How Much 3.5 Do You Mix Into Pathfinder?

[Palanan]

My current DM has a blanket ban on 3.5 material, on the reasonable theory that he has more than enough to manage within Pathfinder itself.

I'm fine with this, but there are plenty of feats and variants I miss (lookin' at you, mystic ranger) and I'd like to incorporate some 3.5 material when I start up a Pathfinder campaign of my own.

So, what do you bring into your Pathfinder game from 3.5? I'm assuming no one uses the vanilla 3.5 base classes, but how about feats, items, PrCs, other material? Do most people use just a sprinkling, or is it anything goes?

[Florian]

None at all.

[Flickerdart]

100% of my Pathfinder is 3.5. :smallbiggrin:

[Toilet Cobra]

Pretty open to it on a case by case basis. We actually treat 3.5 material as kind of "knowledge of ancient civilizations" as a running joke. :)

[inuyasha]

I'd say that I mix in a decent amount, if only because I own so much more 3.5 than I do Pathfinder. That being said, I love Pathfinder a lot more. The only core feature of 3.5 that I enjoy more is honestly the random treasure generation tables. My group loves them for the crazy results, and I love them for the randomness and extra dice rolling, which is what I think D&D should be full of.

[Aegis013]

I use 3.5 as my base and backport PF material by request due to familiarity. I will backport basically any first party PF material, and 3pp material from sources I like (DSP, largely).

Other changes are considered houserules, but I'm the type of DM who lets players have a say in houserules (by majority/plurality vote, with DM able to both vote and veto), so various PF changes often end up in my games.

[Âmesang]

From the Arms and Equipment Guide my 3rd-level Pathfinder ranger has a mess kit (cup, bowl, plate, spoon, fork) and a money belt (holds 50 coins and increases an opposed Slight of Hand DC by +5).

I'd be bummed if I couldn't use at least the mess kit. Just 'cause she's a ranger doesn't mean she has to eat with her hands. :smallfrown:

[dascarletm]

Mostly items. There is so many more in 3.5 (the disparity is shrinking as time goes on though).

[Chronikoce]

My current campaign (which I've been running for about 2 years now) uses PF + Spheres of Power as the base and ALL 3.5 content is on the table as long as I am notified about when 3.5 content is used. I also allow my players to choose which version of a feat to use when taking it (though they are stuck with that version unless they use retraining at a later time).

I used to ban huge amounts of content but I found that didn't really help solve any problems. This time around I instead opened all content and explained to my players that they should strive to make it so that they aren't stealing the show from the other PC's. I did warn them that if a character was OP by comparison to the rest of the group that it would likely need to be adjusted.

So far we haven't had any major issues. The only aspect I regret is that one of my players is a Factotum and that class is terribly written which means that it is hard to keep track of all the houserules (during play) that we have decided on for it.

[Krazzman]

Near to nothing.

I am using Gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana in the current campaign.
Weapon Crystals will soon be available(read as: pushed on) for my players due to story reasons. At least some things that are similar to them.
Spellpoint variant is also directly taken from Unearthed Arcana... and that's it.

[Elder_Basilisk]

As a DM, I use a number of spells--introduced to the campaign on a case by case basis as treasure. I also use a variety of items (mostly from the Magic Item Compendium) introduced again on a case by case basis as treasure. MIC had a lot more useful and interesting low level items than Pathfinder has in Ultimate Equipment.

If I were to go all out and post a lot of house rules (rather than just posting "core plus X, Y, and Z classes" and A, B, and C custom campaign traits), I would introduce a number of 3.5 feats and spells as generally available (particularly the improved spring attack line of feats, combat style feats like Elusive Target, and some of the PHBII tribal feats, and spells like Anticipate Teleportation, etc). I'd also be particular about what pathfinder stuff I allowed with a long list of X, not Y. (For flavor and balance reasons).

[GrayDeath]

Mostly Prestige CLasses, some Items and some Inspiration for Homebrewing PF Classes a wee bit.

[martixy]

I use 3.5 as my base and backport PF material by request due to familiarity. I will backport basically any first party PF material, and 3pp material from sources I like (DSP, largely).

Other changes are considered houserules, but I'm the type of DM who lets players have a say in houserules (by majority/plurality vote, with DM able to both vote and veto), so various PF changes often end up in my games.

I do the exact same thing.
3.5 has been the system I'm most familiar with. But PF has so many nifty things. At the very least - PFs skill system. With it Rogue+Fighter = Fighter+Rogue. Plus, even the fighter gets more mileage out of his 2 points.
And various other bits, plus a lot of house rules.

[Dekion]

Pretty much only gestalt rules and setting specific information (maps, places, etc.)

