At most, the safest bets for house-rules would be tweaking the skill list to be somewhat similar to PF (aside from the little mention of jump) and replacing the feat progression (but NOT the feats per se) of 3.5 to PF, so that they feel a bit more comfortable. That collapses about half of RedMage's proposals and makes the transition easier, not to mention it helps 3.5 players quite a bit. You may STILL want to tweak some skill points around, though, and it's your call whether you should replace classes or even replace the HD of some classes.

[Reshy]

The first and foremost thing you'll have to understand is that, no matter the changes, the Core Mechanic (d20 + bonuses vs. target number) is the same in both.

It all depends on your players' tactics. Spellcasters will regain the utility on some nerfed spells (Alter Self, Grease, etc.), but for the most part will play the same. Martial characters will have less feats, but some of the skills will be collapsed. Skill monkeys will suffer a bit more because they'll lack the collapsed skills, so they have to invest in two/three skills on what they would otherwise invest in one, and the cross-class notion in 3.5 is far more unforgiving than in PF (1/2 ranks will seem like a hassle for them).

If you're intending to implement house rules, take from PF what mostly works. For example: the collapsed skills in PF (Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Linguistics, Perception and Stealth) can be ported pretty easily. I would, though, make a slight distinction: Jump HAS to be removed out of Acrobatics. I'd tell them Jump is a skill on its own, and then go with "if you see Balance or Tumble, replace with Acrobatics; if you see Speak Language or Decipher Script, replace with Linguistics, etc." Second, keep the feat progression; that'll give everyone three extra feats to play, which is something that plagues D&D pretty badly.

The classes will be something you'll have to speak with everybody clearly. In fact, bit by bit:
Overall: PF Players will be shocked by the loss of archetypes. Substitution levels work like archetypes, so start with that. Make sure to explain the difference between Variant Classes (from Unearthed Arcana), Substitution Levels (the closest to Archetypes around) and ACFs. Substitution levels HAVE to be explained carefully, because while they resemble Archetypes, you don't have to take them all, something that you have to do with Archetypes.

Barbarian: Loses all Rage Powers, which can be a blessing and a boon. Rage has uses per day rather than rounds per day, which is both a blessing or a boon. Personally, once you get to 10th level, 3.5 Rage blows PF Rage out of the blue due to its duration: [3 + boosted Con modifier] x4 versus 4 + 2xlevel + Con modifier means you need a Constitution modifier of +7 or higher to meet or outlast the amount of rounds per day the PF Pathfinder has, and this remains almost constant as levels progress. Otherwise, the porting isn't exactly difficult to explain. Beast Totem Barbarians will love the Spirit Totem (Lion) ACF because it allows them to pounce much, much earlier, and they'll be quite surprised with the variant Rages (UA's Whirling Frenzy, PHB II's Berserker Strength, Cityscape WE's Ferocity, the Goliath Barbarian's Mountain Rage from Races of Stone).

Bard: They lose quite a bit: some additional Bardic Performances, the Versatile Performer/Jack-of-all-Trades features, and the Lore Master ability. Like Barbarians, Bards gain uses of Bardic Music per day rather than rounds of Bardic Performance; unlike Barbarians, though, Bards blow the PF version of the class out of the water by 4th level, where they get enough uses to last them a day, and then they get far too many for their own taste. They also lack infinite Cantrips, and Inspire Competence doesn't increase.

Cleric: In a way, Cleric players are the easiest to port. Aside from telling them "you're no longer proficient on your deity's favored weapon unless you take the War domain, but you get free heavy armor prof.!" and telling them that they get the Turn Undead feat as a class feature rather than Channel Energy, there's no big loss. Well, no big loss EXCEPT for the domains, which are less complex here. Most Cleric players will expect getting stuff at 8th level, which they won't get. Otherwise, the changes are mostly on the spells (also, no infinite Orisons)

Druid: The Druid is also pretty easy to port, though some stuff will have to be explained. Tell Druid players that they're "locked" into their Animal Companion (unless they decide to replace it via ACF), they get no infinite Orisons, and they get some Wild Shape forms at later levels (and they get a separate pool of Wild Shape for elementals). Note, though, that while PF Druids get daily uses of Wild Sense (gee, why they didn't settle for rounds per day of Wild Shape like with the Barbarian and Bard?), PF lacks Wild feats, so you might want to explain them. For the most part, somewhat easy to port players.

