3.P Rule Set?

[Asmotherion]

So, for people using a 3.P format (allowing both sources of material), when 2 rules from diferent source (1 from 3.5, 1 from pathfinder) contradict themselves, what is the general consensus on presedence (for the arguement's sake, something at the same amount of specificity, let's say spell sloted cantrips vs at-will cantrips)? I know it's generally the DM's job to claryfy, but is there a general concensus on what ruleset overides the other in a hybrid game?

Follow-up:

Could you list a number of examples or general feel of pathfinder compared to 3.5 (for example, no infinite loops or buffstacks)?. I'm trying to get a better "feel" of pf since I have very limited experiance with it.

[Firest Kathon]

I think the general approach is that you have a primary ruleset (either 3.5 or Pathfinder) to which all or select content from the other ruleset is added. In case of conflict the rule of the primary ruleset takes precedence. There are some interactions that may come up, the most simple one being that 3.5's minor healing spell + PF's unlimited cantrips means unlimited out-of-combat healing.

The general feel is that Pathfinder took most of the most powerful optimization options out, but some remain and some new ones are added. It's not a fix by any means, but does profit from the fact that it was (until recently) receiving updates, new content, and errata.

[Kurald Galain]

Could you list a number of examples or general feel of pathfinder compared to 3.5 (for example, no infinite loops or buffstacks)?. I'm trying to get a better "feel" of pf since I have very limited experiance with it.

(1) 3E builds tend to rely on prestige classes, whereas PF uses archetypes. This means that in PF, these builds come online six or seven levels earlier, and you don't have to carefully plan towards the prerequisites.
(2) Low-level characters have way more choices and options in PF; e.g. rogues get sneaky talents, barbs get rage powers, sorc gets bloodline; and all classes get archetypes. A result is that PF martials stack up against casters a lot better (but by no means perfectly).
(3) Most common complaints against 3E at low-to-mid level have been fixed; most complaints at high level have not been. For instance, PF rogues can sneak attack undead out-of-the-box, PF blasting is more viable, and PF fighters can get more skill points easily. On the other hand, 8th- and 9th-level spells are as borked as ever.
(4) Many 3E charop tricks (e.g. DMM Persist, Hulking Hurler, Mailman) don't work in PF. Whether that's a pro or a con depends on whom you ask.

[Psyren]

In general I use P1 as a base, because it has a higher floor and lower ceiling. And as Kurald mentioned, concepts tend to come online earlier with archetypes and hybrids than they do with prestige classes, though of course you can still use PrCs if you want to.

[Ruethgar]

Generally I use P1 base with 3.5 options converted.

[unseenmage]

Just like combining 3.0 with 3.5, newest ruleset takes precedence.

[Aotrs Commander]

I mean, I basically took both and have been essentially compiling my own edition from between them; though at this point, the base is now much closer to PF1 than 3.5 when I started; though that level of effort is beyond most sane people, one feels.

[EisenKreutzer]

For me, PF1 is the primary game and 3.5 is supplemental material. When I use 3.5 material, I always go over it to make sure it follows the Pathfinder standard and make adjustments as neccessary.

[ZamielVanWeber]

My group does 3.5 with converted P1 material, because I prefer P1's class design philosophy more and The Stranger Bonds PDFs give me a ton of cool monster classes and boy, do I love me some monster classes. (Also their paladin is a ton more fun to play without PrCS).

[Psychoalpha]

For me, PF1 is the primary game and 3.5 is supplemental material. When I use 3.5 material, I always go over it to make sure it follows the Pathfinder standard and make adjustments as neccessary.

Same in all the games I'm involved in.

[TristanS]

My problem with Pathfinder is that I am always Forgotten Realms based ... too bad they couldn't officially align

[icefractal]

Personally speaking, what Firest Kathon said - PF with 3.x material added, modified as necessary to fit with the rules changes.

For anyone who looked at PF in the early days and said "bah, they took all the fun stuff out" (which was my take initially), I'd urge taking another look. At this point, even with only Paizo material, you can do a lot of the fun, high-end stuff that 3.5 has, such as making your own interplanar travel network. More practically, there's enough stuff to make an effective build for most character types, including non-casters. Paizo still has _very_ different design goals than I do, but a lot of good stuff slips in under the radar.

When you add Spheres and/or DSP material, it gets a lot better, to the point that I rarely feel the need to import anything beyond that.

One of the biggest benefits - all of that material is legally available _and searchable_ online. No digging through PDFs required, and when you want to discuss a feat/spell/whatever you can link to it directly.

[Vaern]

I think the general concern consensus for rules contradicting each other is that the more recent printing takes precedence. Pathfinder was released after 3.5 and, in fact, was intended to be a revision and rebalancing of the system as an alternative to the upcoming 4th edition, and should therefore be considered your primary rules set above D&D content when material from both is in use.

[FaerieGodfather]

Case by case basis. I have to houserule both systems to Hell and back anyway.