Is it unfair throwing PF monsters against 3.5 characters?

[Huldaerus]

We use a 32-point buy, characters are appropriately equiped for their level and are moderately optimized (they build with sinergy and avoid noob traps). Can I use PF monster against them? Can I build NPCs with PC classes with the PF model (CR -1 thing)?

How about same rules but lower optimization (bad spell/equipment selection, etc)?

Thanks.

[Zanos]

If you're playing 3.5, you should probably use the 3.5 rules for building monsters with class levels.

Most PF monsters probably have a 3.5 version. If not, you should convert them.

I consider it bad practice myself for a DM to make frequent use of content he doesn't allow the players access to, outside of a small set of reasons.

[WalkingTheShade]

I don't know every Pathfinder monster, but I can think of a couple of the most unbalanced (CR-wise) in the 3.5 srd that are a lot better in PF.
Allip: 3.5 srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/allip.htm) vs. PF srd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/allip)
Tendriculos: 3.5 srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tendriculos.htm) vs. PF srd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/plants/tendriculos)

[Huldaerus]

I'm talking about monsters that doesn't exist in 3.5. Robots, for instance.

[Novawurmson]

Is it unfair? No, not at all. Should you sanity check the stated CR of each creature compared with your party's abilities? Of course - you should do the same with 3.5 monsters, too.

Though if you enjoy Pathfinder and 3.5, I would suggest opening up both 3.5 and Pathfinder options to your players as well. Most people around here call it "3.P," and it works well with GM oversight.

[Huldaerus]

3.P is Pathfinder core rules with 3,5 material allowed and not the other way around, right?

[stanprollyright]

3.P is Pathfinder core rules with 3,5 material allowed and not the other way around, right?

Usually, but not necessarily.

[Novawurmson]

3.P is Pathfinder core rules with 3,5 material allowed and not the other way around, right?

That's the way it's generally done, but you could do it the other way - backport PF material to 3.5.

What are the monsters you're considering in particular?

[Cwymbran-San]

I tried exactly this a few days ago. We had monsters around CR 3-5 and it went quite well against a group of moderately optimized characters.

[Huldaerus]

What are the monsters you're considering in particular?

Skeletal Technicians, Scrapyard Robots, Observer Robots and Hellion's Chasis from Iron Gods: Lords of Rust against mostly level 6 and a couple of level 7 characters.

[Âmesang]

That's the way it's generally done, but you could do it the other way - backport PF material to 3.5.
My last group did that with regards to converting XP spell components in ×5 material components (and just make the latter a touch on the rarer side).

[Quertus]

Unfair? Absolutely not. It is similarly not unfair to have a CR 20000 creature in the world when the party is 1st level, or to have a Lv 42 party encounter a CR 1/10th challenge.

Will it go against your players expectations? Probably. That doesn't make it unfair. Ranting about game balance, and saying you are running a balanced tactical simulation, then having the 1st level party fight a CR 20000 creature, though, would be... beyond unfair.

Now, since you are just trying to *add* to a 3.x game components that are missing in 3.x but present in pathfinder... adding things can be completely fair. Every DM should have the right to create custom monsters - yours are just already created for you. As has been asked, did you allow them access to any pathfinder content? Will you allow them to rebuild their characters using pathfinder content? Or, to be fair, for pathfinder content that does not exist in 3.x? If not, then, yes, this may seem unfair.

Also, as a variant of something that has already been said, you should grant 3.x XP based on 3.x CR.

[Psyren]

The PF versions are generally weaker. Few/no SoDs, many spells (and therefore SLAs) have been nerfed, and it's harder for either side to use special attacks because CMD is harder to hit than, say, a touch attack and Str check.

The one area you should watch out for are natural attacks - PF changed the rules here, so some monsters may end up with more primary attacks than before and thus higher damage potential on a full-attack. They also get more feats, which you may or may not choose to assign.

[Novawurmson]

Trying to look up the monsters in question...

Scrapyard robots look fine.
Skeletal technicians look fine.
Observer robots look fine, but you might consider a Reflex save instead of the free trip attempt for their stun guns.

The Hellion's Chassis is potentially dangerous - it's Mythic, an optional set of high-power rules. Note that it's supposed to get two full turns at initiative +6 and -14, if I remember how mythic works correctly. This thing is very much intended to be a boss. It has good defenses, too. 2d6+2 damage on a touch attack three times per round for two rounds means it could potentially deal 12d6+12 damage to a player - possibly enough to drop a low-health target with no electricity or fire resist. If it's in melee, it can attack with its claws and ray in the same turn, adding (1d8+5)x4 to the potential damage mix. Now, your players are level 6-7, so they should be able to deal with the creature, but you want to give them some warning about the kind and amount of damage it's capable of - perhaps with a couple potions of resist fire and resist electricity.

Edit: You could also deal with it by changing the creature's tactics - spreading out its lasers over the group or not attacking the same target with each of its turns.

[Snowbluff]

The PF versions are generally weaker. Few/no SoDs, many spells (and therefore SLAs) have been nerfed, and it's harder for either side to use special attacks because CMD is harder to hit than, say, a touch attack and Str check.

The one area you should watch out for are natural attacks - PF changed the rules here, so some monsters may end up with more primary attacks than before and thus higher damage potential on a full-attack. They also get more feats, which you may or may not choose to assign.

On the other hand if the players are "moderately optimized" in 3.5, you might be better off settling on the stronger version. Like, natural attack monsters should use the PF stats, spell/SLA monsters should use 3.5 stats.

[FocusWolf413]

Will adding PF monsters make it a fun challenge? If so, why are you asking? Remember, the game is first and foremost about having fun.