3.pf, but in reverse?

[Quertus]

I was looking at some old 3e modules, and thinking about how much the game has evolved since 2000. So many of the modules' expectations are out of sync with the modern playing field. As I began trying to see how much it would take to convert the modules up to 3.5, I began to lament that people wouldn't be playing the modules as the designers intended.

But then I thought, why not? Why not just keep the module as is, and just ban everything after, say, 2002. No new rules, no new feats or prestige classes, no errata, no dragon magazine content if it was published in 2003 or later.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how that would - or would not - work?

Alternately...

As I understand the term, 3.pf means pathfinder content, unless such does not exist, at which point you default back to 3.5. And 3.5 runs similarly - if the content doesn't exist, it defaults back to 3.0.

So, what if you ran that in reverse? For example, if you want to run a druid, you use 3.0 content; if you want to buy an Amulet of Emergency Healing, you use the first available version in 3.5. Etc.

Has anyone ever used this style? Any thoughts on how it would run? Or how well it would allow old modules to be run as written, while still allowing players the maximum breadth of options?

[Falcon X]

I never spent much time in 3.0, but from what I understand, there's a reason 3.5 exists. 3.5 just does 3.0 better. It doesn't dramatically change the play style like a full edition change.
Personally, I would continue to convert to 3.5, or go all the way back to 1e or 2e.

Of course, that only applies to rules and classes. I think items and monsters should be stolen from any and all editions. Feel free to use the 3.0 version of that item as-is. Why not? It's a magic item. It may get more or less powerful depending on what edition you port it into, but it's still an item to be given based on what you want to see the party have.

[edit] I am one who really believes in non-core 3.5. I think the edition only became strong halfway through. Now limiting what books can be used is probably a good idea, but access to classes like the warblade, beguiler, duskblade, dread necromancer, warlock, etc. only provide more balanced and flavorful classes than core. Once again, if you're trying to get back to it's roots, I'd go fully back to 2e or 1e.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I agree with Falcon. You could run 3.0 with 3.5 and pathfinder material spliced in where nothing similar existed in 3.0, but I don't see why you would want to do so. It seems like you'd be getting the worst of all possible worlds.

3.0 Haste + 3.0 fighters + 3.5 Incatatrix + 3.5 Nightsticks + 3.5 Wraithstrike + PF Sacred Geometry = why bother?

Most of the improvements in 3.5 and Pathfinder are to things that are duplicated from 3.0. Most of the problematic elements are found in poorly thought out expansions and a lot of those are not duplicated. To expand on the examples above, the pathfinder fighter (especially with the Weapon Master's Handbook) is a far better class than the 3.5 fighter or the 3.0 fighter. 3.5 haste is a much more balanced spell than 3.0 haste was and results in a game that just plays better. However, in the reverse 3.pf that you're imagining, the guy who wants to play a fighter is stuck with a 3.0 fighter while synthesist summoner is available with 3.0 haste as a second level spell. Not good times.

[bahamut920]

For player options, this would be making everyone play the least fun and most broken version of a class, essentially. Like the two others before me, I strongly recommend using 3.P on the player side.

As DM, use whatever you like, in whatever way you like. If there's a 3.0 monster with a cool ability that never got updated (or the ability got cut from 3.5 or Pathfinder versions), just make sure its stats are right. You might also want to re-do skills and feats for it, because many feats have changed over the course of two edition revisions.

[weckar]

I like the idea of a cutoff date on material. Everything after 2003 DOESN'T EXIST (which I'm pretty sure means nothing in Pathfinder exists).
It's actually a pretty clever alternative to updating modules. I might give this a swing sometime if we ever land ourselves back in Ravenloft or something.

[Fizban]

No sort of ban list, whitelist, or date line ever works the way you want it to, but the date is indeed more important than some people realize. It's quite easy to see how the 3.5 PHB and early Complete books are still being super conservative, having not shaken off the 3.x wedding jitters, while the late series completes are bursting with stuff that blows previous stuff out of the water. It's harder to tell with the setting books which tend to follow their own trends and maintain some terrible crud even longer while printing Incantatrix back in 3.0, but it's there.

I'm only familiar with a small amount of Pathfinder material and have no illusions about their balancing ability (it's not magically gonna be better, you could see right from the beginning it was full of holes). What I am familiar with, and have heard from others, is that it's general power level is just flat higher and is probably only increasing as it goes.