[Zanos]

100% of my Pathfinder is 3.5. :smallbiggrin:
The Golden Ratio of 3.P. :smallamused:

To answer seriously, I play 3.5 put pull back a couple things from Pathfinder. All skills cost 1 point, and trained class skills get +3. Feats are every other level. That's about it.

[SwordChucks]

I have an unholy chimera of a game. It's Pathfinder with 3.5's items, gestalt, and specific requests (i.e. the party barbarian has whirling frenzy along with rage powers). One player really wanted to use Man-made Mythology (it's a d20 supers game) for half of his gestalt.

Oh and it's a spelljammer campaign, so I have to update a lot of stuff from 2e. It's glorious.

[Sayt]

In my local 3.pf game, we use Pathfinder for the core/player handbook classes (Ranger, wizard, fighter etc), generally use PF races, and where a 3.5 and Pathfinder feat or spell generally does the same thing, we use the pathfinder version (Except improved Trip).

So generally speaking, we play Pathfinder, plus the material from 3.5 that hasn't been reprinted (Knowledge Devotion, the PRCs, large parts of the spells, etc)

[bahamut920]

I haven't actually run a Pathfinder campaign yet (except for a quickie one-shot set in Eberron), but my current stance (which the DM of the group I play Pathfinder with IRL shares) is "Pathfinder is the default, any 3.5 stuff must be run by me first". Pathfinder is great, but I personally find that it can in fact be improved by judicious, policed use of certain 3.5 content.

I'm also working on "updating" some 3.5 classes to Pathfinder. Most, like duskblade and warlock, are becoming archetypes for existent classes. Some, like artificer, are going to remain stand-alone classes.

[Warrnan]

Generally when I play with my friends we've always used 3.5 due to how familiar with it we are. In the last campaign, I dumped my animal companion for a domain and my paladin friend used the PF smite to have a duration rule.

In generally we use 3.5 and utilize PF upgrades and things that PF streamlines.

[Nibbens]

I feel that PF is a little more newbie friendly (if only slightly) so I use it to introduce the new guys to D&D - so none there. My old guys went from owning their collective weights in 3.5 books, to solely playing PF - so none there too.

Personally, I feel that running one system over another is easier than having to familiarize myself with the ins, outs and abuses of running both together. So I'd like to make that another "none."

[Psyren]

We've done some items, some spells and some base classes (no PrCs, we've embraced the "archetype" model.) We've also ported in various monsters, most notably the product identity ones like Mindflayers, Beholders and Displacer Beasts. The specific modifications vary depending on whose turn it is to GM but I'd say it's roughly 80% PF and 20% 3.5.

[upho]

My game is mostly PF and has pretty much blanket allowance for any Paizo or DSP option found in DSP books I own, on d20pfsrd.com or archivesofnethys.com, provided the option can be made to conform with the other house rules. And the most notable of those are no full caster progression (no spells above 6th and none above 3rd before ECL and CL 9), a few free basic combat feats (like Power Attack, Combat Expertise and Deadly Aim) and several scaling "compressed" combat feat chains. The latter one resembles 3.5 in many cases, such as Improved Trip becoming PF's Greater Trip automatically as soon as the prereqs are met.

On top of that, I allow anything (3.5, homebrew, whatever) on a case-by-case basis. So for example the half-giant in my current game is mostly based on the 3.5 goliath, including LA and UA-style buyoff, and both the bloodrager and the witch uses homebrew archetype/PrC options (wrathblood and coven agent, see sig).

IME, the game will suffer from having arbitrary limitations on sources, especially in terms of balance and number of viable PC concepts, although an open policy requires more work and knowledge and may of course not be suitable for all groups.

[Coidzor]

From the Arms and Equipment Guide my 3rd-level Pathfinder ranger has a mess kit (cup, bowl, plate, spoon, fork) and a money belt (holds 50 coins and increases an opposed Slight of Hand DC by +5).

I'd be bummed if I couldn't use at least the mess kit. Just 'cause she's a ranger doesn't mean she has to eat with her hands. :smallfrown:

The pfsrd site at least makes a nod to mess kits existing, though the source they give for those I can't recall offhand.

Even before A&EG was in our possession we just handwaved mess kits into existence, though. Which is one of the things I dislike about some of the decisions of both PF and 3.5, there are certain things everybody would just handwave that they then made bad, cumbersome rules for.

[Florian]

The pfsrd site at least makes a nod to mess kits existing, though the source they give for those I can't recall offhand.

Its in A&EG and also automatically included with any class kit.

[Coidzor]

Its in A&EG and also automatically included with any class kit.

