Importing (some) Pathfinder rules to 3.5

[rfreixo]

Hi everyone!
I've been DMing D&D 3.x for years now, and have invested a lot of resources into it. Recently, I started reading the Pathfinder rules, and there are many things I like. However, I'm not really prepared to migrate and leave all my 3.5 materials behind, and I don't really want to have to go through all of it and check what could be salvaged or adapted and such.
So I thought I'd take some of the Pathfinder rules that interest me the most, and adapt them to 3.5. My biggest fear is that it will somehow break the system completely and make it unplayable. So, I come here to ask you, the professionals, what your thoughts are about this.
These are the Pathfinder rules I plan to take:
Skill system;
Combat Maneuver system (and associated feats);
The complete Fighter, Paladin and Druid classes;
The Rage Powers of the Barbarian class (but not the "rounds per day" form of Rage);
Some of the Cleric class (including Channel Energy, but no unlimited 0th level spells, and keeping Heavy Armor Proficiency);
Some spells (still need to go through it, but definitely the Polymorph rules)

One thing that I really don't want to take is the feat progression. I want to keep it at every three levels.
So, what do you guys think? Will these rules alter the 3.5 game too much, specially balance-wise? Pathfinder core classes are clearly stronger than 3.5, so would it hurt to take its version of some of the lower tier classes (Fighter, Paladin...) and keep the 3.5 version of the stronger ones? Are these changes I mentioned going to make the Cleric even more OP? Any suggestions on what else I should try to import?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Thank you!

[Brova]

The skill system is fine.

Combat maneuvers are a weird recalculation of something that was never particularly broken. Unless the grapple rules are some how amazing, probably not worth it.

I don't know much about the classes, I doubt the Fighter and Paladin changes are enough to matter. Druid is in a similar boat in the reverse direction - I doubt they nerfed it enough to matter.

Similarly, I don't really think the rage powers fix the core problem of the Barbarian.

If you're going to mess with the Cleric, the thing to do is to give it actual class features past level one. If PF does that, sure. If not, I'd look elsewhere.

I remember PF's polymorph changes being a step in the right direction, but ultimately still too complicated. I wouldn't backport other spell changes as it just bends up the value curve on splatbook spells.

[T.G. Oskar]

I agree with the skill system, but with reserves. Collapsing skills makes them a bit more valuable, and makes classes with poor amount of skill points do more, though it can negatively affect Rogues and other classes with large amounts of skill points per level. That said, I would collapse Climb and Swim into "Athletics" (as 4e and 5e have done), and remove Jump from Acrobatics; it doesn't make that much sense. Also, remember that Concentration is not a skill in Pathfinder, but something intrinsic to spellcasters; keep the Concentration skill, because it has expanded uses in Pathfinder. Oh, and try to keep the rules of 3.5 regarding demoralization.

On the other hand, I oppose to an extent the use of the Combat Maneuver-related feats. Don't split them. Improved Bull Rush and Improved Trip are formidable in 3.5 and a joke in PF. I would include Dirty Trick (one of the best options there), though I'm quite ambivalent to Drag and Reposition (replacing attacks to move opponents beyond pushing them...erm...) Grapple in PF is strictly worse, since you only get one action while grappling compared to the multiple actions in 3.5 because they were based on your iteratives. That said, the feats that modify those attacks (Quick Bull Rush, Quick Trip, etc.) are decent, though note that 3.5 has its own traits (i.e. Knockback and Knockdown).

The Fighter ports somewhat nicely, but solves eventually nothing. You get extra damage and somewhat better defenses, plus a bonus to Will saves, but otherwise you're still relying on feat selections. You can port the Fighter as-is and it won't affect the game that much; it's compatible with 3.5's ACFs, and you can stack Zhentarim Fighter to good measure. On the other hand, PF Paladin is not friendly with 3.5. The mark (small disclaimer: I cannot bear to call the PF Paladin's core ability a "smite") is pretty solid and it gets some nice options and auras, but Channel Positive Energy doesn't play well with Divine Feats, which are a very solid boost to the Paladin's power. Furthermore, most of the best ACFs for the Paladin are suddenly inaccessible because of incompatibilities, so you'd have to play with PF's archetypes instead. Druid...well, you're simply replacing your companion for a choice of Domain, so it's not like you're really nerfing it. Maybe because of how Wild Shape works in PF?