Fighter: Here's where I throw the curveball. You should adopt the PF Fighter, for the most part (all of it, archetypes and all). No matter what, it is a direct improvement over the 3.5 Fighter, and the set-up makes it so that its compatible with 3.5 ACFs and Substitution Levels. This will ease the transition (and make for a better Fighter overall), particularly once they wake up from the shock of seeing the original Power Attack in action, or that Improved Trip works like Greater Trip after all. Some archetypes will make the class a powerhouse, BTW (see: Two-Handed Fighter and Greater Power Attack, which would work in 3.5 exactly as that of the Frenzied Berseker).

Monk: This is mostly for completion, since not everybody plays a Monk in 3.5 unless they've good some good optimizing skills, and very rarely over 9th level (with Invisible Fist, anyways). They lose quite a bit: the loss of CMB/CMD screws them over, they lose the ki pool and bonus feats, Abundant Step and Quivering Palm are now far more limited... On the other hand, PF Monks aren't much of an improvement over 3.5 Monks, save for Hungry Ghost/Qigong Monk. Your call on this one, but even the most diehard PF Monk will be surprised at the Swordsage using its unarmed adaptation. Might as well start teaching them about Tashalatora (Secrets of Sarlona, if you forget where it is) or take one of the many Monk homebrews from here.

Paladin: So far, aside from Monk, the changes are fair. The only thing I can tell you if you have a diehard Pally player is: be gentle. They lose their mark ability (since I REFUSE to call that ability a smite, no matter if it's better in the long run) and get less uses, LoH is a different monster, no Mercies, and virtually nothing beyond 6th level, plus they need to get good Wisdom to cast spells. On the other hand, they get Turn Undead (and therefore access to divine feats), the ACFs that replace a mount are fairly good, their choice of mounts is FAR better (because you can get some magical beasts with you), and 3.5 Paladin spells are better overall. Be VERY careful if you intend to port the PF incarnation, because while it may be an improvement, it screws some of the ACFs Paladins get access to (Cursebreaker, for example), and you'll have to make the tough decision over letting Channel Positive Energy remain (and thus, their AoE healing) or permanently lose access to Divine feats (because the latter requires turning or rebuking; NOTe, if you treat them as equivalent, you'll be sacrificing LoH uses to power them up). Quite easily the most controversial of the changes. BTW: if you have Anti-Paladin players for some reason, introduce them to the Paladins of Slaughter and Tyranny, but note that it'll be the same as the changes between rulebooks.

Ranger: Mixed bag in here, but not as drastic as the Paladin or the latter classes. The ranger loses Favored Terrain as a class feature (or rather, it gains it by replacing Favored Enemy, so it's either one or the other), the Combat Style only grants three (fixed) feats, and also loses Quarry. The Animal Companion from the Hunter's Bond isn't the same (it's weaker), and you're fixed into the companion (unless, again, ACF to replace it). Aside from that, there's not many changes into the Ranger, save for the increase in Hit Dice to d10.

Rogue: Just like the Paladin, be gentle to Rogue players. I've heard that they're still not the best class in PF, but there they get more special abilities (AKA Talents), of which there are minor and major variants, and get them earlier. They also lose their Death Attack-esque Master Strike, which is their capstone. Their Hit Dice was also increased to a d8, so they lose some hit points, and some of the talents made them better at fighting or gave them some minor magic.

Sorcerer: One of the classes that got the biggest change, but ironically one of the simplest to grasp. Tell your Sorcerer players that they get no bloodlines (or rather, that their bloodlines are feat-based), but otherwise they play exactly like in PF (save for the lower HD and lack of UMD).

Wizard: Same as Sorcerer, except replace "bloodlines" with "arcane school". They also have lower UMD, and they can only bond with familiars.

