Changing the system of a campaign?

[Togath]

After over a yea of running one of my games(and learning a ton of gming)...
I'm starting to wonder about the idea of changing systems.
It started as a 3.5 campaign, but over time more and more pathfinder stuff has entered.
It started with monsters, but a few players are now using pathfinder races or classes, and they have access to a few pf spells.
So what I'm curious about is: how well do you folk think converting the game to be fully/mostly pf would go?
I'm hesitant due to it meaning players would need to rebuild their characters... But on the other hand, 2-3(out of six) are already using classes and/or races from pf.

The biggest issues are the artificer(Eberron campaign setting) and the mystic(Dragonlance campaign setting).
As far as I know, there aren't any pf analogs, so they'd either need to change characters, or I'd need to homebrew something.

I'm also not sure how familiar all of my players are with pf(at least two are used to it rather than 3.5, another is interested in it, and I'm not sure about the other three), and not sure if I should ask them yet.

[dps]

First step is to discuss it with your players. If all of them are on board with the idea, then come back here for advice on how to do it.

[Sith_Happens]

So what I'm curious about is: how well do you folk think converting the game to be fully/mostly pf would go?

Let me answer your question with a question: Why? It sounds like you're already porting everything you actually want from Pathfinder, and if you switched to a Pathfinder base you'd just have to do the same with anything from 3.5 you wanted. Just save everyone at the table a lot of headaches and keep doing things they way you've been doing them already.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This is less about how to change the system and more about if there's any benefit to playing pure Pathfinder. There isn't, really. It's just less material.

[Togath]

Mostly it's the difference in power of races, and the condensed skill system...
But I suppose I could just say that.

I was just... Nervous... I'm not really sure why.:smallredface:

[Chronos]

Pathfinder and 3.5 are close enough anyway that you can mix them pretty much freely. If you're pulling in as much pathfinder material as you say, what difference does it make if you call the game pathfinder or 3.5? Play with whatever's most fun, and don't worry about what it's called.

[Taveena]

My group switched from 3.5e to PF with all 3.5e content allowed, due to my DM's dyscalculia (sp?) while dealing with skills getting too overwhelming. It's been pretty simple, really. Just condense the skills of any 3.5e classes you wanna keep using, and reduce the skill requirements for all 3.5e PrCs and feats by 3. Artificer will be a little trickier, but honestly, due to XP costs being entirely removed in PF, you can just remove the Craft Reserve feature.

Now, that said, PF does stealth-nerf melee by making Tumble useless and the combat maneuvers require two feats to be as effective as a single feat was in 3.5e, so we use 3.5e flat Tumble DCs (or Acrobatics) and 3.5e combat maneuvers (such as Improved Trip granting a bonus non-resource consuming attack, while PF requires Imp Trip AND Greater Trip just to get an AoO), while still using Pathfinder's CMB/CMD system.

Furthermore there's the fact that Pathfinder overcharges for combining magic items, massively overcharging the dual-stat enhancement bonus items compared to 3.5e's rules for combining them.

If you're willing to deal with those slight headaches, then I can recommend switching to Pathfinder as a base with 3.5e content allowed, but forcing your players to reroll just seems cruel.

[Sith_Happens]

Now, that said, PF does stealth-nerf melee by making Tumble useless and the combat maneuvers require two feats to be as effective as a single feat was in 3.5e, so we use 3.5e flat Tumble DCs (or Acrobatics) and 3.5e combat maneuvers (such as Improved Trip granting a bonus non-resource consuming attack, while PF requires Imp Trip AND Greater Trip just to get an AoO), while still using Pathfinder's CMB/CMD system.

The CMB/CMD system is half the problem in and of itself. CMD already starts out ahead by an extra ability bonus with no easy way for CMB to catch up, and then monster hit dice inflation kicks in and crushes your poor CMB under the weight of the resulting overly high BABs.

[Taveena]

The CMB/CMD system is half the problem in and of itself. CMD already starts out ahead by an extra ability bonus with no easy way for CMB to catch up, and then monster hit dice inflation kicks in and crushes your poor CMB under the weight of the resulting overly high BABs.

... This sounds like a really valid point. Um. Hm. Any thoughts on how to fix this while retaining the neat one-number system PF uses?

[Vhaidara]

This is less about how to change the system and more about if there's any benefit to playing pure Pathfinder. There isn't, really. It's just less material.

I still question the validity of this. First party material only, yes, but once you include third party (since Togath has written stuff for Path of War content I'm sure that's on table) I think PF pulls even. Especially when you consider that a vast amount of 3.5 is either setting specific, fluff, horribly written, or a combination of the above.

[Psyren]

The CMB/CMD system is half the problem in and of itself. CMD already starts out ahead by an extra ability bonus with no easy way for CMB to catch up, and then monster hit dice inflation kicks in and crushes your poor CMB under the weight of the resulting overly high BABs.

It's actually pretty easy to get CMB to catch up, because anything that boosts attack rolls will work on it, doubly so if the maneuver you're using can be performed with your weapon (e.g. trip.) The real issue is that boosting attack rolls in both systems generally requires magic at some point, so you end up with gishes being the primary way of succeeding at melee past a certain level, just like in 3.5 - and that ends up clashing with some players' expectations of being a "badass normal." (Though personally I never saw the point in claiming to be "mundane" while wearing six-figures-worth of magic items into battle.)

Monsters have the advantage if you're not optimizing, yes, but the goal is to optimize (i.e. focus on one or two maneuvers you want to pull off reliably, not be an expert at all of them.)

You can have very respectable CMB as a non-gish, if you're willing to invest in your items. class features and feats to compensate, and be a bit narrower in focus.

[SimonMoon6]

If you want to change systems mid-campaign, I say go for it. Sometimes the results can be amazing.

I say this as someone who has changed game systems mid-campaign more than once, and with game systems that were nowhere near as close to each other as 3.x and Pathfinder. One campaign of mine ostensibly started in TSR's MSH RPG, moved into Chaosium's systems (Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, Superworld, Elric, etc), then finally moved into Mayfair's DCHeroes RPG. Then, in the dying throes of the campaign, there were five universes that one could travel to, each with its own game system (DCHRPG, GURPS, D&D 2.0, etc).