If you're to import the Rage Powers, do the UnBarbarian ones. Rage is a limited resource in 3.5, so any ones that rely on rounds per day will have to turn into uses of Rage per day, which incredibly nerfs their capacity.

Infinite cantrips isn't that world-breaking. Even if you get infinite Cure Minor Wounds - a wand of CLW or Lesser Vigor does what you want faster without that much effort, and martial classes will probably thank you for going with more challenges. Pretty much ALL characters in 3.5 are feat-starved, so keeping 3.5's feat progression won't help. If you want, you can make it so that full BAB characters get PF feat progression, while full spellcasters get 3.5's feat progression. That indirectly helps martial characters.

Overall...it's a different game, but no less or more balanced. Doesn't do transcendental changes to the classes, in any case,and spellcasters will still trounce martials by a very wide margin, even with changes to spells.

[marphod]

If you don't know the system, why comment?


The skill system is fine.

I like Pathfidner's skill system more than 3.5 in MOST respects. I miss the 4x skills at first level, as it limits the diversity of skills allowed to a starting character.


Combat maneuvers are a weird recalculation of something that was never particularly broken. Unless the grapple rules are some how amazing, probably not worth it.
Taking contested rolls to uncontested streamlines the mechanics significantly.


I don't know much about the classes, I doubt the Fighter and Paladin changes are enough to matter. Druid is in a similar boat in the reverse direction - I doubt they nerfed it enough to matter.

...

The fighter re-write is amazingly effective. Still tier 4, as they don't get much for non-combat abilities, but it fixes Fighter being a 2 level class and makes high level, single class fighters worth playing.

Same with the other Martials. I know Curmudgeon doesn't like the Rogue changes, but I think it is improved (especially with the Unchained Rogue).




Similarly, I don't really think the rage powers fix the core problem of the Barbarian.

If you're going to mess with the Cleric, the thing to do is to give it actual class features past level one. If PF does that, sure. If not, I'd look elsewhere.


...

See my first comment.


All of the base classes have flavor and reasons to stay in them for much longer than 3.5.

[Brova]

If you don't know the system, why comment?

I haven't played the system, and I haven't gone over all the new fiddly bits that were introduced later, but I followed most of the initial changes. And frankly, the changes I saw involved a lot of fiddly additions, but relatively little actual improvement.


I like Pathfidner's skill system more than 3.5 in MOST respects. I miss the 4x skills at first level, as it limits the diversity of skills allowed to a starting character.

Taking contested rolls to uncontested streamlines the mechanics significantly.

This seems contradictory. If you like the mechanically simplification of uncontested rolls, why don't you like the simplification of skills? Also, my problem with the new combat maneuver rules isn't that the roll is unopposed, but that the math changed at the feats involved got nerfed from a +4 to a +2 bonus.


The fighter re-write is amazingly effective. Still tier 4, as they don't get much for non-combat abilities, but it fixes Fighter being a 2 level class and makes high level, single class fighters worth playing.

You've contradicted yourself. If the Fighter is still not an effective character at high levels, the fact that he is more interesting is a bad thing, not a good thing. It means people are more likely to take levels of Fighter when they should instead take levels of an actual PC class.


Same with the other Martials. I know Curmudgeon doesn't like the Rogue changes, but I think it is improved (especially with the Unchained Rogue).

Nah, Rogues got hit with the nerfing stick pretty hard. That's a change that is fairly unambiguously bad.


See my first comment.

Again, I'm familiar with the basics of PF's changes, but not necessarily the specifics. In this case I'm aware that rage powers involve Barbarians getting fiddly bonuses while raging. It's possible that they give Barbarians a reason to exist at high levels, but I kind of doubt it.


All of the base classes have flavor and reasons to stay in them for much longer than 3.5.