Races also had changes, but for the most part they're similar (just say that all races lack one of their bonuses to ability scores, and in the case of Humans and Half-Elves they get no ability score increases. Some of the races lose a few minor benefits as well. Also, explain that favored classes don't grant bonuses here, but rather restrict your multiclassing a bit (a good thing to houserule would be to remove favored class or adapt the PF version).

Finally, combat maneuver checks. Many things in PF depend on them, being mostly "like Strength checks, but you add your BAB; you add your attack bonuses if you're the offender, or some of your AC bonuses if you're the defender". I could go and say "they're basically attack rolls", but it's a bit surprising to see combat maneuver checks in the Web spell, of all spells.

To familiarize better with PF, you'd do well to see (and recommend your players to see) the the 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136890-The-3-5-Pathfinder-Handbook) by Saph, who got most if not all of the changes out. If you see the changes as too overwhelming, then make the judgment call; bite it and play PF with them, or hybridize the experience so that you and them can stay at equal footing (it'd be a heavy houseruled game, but most of the houserules will be merely referencing the other handbook). 3.5 has good things, PF has a few good things, and it's up to you what to do with them.


Any suggestions on making a homebrew character sheet that can contain these kinds of changes?


Would there be any concerns/problems by using the cantrips/orisons from pathfinder in place of the normal 3.5 ones? That way they can get their unlimited uses without being broken or having only one use and being near useless.


How do you suggest reworking the Fighter and should that be done with any of the other classes? Eg. Paladin, Rogue. Also should I give the increased HD to the classes like Rogue? I've never played a rogue so I don't know how much the potential HP/level makes.

Also I planned on a few changes, like the quicker feat progression and the collapsed skill set. I have to ask though, what about jump makes it need to be excluded from acrobatics so badly?

[Xerlith]

I use this sheet. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ilwydgu5ria8pba/PF%20Character%20Sheet.pdf)

[T.G. Oskar]

Would there be any concerns/problems by using the cantrips/orisons from pathfinder in place of the normal 3.5 ones? That way they can get their unlimited uses without being broken or having only one use and being near useless.

Not really. Detect Magic is often one of the cantrips left at will. One 0-level spell that may cause problems, and that's really irrelevant, is Cure Minor Wounds, since that leaves you with less need for wands as you can spend as many rounds as HP lost by your friends healing them to full. The other would be Prestidigitation, but only if the player knows how to make good use of it.

That could be an easy houserule, tho: you don't prepare cantrips; you learn them, and you get to use them at-will. Maybe get a generalized progression for all of them; whatever makes it easier.


How do you suggest reworking the Fighter and should that be done with any of the other classes? Eg. Paladin, Rogue. Also should I give the increased HD to the classes like Rogue? I've never played a rogue so I don't know how much the potential HP/level makes.

Fighter-wise, there shouldn't be many changes. The PF Fighter is mostly the same as per the 3.5 one, but with a few more skills and filling all dead levels with stuff. Because of this, it can be ported with little to no difficulty. If anything, raise its skill points, but that's more of a sweeping rule than a specific one.

Rogues with d8 HD work well, since they could use the extra HP early on and even later on. It won't really affect them brutally; just give them a bit more HP to survive. Rogues in 3.5 generally gravitate towards going TWF and finding a way to enable their Sneak Attack to deal damage, boosting their UMD to work as a secondary spellcaster, and cover for all the skills the other classes lack; PF Rogue does almost exactly the same, but they get more Talents. You could also port the PF Rogue completely, though beware that Trapfinding in 3.5 and in PF work differently (you can't find magic traps at all without Trapfinding in 3.5, while in PF it's merely a bonus to the Perception check; somewhat the same with Disable Device, though you can't disarm magic traps at all without Trapfinding). Sneak Attack works somewhat differently, though: in PF, only Elementals, Incorporeal creatures and Oozes are immune to Sneak Attack; the rest are affected, so many of the enabling aspects of SA (Gravestrike, Golemstrike, Penetrating Strike ACF) will be mostly redundant. You decide whether you keep the PF Sneak Attack or keep the 3.5 one, though remember that 3.5 has a viable strategy of treating splash weapons as viable thrown weapons for dealing SA damage, something that PF changed a bit. The talents will be harder to pin down: at best, keep them limited to those of the Core Rulebook, and treat all other PF talents as conditional to your approval. Other than that, the transition shouldn't be so difficult. Point your Rogue players to Ambush feats, as well; depending on how you work your Sneak Attack, they can become deadly debuffers, combining their talents and Ambush feats into pretty brutal effect.