The date of the book is useful as the first hint of what to expect: older stuff will be either deliberately terrible or brainlessly overpowered, while newer stuff will be brainlessly terrible and deliberately overpowered. Or maybe the other way around. Basically the old stuff was from before people had the internet to analyze the system, and when the new stuff screws it up there's less excuse for not knowing how your own game works. It's no substitute for doing things right: actually looking at the material you and each of the players want to use and making sure it's going to work together.

[weckar]

I think it's more from the lines of: By setting a cutoff date, you are of the same playing field as the module writers, and are playing what they could have reasonably expected to be played.

[Quertus]

Sounds like my "clever idea" of "3.pf, but in reverse" won't have the desired effect.

"Allowed sources: 2002 and before" sounds more promising. Limiting players to the state of the game around when the modules were published seems a fairly easy to make the modules run about the way the designers intended.

[Gnaeus]

Great, so I can go back to permanently polymorphing my fighter into a marilith at level 7? Because that's how the designers intended the game to be played? Fantastic!

[Psyren]

Or Mass Greater Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm) at level 3.

Haste and Polymorph were mentioned. Hours-long summons.

Really, just... why? The modules are just stories. The mechanics shouldn't matter so much that you can't use those stories with the better engine under the hood. I can see using the best parts of all three worlds (if 3.0 did something better, which I'm having a hard time even envisioning to be frank), but arbitrarily limiting it to 2002 and earlier when even the designers themselves likely wouldn't have done so seems like it would result in far more trouble than benefit.

[Cosi]

3.0 haste isn't any worse than 3.5 celerity or arcane fusion. It might even be better for the game, because at least mass haste lets Fighters or Paladins get some extra actions.

Obviously, expanding the game is going to cause there to be more broken things. But I don't know that you can make the case that "no 3.0 material" is better because of 3.0 haste any more than you can make the case "no 3.5 material" is better because of no 3.5 wish. Every version of 3e has had some percentage "crazy broken crap", and if you play with more content, the amount of it will rise. But that's true of any content you add and any version you use, so singling out 3.0 is more than a little unfair.

I think it would actually be interesting to play 3.0 + 3.5 + PF + DSP with the stipulation that when material conflicts, you can use whichever version you want. Maybe even pre-errata versions for things like Extra Spell or (IIRC) Paragon Surge.

[weckar]

I'm just reasoning from a perspective of author knowledge and author intent here. Running a module and getting the intended experience (not just the plot) relies a lot on implicit communication between the players and the author. Because it can't work the other way around, the players need to speak the author's language. Therefore, reverting to an older game state makes sense.

[Gnaeus]

3.0 haste isn't any worse than 3.5 celerity or arcane fusion. It might even be better for the game, because at least mass haste lets Fighters or Paladins get some extra actions.

Obviously, expanding the game is going to cause there to be more broken things. But I don't know that you can make the case that "no 3.0 material" is better because of 3.0 haste any more than you can make the case "no 3.5 material" is better because of no 3.5 wish. Every version of 3e has had some percentage "crazy broken crap", and if you play with more content, the amount of it will rise. But that's true of any content you add and any version you use, so singling out 3.0 is more than a little unfair.

Why do I even need arcane fusion or celerity? I mean, celerity is a good spell, that lets me take 2 rounds of combat in one round at the cost of the second round of actions, or arcane fusion lets me cast a first and a fourth at the same time. That is a marginal improvement in a caster's action economy.

3.0 every party member will be benefiting from a permanent polymorph, cast the day before entering the dungeon. Then, the sorc 10 summons 4 Hound Archons and 6 Arrowhawks which all last for 10 hours each and they and his team of Solar or Marilith allies cuisinart every possible challenge. Action economy is no longer an issue. The fighter walks around with +18 NA holding his 2h sword, bow, shield and 2 potions in his HANDS.

[Cosi]

Why do I even need arcane fusion or celerity? I mean, celerity is a good spell, that lets me take 2 rounds of combat in one round at the cost of the second round of actions, or arcane fusion lets me cast a first and a fourth at the same time. That is a marginal improvement in a caster's action economy.

You'll note that I'm not addressing you in that post. I'm talking generally about the claim that 3.0 haste is somehow crazy broken compared to 3.5.


Then, the sorc 10 summons 4 Hound Archons and 6 Arrowhawks which all last for 10 hours each

And this is worse than lesser planar binding how? That spell gets four Hound Archons a day, each of which lasts for a week and a half.


and they and his team of Solar or Marilith allies cuisinart every possible challenge.

3.0 polymorph other is powerful, but you're making it sound worse than it is. They don't get 90% of the abilities that make those creatures CR 17 or 23, respectively. You get the Marilith's arms and AC and stats, but not its SLAs or multiweapon fighting.