Having a reason to stay in the class doesn't matter. I don't give a damn whether the correct choice for a martial character is Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Totemist 2/Warshaper 4/Warblade 1/Crusader 1 or Fighter 11. What matters is if that character is effective. And from what I've seen, PF's changes don't actually make high level martials more effective. So why bother?

If you want single classed martials to be effective at high level, use Frank and K's Races of War (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=33310).

[137beth]

I run 3.5 with the following pathfinder rules:
--at will 0th level spells
--polymorph
--When mass combat or kingdom building comes up, I use the Ultimate Campaign rules.

I cannot recommend using CMB/CMD. It contains rather severe hidden nerfs to tripping and grappling that hurts the characters who least needed nerfs.

[rfreixo]

Thank you all for your input. If possible, I'd like some clarifications.


Oh, and try to keep the rules of 3.5 regarding demoralization.

I don't see a lot of differences, really. Is it because you must threaten the target in 3.5, because of the longer duration of Pathfinder, or something else?


On the other hand, I oppose to an extent the use of the Combat Maneuver-related feats.

So, should I skip the Pathfinder version completely, or simply merging the Improved and Greater versions of the feats into one solve that problem?


The Fighter ports somewhat nicely, but solves eventually nothing.

Similarly, I don't really think the rage powers fix the core problem of the Barbarian.

My goal is not really to rebalance the game. Just to avoid it becoming even more unbalanced.


Channel Positive Energy doesn't play well with Divine Feats

Just for the paladin, or the cleric too? Does this mean Channel Energy = No Divine Feats? If that's the case, I'd rather keep Turn Undead.


Druid...well, you're simply replacing your companion for a choice of Domain, so it's not like you're really nerfing it. Maybe because of how Wild Shape works in PF?

Yeah, Wild Shape, mostly.


Pretty much ALL characters in 3.5 are feat-starved, so keeping 3.5's feat progression won't help.

Again, not really trying to fix it. Feats are pretty much the fighter's only real attractive, l'd like to keep it that way. Besides, I feel like I should nerf most feats if I'm giving them away more freely.


I know Curmudgeon doesn't like the Rogue changes, but I think it is improved

Nah, Rogues got hit with the nerfing stick pretty hard. That's a change that is fairly unambiguously bad.

Could you please explain how? It's not that I doubt you, I would just like to understand it better. Other than Sneak Attacks working on everything now, what else is improved? (Not Hit Die, I'm keeping it d6)
On the other hand, Brova, what makes you think the Rogue is worse now?
I know there are many discussions about these changes already (Pathfinder X 3.5), but what I'm looking for specifically is whether these changes would break my 3.5 ongoing game.

Also, I usually don't allow any non-core base classes, so the likes of Beguilers and Warblades shouldn't really make Rogues and Fighters more useless.
My group is highly unoptimized: A bard/fighter, a mystic theurge, a cleric who took Longsword Proficiency as a feat, and a druid who doesn't really know what he's doing.

[Morcleon]

Again, not really trying to fix it. Feats are pretty much the fighter's only real attractive, l'd like to keep it that way. Besides, I feel like I should nerf most feats if I'm giving them away more freely.

Please don't. Even if fighter was the only class that got feats at all, the spellcasters are still a lot better. Switching to PF's feat progression gives you another 3 feats at level 20, which isn't a big deal, but is really nice for feat starved classes.

[rfreixo]

Please don't. Even if fighter was the only class that got feats at all, the spellcasters are still a lot better. Switching to PF's feat progression gives you another 3 feats at level 20, which isn't a big deal, but is really nice for feat starved classes.

But if I did that, to maintain consistency, wouldn't I have to go through every monster in the Monster Manual(s) whenever I need them and upgrade their feat progression too? That's way more work than I'd like to do.
And with all non-wizard classes steadily getting new class features every level, is a faster feat progression really necessary?

[TheIronGolem]

But if I did that, to maintain consistency, wouldn't I have to go through every monster in the Monster Manual(s) whenever I need them and upgrade their feat progression too? That's way more work than I'd like to do.