As for other classes: it's your call, really. IMO, Sorcs and Wizards can retain their d4 Hit Die, and Bards work well with a d6, since you'll rarely attack with them anyways. Some other classes will need the d6, though. IMO, the Cleric and the Rogue should switch dice (Rogue gets d8, Cleric gets d6), but that's just me.

Regarding the Paladin...again, your call, but both classes play very differently. The PF Paladin relies mostly on its mark (see my post to figure out what's the "mark") to deal damage, while the 3.5 Paladin relies on mounted charge and multiplying the damage from its smite. PF feat progression + 3.5 feat list will make the Paladin edge out a bit, since it'll be easier to work some feats out. The Mounted Combat line requires only three feats (MC, Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge), Power Attack --> Shock Trooper requires only three, and if you're interested in lockdown (and have the Dex and Int to pull it off), the typical Lockdown feat chain requires about 5 feats (Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Imp. Trip, Stand Still and a feat to enable trips, such as Robilar's Gambit or Knock-Down). With 10 feats and a Human, you can get all three fighting styles at once, and with a Lance you can cover for all three styles, which should complement your fighting style (no Battle Blessing, tho). Personally, if there's one class that you need to work out in case you have players for them, is Paladin. The effort needed to make them work pretty much ensures homebrew will be a more efficient solution.

Also: regarding Paladin and Cleric, it's your call to retain Turn Undead or port Channel Energy, but make sure two things are true if you choose to change to Channel Energy. First, Paladins get Channel Energy as per their 3.5 counterparts (get their own pool, but weaker). Second, Divine feats are powered by Channel Energy uses. That way, the power of Divine feats is retained, and Paladins aren't shafted by requiring to spend uses of LoH to power their Divine feats, which is a massive loss to them (they make much better uses of the combat-based feats).

Finally, speaking about the skill point change. Treat each in three tiers: almost everyone who gets 2 or 4 skill points per level gets 4 skill points, while those who get 6 or 8 skill points remain the same. The only clear exception is if there's a class that relies on Intelligence (Archivist, Artificer, Duskblade, Factotum, Swashbuckler, Wizard and Wu Jen, off the top of my mind), who keep their own skill points. That means Duskblades, Wizards and Wu Jen are the few classes with 2 skill points per level, as their Int will give them enough points to work something out. As you can see through Tome of Battle, classes with 4 skill points per level work well and aren't necessarily broken. Just as a note: if you're planning to go with it, consider carefully whether the Rogue should have 10 skill points per level, since they're supposed to be the masters of skill points.


Also I planned on a few changes, like the quicker feat progression and the collapsed skill set. I have to ask though, what about jump makes it need to be excluded from acrobatics so badly?

See the discussion I had with Larkas. In short: blending Jump into Acrobatics means that some classes will lose the skill, as they would gain Balance and Tumble alongside it, and Jump would rely on Dex rather than Strength, when the conception of Jump in D&D is that it's based around Strength.

[ericgrau]

I'd stick with 3.5 since you know 3.5. Or go all PF since that's what the players know. I wouldn't mish mash, sounds like a pain. Allowing some PF classes, feats, ACFs and so on in 3.5 could be cool. Ditto for allowing 3.5 build material in PF. Note that the PF core classes are a little stronger than the 3.5 core classes, but not stronger than some other classes.

Even when PF tries to simplify things like skills, it adds almost as much as it takes away. I don't think it's worth the trouble for things like that. I'd pick one system or the other and go with it.