How do you 3.P?

[Blackhawk748]

Since im not overly familiar with PF (and i REALLY dont wanna have to go learn an effectively new game) im thinking of going with 3.P as several of my players like PF.

The most obvious style i can think of is to take PFs Base Classes, Skill System and Feat progression, but take 3.5s PrCs. As for Feats, both systems would be available and if a Feat is available in both youd take the one that is better, or players choice. As for other things, i need to look into this more but i hear that 3.5s grappling rules are just plain better than PFs so i would probably go with that.

So, how do you do 3.P?

[jjcrpntr]

I like the combat maneuver system but it does bother me how easy it is to break grapples.

[9mm]

Since im not overly familiar with PF (and i REALLY dont wanna have to go learn an effectively new game) im thinking of going with 3.P as several of my players like PF.

The most obvious style i can think of is to take PFs Base Classes, Skill System and Feat progression, but take 3.5s PrCs. As for Feats, both systems would be available and if a Feat is available in both youd take the one that is better, or players choice. As for other things, i need to look into this more but i hear that 3.5s grappling rules are just plain better than PFs so i would probably go with that.

So, how do you do 3.P?

First the grappling rules are pretty much the same. Second, in many ways the games have split far enough from each other that saying "here's a bunch of old PRC's" really doesn't do anything, and if you get a choice of feat chain it'll be the 3.5 version 90% of the time. If you know 3.5 you know 90% of pathfinder; just remember everyone can spot traps now, most things can be sneak attacked, and how CMD/CMB works.

[aleucard]

Here's my suggestion, assuming that you want to get the most out of it as possible.

1) Aside from the ones that are strict upgrades (3.5 Fighter versus PF Fighter, for instance), the players can choose which version of the base class they want to play with, with all the class features (not spells, though) working as described. Some exceptions may exist if you want to tweak balance a bit.

2) While PF Feat Progression is used, the players may choose their feats from anything they qualify for in 3.5 or PF. This takes the bork't martial feats from PF and neatly chucks them into a volcano, which is always nice. Again, you're recommended to compile a list of banned feats (look for ones for casters first, obviously, like Sacred Geometry if it doesn't fit a character's fluff PERFECTLY).

3) Both 3.5 and PF base classes have access to either's archetypes, ACFs, single-class bonuses, etcetera.

4) The list of available PrC's includes both 3.5 and PF.

5) Where a conflict may arise (such as the difference between Trip and Friends between versions), either choose whichever one you think would work best or allow the players to vote on it, with you serving as tie-breaker.

[Blackhawk748]

Here's my suggestion, assuming that you want to get the most out of it as possible.

1) Aside from the ones that are strict upgrades (3.5 Fighter versus PF Fighter, for instance), the players can choose which version of the base class they want to play with, with all the class features (not spells, though) working as described. Some exceptions may exist if you want to tweak balance a bit.

2) While PF Feat Progression is used, the players may choose their feats from anything they qualify for in 3.5 or PF. This takes the bork't martial feats from PF and neatly chucks them into a volcano, which is always nice. Again, you're recommended to compile a list of banned feats (look for ones for casters first, obviously, like Sacred Geometry if it doesn't fit a character's fluff PERFECTLY).

3) Both 3.5 and PF base classes have access to either's archetypes, ACFs, single-class bonuses, etcetera.

4) The list of available PrC's includes both 3.5 and PF.

5) Where a conflict may arise (such as the difference between Trip and Friends between versions), either choose whichever one you think would work best or allow the players to vote on it, with you serving as tie-breaker.

These all seem like good suggestions, and now that i think about it more number 1 makes more sense. Especially since ive looked through Occult Adventures, and while nice i dont really like their "Binder". Dont get me wrong its not bad, i just like the Binder better, so number 1 would let them play whatever they want, which is good.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Here's my suggestion, assuming that you want to get the most out of it as possible. *snip*I second this heartily. It's a shame I never found a PF game with anything close to this level of inclusiveness. As I said in the latest "PF or 3.5" thread, the point of playing this edition is all the juicy content, so USE IT. It was deeply frustrating when I couldn't even use tame things like incarnum or reserve feats in PF games because the DM was trying to keep it simple with 1st party Paizo only. Protip: It still isn't! If that's your real goal, play Dungeon World.

[Ssalarn]

Since im not overly familiar with PF (and i REALLY dont wanna have to go learn an effectively new game) im thinking of going with 3.P as several of my players like PF.

The most obvious style i can think of is to take PFs Base Classes, Skill System and Feat progression, but take 3.5s PrCs. As for Feats, both systems would be available and if a Feat is available in both youd take the one that is better, or players choice. As for other things, i need to look into this more but i hear that 3.5s grappling rules are just plain better than PFs so i would probably go with that.

So, how do you do 3.P?

I use Pathfinder as the base rules set and convert 3.5 materials as appropriate. So I'll bring over 3.5 PrCs and classes that don't already have Pathfinder analogues and tweak them as necessary to lay onto the PF mechanics. I like CMB/CMD for simplicity, though I usually have to tweak it a bit to adjust the scaling, and I like their skill and feat systems.
The big thing for me is that if there is a version of it already in PF, that version is typically what needs to be used unless someone makes a solid case to me for why I need to allow the prior version in.

Awhile back I tried a "no Tier 1, 2, or 5" thing where I replaced the Wizard and Sorcerer with PF-converted Beguiler, Warmage, and other "caster" classes based on those chassis'. Clerics and Oracles were replaced with PF-converted Healers, Warpriests, and various 3pp classes. I think the only non-caster class that got left out was the Rogue, primarily because there's a ton of classes that already do his thing in the Tier 3-4 range so I didn't see the point in taking the time to fix something that'd already been fixed several times over. Fighters are already kind of Tier 4 and got a bump via some 3pp options and Monks can already hit Tier 3 or 4 via archetypes so all good there. I think that was one of the best campaigns we've ever had. Everyone felt on par, the game world felt consistent without all of these deus ex Mary Sue Elministers running around to keep things from going wild, and even though it required a fair amount of initial work to get set up, once it was off and running my job as GM was actually much easier.

The latter books in the 3.5 series tended to feature lots of great Tier 3-4 classes and options, so I love porting those over. I know my collection of 3.P materials includes ported Incarnum, Beguiler, Warmage, all of the Dreamscarred Press materials since they did a lot of the work for me (except for the Incarnum stuff, which I did for them), a Dragonfire Adept conversion that I smooshed together with the Warlock to create a solid class, converted Healer, a bunch of 3.5 PrCs (pretty easy conversions), most of the Eberron stuff (though I completely replaced the Eberron Warforged with Rite Publishing's Ironborn), and a new class that I wrote to fill in the mechanical space of the Dragon Shaman and Marshal.

[BWR]

I've allowed Ancestral Relic as a bonus campaign feat and Practised Spellcaster. Other than that, pure PF. Stronghold Builders Guide is probably goiong to be allowed because I like the ruels presented there better than the ones in Ultimate Campaign for building castles and stuff (UCa is waaay too cheap).