Not if you use the PF bestiary that's freely available online. There will probably be some corner cases, but it's easy to cover those just by tossing in one or two passive feats like Toughness or Weapon Focus if you don't have the time to make more strategic decisions for monsters that won't survive the night anyway.


And with all non-wizard classes steadily getting new class features every level, is a faster feat progression really necessary?
Yes, because in PF several feats were broken up into multiple feats (Improved [maneuver] being a notorious example), so a lot of builds still struggle with feat hunger even with the faster progression. Besides, feats are a fun point of character customization.

[rfreixo]

I see your point, but the fact is 3.5 is still the primary system. I just wanted to scavenge a few things from Pathfinder. If I take the skill system, the feats, the classes, the monsters... there's little reason left not to migrate completely.
Besides, I still use the 3.5 version of the feats (Power Attack comes to mind). I was going to use the Pathfinder version of the combat maneuver feats only, but from what you guys have said in this thread, I suppose I should keep the 3.5 version of them as well.
So, the 3.5 feats, being stronger/more useful, shouldn't be given at the same proportion as the Pathfinder feats.
...

Right?

[Psyren]

As a strong PF supporter I actually agree with some of the comments above - there's no need to split the combat maneuver feats. For basically all of them, Improved and Greater can be recombined, and this will result in more exciting and varied martial classes for everyone. PF classes got more feats, but pretty much every maneuver now needs 3 feats to be viable (1 to remove provoking, 1 to add other functionality like making the enemy provoke, and then 1 to let the maneuver be performed more quickly, plus a 4th if you're trying to use Dex instead of Strength to perform the maneuver in question.)

[Brova]

On the other hand, Brova, what makes you think the Rogue is worse now?

They nerfed a bunch of the ways to get sneak attack (grease and blink, IIRC) and sneak attack doesn't work with flasks anymore.

[Xervous]

PF rogue is kicked way below T4 (T6 last I checked) due to the skill system change and similar classes might feel this effect with the implementation of such a system. The upside of the system is that anyone can focus on pretty much any skill they'd want, sneaky wizard or diplomancing fighter. All skills basically become class skills (as per 3.5) with a cap 3 lower than that of 3.5e, having it as a class skill only gives you a +3 bonus on that skill which is a hard break for classes who were struggling to get by with only their skill list, now they no longer have that local monopoly on skill access.

Think carefully about what you want to accomplish with changes to how skills work, what exactly do you hope to achieve?

[Psyren]

PF Rogue is still T4 unless the person building it has no idea what they're doing. Fogcutting Lenses + Smokestick is no different optimization than Ring of Blinking + Arrows of Seeking, and this time around the rogue can actually build all that the stuff himself without finding his MagicMart membership card first. He also doesn't need a special ACF or spell to sneak attack undead and constructs, and he doesn't take 2 minutes to search every square either.

No PC class in Pathfinder is T6 - not one of them. If you think one is, best back to the drawing board.

[rfreixo]

They nerfed a bunch of the ways to get sneak attack (grease and blink, IIRC) and sneak attack doesn't work with flasks anymore.

Considering I'm still using the 3.5 version of these spells, this problem is negated, right? Leaving then a nerf on flasks and a boost in sneak attacking all creatures, plus those extra rogue talents at lower levels. That's a net gain, I'd say. What do you think?
Hit die is still d6 though, don't want to change that.


Think carefully about what you want to accomplish with changes to how skills work, what exactly do you hope to achieve?

Simplicity. Cross-class skills have always been a pain in my experience, but still doable. But when you start multiclassing, that's a major headache.
With easier access to skills, Rogues do lose a bit of their niche, but is that really enough to drop them to Tier 6? Even with only core base classes available? (No Factotum, Beguiler, Spellthief...)

[T.G. Oskar]

I don't see a lot of differences, really. Is it because you must threaten the target in 3.5, because of the longer duration of Pathfinder, or something else?

Because, by the rules, the demoralize version of 3.5 stacks with other fear effects, which is what you really want. Ideally, you'd want to mix both: the PF version has longer distance (3.5 is as long as your threatening range) and can last for more, but because it doesn't stack, you can't use it to take the character to cower, which is what you want when using Intimidate in the first place.


