Blending Pathfinder and D&D 3.5

[ZiggZagg]

Ok, so I'm sure things like this are being done already, but I just started looking into Pathfinder, and I'm really liking everything I have seen so far. So, once I get a hold of the core book, I'm planning on just throwing the PHB 3.5 to the side and replacing it. Is this going to cause any MAJOR problems? It seems a bit more balanced and everything and more fun.

Also, if I do this, in terms of spellcasting, should I allow them to continue to use spells from Spell Compendium or such? It seems MOST of the proble3m spells come from the core book anyway, so by replacing them with their "updated versions" the rest might be ok.

Thanks for any insight into this

[Hurlbut]

First give your players a one shot session so they can get a good feel for the Pathfinder ruleset. If they are interested enough then you can go for campaign(s). Second, Pathfinder is meant to be backward-compatible with 3.5 so you can use splatbooks. The Paizo.com have a web enchancement PDF for converting 3.5 stuff to Pathfinder ruleset. Voila!

[subject42]

The way that I've been doing it is that if PF has a version of it, or something close to it, use that. Otherwise, use the old stuff. It does require some diligence on your part to make sure that there isn't something very close that's just renamed, though.

[BobVosh]

We run mainly pathfinder, but since they only have the same fairly boring PrCs that have been around since 2003 we have been using splat books from 3.5 for such and SpC for new spells.

Now that the APG came out it has some neat stuff, and I like the new feats and spells. However, I don't see us changing what we have been doing.

[9mm]

in my experience mixing 3.5 material with Pathfinder is a dicey propersition, as the net power increase in the characters maginfy any option from 3.5. Try plain old vanilla PF first, then decide if you want to import old 3.5 material.

[Hurlbut]

in my experience mixing 3.5 material with Pathfinder is a dicey propersition, as the net power increase in the characters maginfy any option from 3.5. Try plain old vanilla PF first, then decide if you want to import old 3.5 material.

Read my post above. PF was meant to be backward compatible with 3.5. Also it originally intended to bring the core classes up on the same level as the splatbook classes' power level.

[Caphi]

Read my post above. PF was meant to be backward compatible with 3.5. Also it originally intended to bring the core classes up on the same level as the splatbook classes' power level.

You can repeat the line all you want, but it doesn't make it true. For example, Dodge, Turn Undead, Bardic Music, and Concentration all need houserules if anything based on them is imported.

[9mm]

You can repeat the line all you want, but it doesn't make it true. For example, Dodge, Turn Undead, Bardic Music, and Concentration all need houserules if anything based on them is imported.

They also can end up supercharged. A PF Bard with Knowlege Devotion is a scary, scary thing; and that's just going to the obvious. Depending on how you go about conversion something like a frezied Beserker could end up with 1:5 or greater return on power attack BEFORE adding in the tradition 3.5 power attack multiplier techniques.

to put it simply; all the balance issues of 3.5 get WORSE with the more 3.5 material you bring into Pathfinder.

[Hurlbut]

You can repeat the line all you want, but it doesn't make it true. For example, Dodge, Turn Undead, Bardic Music, and Concentration all need houserules if anything based on them is imported.

Actually I linked the Official Pathfinder Conversion pdf. It covered Turn Undead and Bardic Music (renamed as bardic performance for PF).

What of Dodge? The only thing that's changed is that its +1 Dodge bonus apply all the time to your AC, it doesn't change any prerequisite the 3.5 stuff may have.

There's no need for houserules on converting those you mentioned because the conversion PDF already covered them.

EDITED
Just to clarify. If you had problems with some stuff in 3.5, you aren't obligated to bring them over to Pathfinder.

Depending on how you go about conversion something like a frezied Beserker could end up with 1:5 or greater return on power attack BEFORE adding in the tradition 3.5 power attack multiplier techniques.

Except the Power Attack no longer allow you to change the amount of what you want to sink into damage and the penalty for BAB. It's now a fixed amount per a set amount of BAB you have.

[lesser_minion]

Read my post above. PF was meant to be backward compatible with 3.5. Also it originally intended to bring the core classes up on the same level as the splatbook classes' power level.

No, Pathfinder uses a loosely similar rule set. It's not much more compatible with 3.5 than, say, d20 Modern.

You can use the splatbooks with Pathfinder, but you will have to pay a lot of attention, since Pathfinder material essentially ignores 3rd edition splatbooks for the most part, leaving you with lots of breeding ground for unexpected game breakers.

And the idea that splatbook classes were more powerful than core classes is at best a half-truth. The strongest classes in the game were all core, and any power creep was mostly in material supporting those classes, not in completely new classes.