Ah, so it's the title of a 3.0 book and a PF book.

[Florian]

Ah, so it's the title of a 3.0 book and a PF book.

Nah, its me mistyping the name. Reading A&EG triggered by force of habit. It´s Ultimate Equipment we talk about.

[Captain Morgan]

Having only played Pathfinder, I'm pretty satisfied with the array of options. I'm also worried about allowing 3.5 for balance reasons. One of my players is a very sneaky human rogue/stalker who has yet to pick up dark vision by level 9. He asked for a blindfold from 3.5 which costs 9000 gold and grants blind sight 60 feet. The equivalent items in Pathfinder for the same price merely grants the improved blind fighting feat. Another initiator in the party snagged blind sight as a 5th level stance, which is a major waste of resources if a 9k item can grant if and allow for other stances to be used.

[ghanjrho]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services/tools-kits#TOC-Kit-Mes

On topic, I use a Pathfinder base, but liberally sprinkle in 3.5 material (generally feats and items).

[Optimator]

My group's games are 3.5 with heavy Pathfinder backporting. Works really well.

[AnonymousPepper]

My group - by which I mean me, the GM - runs it the same way you mix 3e and 3.5e; if it's not contradicted or replaced, it's kosher. Use the newest material whenever possible. Case by case where there's a spiritual successor of sorts or a mechanic that uses the same name that has a different effect (for example, Persistent Spell exists separately as both the super-Extend and the multiple save metamagic) or with things like the gigantic rework that the [Polymorph] spells got (Draconic Polymorph is right the hell out, for example).

[Buufreak]

I use 3.5 as my base and backport PF material by request due to familiarity. I will backport basically any first party PF material, and 3pp material from sources I like (DSP, largely).

Other changes are considered houserules, but I'm the type of DM who lets players have a say in houserules (by majority/plurality vote, with DM able to both vote and veto), so various PF changes often end up in my games.

Mostly this. We started with 3.5, noticed the likenesses from pf, and from then on if you find something we backport it making changes that we deem appropriate. So far the most common ones are gunslinger and summoner, but others do happen.

[Coidzor]

My group - by which I mean me, the GM - runs it the same way you mix 3e and 3.5e; if it's not contradicted or replaced, it's kosher. Use the newest material whenever possible. Case by case where there's a spiritual successor of sorts or a mechanic that uses the same name that has a different effect (for example, Persistent Spell exists separately as both the super-Extend and the multiple save metamagic) or with things like the gigantic rework that the [Polymorph] spells got (Draconic Polymorph is right the hell out, for example).

If it weren't for the mess they made out of making the combat maneuver feats in ugly chains, that's probably what I would do, but because of that, I'm going to make changes when I know PF introduced a problem or the older version was tighter, or if the players ask for a comparison.

Although alternative solutions to some of their missteps that capitalize on some of their good work are nice too, like replacing the combat expertise prereq with a feat that gives the no AoO+bonus to perform benefit applied to several maneuvers. http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/

[Tvtyrant]

Probably 80% 3.5 stuff with some of the better Pathfinder classes like the Summoner mixed in.

[Novawurmson]

3.5 mostly for items these days, but I'll use anything a player asks for in a heartbeat if it's not just known cheese.

[Milo v3]

We grab a few races and spells from 3.5e, and some random stuff from d20 modern. We also take some 3.5e homebrew.

[CIDE]

In a game I was running? 100% across the board save for the things I may have homebrewed, houseruled, or banned in a 3.5 game anyway. That's not a very big list as it is.

That said in PF games I've played I was never allowed to use 3.5 material at all. Which has sometimes caused some contention for classes that really had no fluff or crunch replacements between systems at the time I tried to play (I.E. Warlock)

[Ualaa]

We sometimes use 'Gestalt' from Unearthed Arcana, depending on the campaign.
Our current one is in Rappan Athuk, so I've allowed Gestalt characters.

Aside from that, almost all material is Pathfinder only.

A requirement is that every option be Hero Lab legal, which includes implemented within Hero Lab.
So we have the d20 SRD for animals and some cantrips.
But I believe that is it, for 3.5 content.

[gadren]

All of the Pathfinder games I have played in or run have allowed any 3.5 materials that has not been "updated" into Pathfinder.

It should be noted that a lot of broken combinations can occur when you do this, but honestly if you want to break the game there is plenty to do it with in Pathfinder alone. Basically, make sure everyone who is playing is on the same page and is willing to adhere to the "gentleman's agreement" of tabletop RPGs.

[killem2]

I don't really allow anything however I would be okay with allowing the tomb of battle since paizo has not released anything equal to it yet