So, should I skip the Pathfinder version completely, or simply merging the Improved and Greater versions of the feats into one solve that problem?

It's a mixed bag. For example: 3.5's Bull Rush rules automatically include the benefit of Greater Bull Rush, so mixing both means you end up with 3.5's Imp. Bull Rush. 3.5's Grapple Rules already provide for using your iterative attacks to execute actions while grappling, making them superior than PF's "1 action per turn when grappling"; Greater Grapple only grants 2 actions, so it's strictly inferior. 3.5's Improved Trip already has the benefit of Greater Trip, so it'd be a redundant benefit.

On the other hand, PF's Sunder rules are more useful, because you can disable the weapon without having to break it, and 3.5 is very generous with sunder bonuses. Greater Disarm is strictly superior to 3.5's Imp. Disarm, so the merged benefit ends up with a superior feat. In those cases, merging the feats is much, much better.

And, of course, Dirty Trick should be placed as a special attack for your players (and their opponents, of course!)

My goal is not really to rebalance the game. Just to avoid it becoming even more unbalanced.

That...does not seem to compute.


Just for the paladin, or the cleric too? Does this mean Channel Energy = No Divine Feats? If that's the case, I'd rather keep Turn Undead.

Just for the Paladin. The thing goes as follows: the Cleric gains the ability to Channel Positive Energy almost exactly as they gained the ability to Turn Undead in 3.5, so it's natural to presume that 1 use of Channel Energy = 1 use of Turn Undead. Unfortunately, the Paladin needs to spend 2 uses of Lay on Hands, a very useful healing effect (particularly since they can self-heal as a swift action, further increasing their endurance) to mimic one use of Channel Positive Energy. Thus, 2 uses of LoH = 1 use of Turn Undead, meaning they need to spend essentially 2 "lives" to add their Charisma modifier to damage for 1 round, or their Charisma modifier to shield bonus to AC for 1/2 your level in rounds, which is an unequal trade. The Cleric ends up ahead, whereas the Paladin is the one who could benefit the most but isn't. Judging by the idea that you don't want to unbalance the game any further, that kind of move makes Divine feats more attactive to the Cleric.


Again, not really trying to fix it. Feats are pretty much the fighter's only real attractive, l'd like to keep it that way. Besides, I feel like I should nerf most feats if I'm giving them away more freely.

Whether you plan to "not unbalance the game any further" or actually try to rebalance it, that kind of thought is, IMO, plain wrong. The reason isn't the line of thought itself, but how the mechanics delude into thinking so. The attractive of the Fighter shouldn't have been the extra feats, but rather that they should have been the superior martial class; however, magic made that completely irrelevant.

Consider that, even with the three extra feats, the 20th level Fighter gets 20 feats overall, which is twice the amount of feats most classes actually happen to have. Those 3 feats every character gets are general feats, which can include any kind of feat you want. You can indulge on Racial feats, heritage-based feats, Divine feats, Domain feats, and so on. The Fighter gets a bit more flexibility on what they can do, as they get 3 more feats from a much wider selection than they had before, and the feat progression means they gain one feat every level, which makes some feat choices much more relevant.

PF tried to make the Fighter more attractive by giving them actual class features (a laudable act), but they erred in giving them numerical bonuses instead of practical benefits. Outside of combat, the Fighter isn't really contributing as would the Rogue, the Wizard or the Cleric - in a party environment, that means the Fighter must excel at combat...and if the Wizard and Cleric overpower the Fighter in combat, then you have real problems. 3 feats won't solve that, but at least it won't make it any worse; in fact, it might improve the Fighter's lack of actions OR provide it with enhanced superiority in combat.



Could you please explain how? It's not that I doubt you, I would just like to understand it better. Other than Sneak Attacks working on everything now, what else is improved? (Not Hit Die, I'm keeping it d6)
On the other hand, Brova, what makes you think the Rogue is worse now?
I know there are many discussions about these changes already (Pathfinder X 3.5), but what I'm looking for specifically is whether these changes would break my 3.5 ongoing game.

