3.P How does it work?

[Albions_Angel]

So I know a lot of people on this forum are practising 3.X where 3.5e is mixed with other d20 systems. The classic one is including 3.0 content in 3.5e games.

And I know a lot of pathfinder games also mix in 3.5e content (monsters and spells, classes and races). But I struggle t see how.

Doesn't pathfinder have a bunch of manures and things that change how combat works? Arnt there other large changes?

How do people do it? I'd love to start but I don't know how to get a handle on it yet.

[Grim Reader]

Judging from our own group, the normal thing is to have a base system, but allow content from others.

For example, playing Pathfinder but allowing PrCs and spells from 3.5. Or playing 3.5 but letting the guy who has his heart set on a Bloodrager play a Bloodrager.

[DarkSoul]

Basically what Grim Reader said. My game, for example, could technically be called 3.P even though there's very little Pathfinder content in it. It's mostly 3.5, but I replaced the fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue, and paladin with their PF versions and allowed some feats as well.

If you're going to do it find a comfortable point on the "No Mixing ---------- All Books, Both Systems" spectrum. The further to the right you go the more you need to keep track of.

[Andezzar]

What did you do with feats that exist in both systems, but work differently (e.g. Power Attack)?

[Rhyltran]

What did you do with feats that exist in both systems, but work differently (e.g. Power Attack)?

Can't answer for him but at our table we let people pick between the feats. So there would be two variations of power attack as an example.

[DarkSoul]

What did you do with feats that exist in both systems, but work differently (e.g. Power Attack)?For me, I kept 3.5's Power Attack.

[Seerow]

Can't answer for him but at our table we let people pick between the feats. So there would be two variations of power attack as an example.

This is the same way we handle it as well. If a player really wants to they can even pick both versions, though they can't use them both at the same time.


Similarly for classes you can use either the PF version or the 3.5 version. Since we have 3.5 as a base system there's a few minor mods (basically to class skill list and converting references to CMB/CMD), but generally any changes are very minor and it works quite well with minimal fuss.

[Long_shanks]

My group and I are currently alternating two games in Pathfinder.5 (Pathfinder base, with 3.5 splashed in). We all played together in 3.5 for a long time and switched to Pathfinder in the last few years. However, that long experience means that we can create a lot of character concepts with the resources of 3.5. Warlocks, Initiators, Meldshapers, Binders, etc. are all cool classes/concepts we still use in Pathfinder (I know there are third party resources that reprised those ideas, but we don't have those books and, most of us, don't have the time to relearn a new subsystem).
With all that said, we usually play with a few simple rules.
1- If it exists in Pathfinder, we use the Pathfinder version. This goes for classes, feats and spells.
2- Stuff from 3.5 has to be DM approved. I allowed Song of the Heart (from Eberron) to my bard player for example. This allows the DM to control his wolrd (so far, I and the other DM have never refused anything).
3- If the 3.5 element doesn't quite work because of the Pathfinder rule changes, we adapt it. I made a Pathfinder port/adaptation of the Artificer class for one of my players (the Craft reserve is pretty useless when XP is not used to create magic items). The key point is allowing players to play what they want.

[GilesTheCleric]

Judging from our own group, the normal thing is to have a base system, but allow content from others.

For example, playing Pathfinder but allowing PrCs and spells from 3.5. Or playing 3.5 but letting the guy who has his heart set on a Bloodrager play a Bloodrager.

I do the same as DarkSoul and Grim Reader. My game is ostensibly 3.5, but I allow PF (by request) and 3.0 content. In almost all cases where rules conflict, I port things to the 3.5 mechanics. I do use some PF mechanics -- I'll allow players to use CMB/D if they want, and my skill list is the PF list. Those are easy to port in, though -- we haven't yet run across anything that's a big rules challenge, but I'm also not a huge stickler for making sure everything is RAW-tight while we're in the middle of play.

I think the only places that you'd want to watch out for are feats or class abilities that change the way the base rules work. For example, if one of my players had wanted to make a grappler, and then take a mix of PF and 3e feats, then we'd probably need to have a discussion on how the PF feats work, since the mechanical assumptions of grappling are pretty different in PF. But for feats that are "+2 to CMB"? Sure, add it to all your maneuvers in 3.5, or if you're using CMB, then it's perfect.

[Gildedragon]

People have hit the nail on the head here: there's a main system and little bits are added in ad-hoc.
I am pretty free with the mixing myself and let folk pick from two identical things between systems. I just have a couple guidelines

A) Pathfinder skill list (reducing skill bloat is good)
B) 3.5 skill ranks
C) CMD CMB are in
D) Pathfinder crafting rules are in

[Sayt]

In my home game we generally run pathfinder base, and use 3.5 material that hasn't been directly updated. So for instance, you couldn't take 3.5 power attack for instance, but could take sun achool style.

ACFs haven't really come up yet to my knowledge, but generally I think you'd just apply them to their 3.5 equivalent in the similar level/replacement like you would with an archetype.

Psthfinder also has a free conversion PDF on their site which details transfering 3.5 to PF.

[Grim Reader]

What did you do with feats that exist in both systems, but work differently (e.g. Power Attack)?

We generally go with base system trumps. So if we play Pathfinder, the Pathfinder version is the one we use. If we are playing 3.5 with Pathfinder options, its 3.5 versions that count.