Probably they'll explain better, but in 3.5, the Rogue had a protected niche (i.e., they had Trapfinding to disarm traps and they had more skill points for the larger amount of skills), and splash weapons were considered weapons, so you could deal SA damage with them. PF made Trapfinding somewhat different and then gave it as a trait (meaning anyone can have it) and splash weapons are no longer treated as weapons, so you can't TWF with them anymore and add SA damage for superior damage than with weapons.

The skill changes and their effect on the Rogue, on the other hand, are a bit more complex to explain. Before, the Rogue had 29 skills, and the largest amount of skill points per level of any class; in PF, they get 21 skills and the same amount. Of course, of those 21 skills, the Rogue gets a total of one new skill (Knowledge: Dungeoneering) whereas the others are the previous skills collapsed into categories (and judging by that, the PF Rogue actually has 2 extra skills over the 3.5 Rogue, if you count that Linguistics offers them the previous Speak Language skill alongside Decipher Script and Forgery). That might not seem like much, except that everyone benefits from the collapsed skills: the Paladin, for example, got one "new" skill (Gather Information, rolled into Diplomacy), for example. On the other hand, since they simplified the skill system so that 1 skill point always granted a skill rank, anyone can be just as good, if not better, than the Rogue in what they do. The only thing the Rogue had that no other character could duplicate was Trapfinding, and with the trait that grants it, the Rogue lost that part of its niche. Thus, the Rogue is no better at being the skillmonkey than anyone who spends their skill points on the desired skills. Now, have a character whose Intelligence modifier allows it to surpass the Rogue in terms of acquired skill points, and the Rogue suddenly becomes matched at its own specialty, since the only thing the class skill grants is a +3 to the score. In that regard, the Rogue's specialty (being THE skill-monkey) got nerfed to oblivion. Or so I think - that's at simple glance, but in PF, you can't be deceived by simple glances. That the developers had to do a fix to the Rogue in Pathfinder Unchained does suggest something, though.

[Brova]

Considering I'm still using the 3.5 version of these spells, this problem is negated, right? Leaving then a nerf on flasks and a boost in sneak attacking all creatures, plus those extra rogue talents at lower levels. That's a net gain, I'd say. What do you think?

Between crippling strike stacking strength damage on things that are immune to sneak attack and the fact that wands of gravestrike and friends exist, there wasn't much a Rogue had a problem with in 3.5. The talents are probably at least a marginal improvement, but I dislike the focus PF has on fiddly bits. Really, the Rogue is basically fine. If you wanted to give it a minor buff, bump it to full BAB or something.

[rfreixo]

Because, by the rules, the demoralize version of 3.5 stacks with other fear effects, which is what you really want. Ideally, you'd want to mix both: the PF version has longer distance (3.5 is as long as your threatening range) and can last for more, but because it doesn't stack, you can't use it to take the character to cower, which is what you want when using Intimidate in the first place.

Right! I get it now! Thanks! I will do as you say, then.


My goal is not really to rebalance the game. Just to avoid it becoming even more unbalanced.

That...does not seem to compute.

I mean I'm not making these changes to try and make the fighter comparable to the wizard or cleric, that's not my goal. I'm making them because I liked the changes themselves, but I fear that doing that would cause further balance problems, if I keep most of the old 3.5 rules.


Judging by the idea that you don't want to unbalance the game any further, that kind of move makes Divine feats more attactive to the Cleric.

I see. Would you have any suggestions for this? If I gave the paladin a Channel Energy class feature independent from the Lay on Hands ability, with its own individual uses and maybe some tweaks, would that be fine, too much or not enough?

Pathfinder Unchained? I should probably have a look at that.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder Unchained? I should probably have a look at that.

The Unchained Rogue (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/rogue-unchained) is a good start if you're concerned that the base rogue might be weak.

[rfreixo]

What about bards and monks? Should I keep them 3.5 or import some features from Pathfinder?
I like some of the bard's new abilities, but not Deadly Performance.