The Pathfinder team can spend as much time as they want blaming psionics for everything wrong with 3.5, but they can't make it true.

[9mm]

Actually I linked the Official Pathfinder Conversion pdf. It covered Turn Undead and Bardic Music (renamed as bardic performance for PF)

What of Dodge? The only thing that's changed is that its +1 Dodge bonus apply all the time to your AC, it doesn't change any prerequisite the 3.5 stuff may have.

There's no need for houserules on converting those you mentioned because the conversion PDF already covered them.

the fact you can't link how the change to dodge means there is no designated target for something like Elusive Target shows you haven't thought it through. That guide is fine, but overly simplistic; and with a game as complex as 3.5 there is no cookie cutter answer; for example does turn Elementals become a straight up normal channel energy or is it it's own seperate thing still?

Backwards compatiblity was a design goal; but it clearly wasn't the MAIN design goal; and it shows.

EDITED
Just to clarify. If you had problems with some stuff in 3.5, you aren't obligated to bring them over to Pathfinder.

Except the Power Attack no longer allow you to change the amount of what you want to sink into damage and the penalty for BAB. It's now a fixed amount per a set amount of BAB you have.

yes it still results in +10 or higher per set of drop, which is flat out nuts, it isn't as big of a smack but for a game designed around rouges only sneak attacking once a round outside of melee (you know the way people would want to do it being a squishy rouge) that is a massive increase in smack.

[Hurlbut]

No, Pathfinder uses a loosely similar rule set. It's not much more compatible with 3.5 than, say, d20 Modern.

You can use the splatbooks with Pathfinder, but you will have to pay a lot of attention, since Pathfinder material essentially ignores 3rd edition splatbooks for the most part, leaving you with lots of breeding ground for unexpected game breakers.

That will not change the fact that the Pathfinder team intended for Pathfinder to be backward compatible.

[lesser_minion]

That will not change the fact that the Pathfinder team intended for Pathfinder to be backward compatible.

It will go one hell of a way towards creating problems if you try to take them up on that promise.

[Hurlbut]

the fact you can't link how the change to dodge means there is no designated target for something like Elusive Target shows you haven't thought it through. That guide is fine, but overly simplistic; and with a game as complex as 3.5 there is no cookie cutter answer; for example does turn Elementals become a straight up normal channel energy or is it it's own seperate thing still?

It depend on what source the Turn Elementals is from. If it's a PrC, does it have Turn Undead as a prerequisite? Then you change that to Channel Energy and you have the feature Turn Elementals simply grant you the feat of same name. It doesn't require too much critical thinking to figure out things like that especially when you have the guide as guidelines for what direction this or that should take.

I see what you mean about Dodge making it complicated for several 3.5 feats. You can simply leave them out or tweak a feat like Elusive Target to requiring you designate a target for your feat at start of each of your turn.

[Tyndmyr]

Ok, so I'm sure things like this are being done already, but I just started looking into Pathfinder, and I'm really liking everything I have seen so far. So, once I get a hold of the core book, I'm planning on just throwing the PHB 3.5 to the side and replacing it. Is this going to cause any MAJOR problems? It seems a bit more balanced and everything and more fun.

Major problems? No. Minor inconsistancies here and there? sure. Workable, though.

Be aware, pathfinder isn't really *more* balanced, except in the sense that it has less books printed for it so far, resulting in less total options to be broken. Adding in all 3.5 material will put it on about par with 3.5 balance wise. This isn't a terrible idea, as you do get some nifty updates, such as to the skill system, but you will have to work at a few things to make them match up with changes.

Also, if I do this, in terms of spellcasting, should I allow them to continue to use spells from Spell Compendium or such? It seems MOST of the proble3m spells come from the core book anyway, so by replacing them with their "updated versions" the rest might be ok.

Thanks for any insight into this

Go nuts. Spellcasting is not really more than trivially better balanced in pathfinder. Allowing SpC is hardly going to be a problem.

[Nero24200]

Read my post above. PF was meant to be backward compatible with 3.5. Also it originally intended to bring the core classes up on the same level as the splatbook classes' power level.

Actually, Non-Core classes are generally weaker than their core counterparts. In fact, at one point on their forums I actually listed every single non-core class I had the rules for (not including class variants) and said I only felt a handful (less than 6 out of about 20 classes) where actually more powerful than their core counterparts (even then, some of them I didn't feel were actually more powerful, just on the same power level as cleric/druidzilla, such as the artificer).

Given that their converstion guide even says that non-core classes will generally need an upgrade, it's likely they realised this not long after making the PFRPG.

[Tyndmyr]

That will not change the fact that the Pathfinder team intended for Pathfinder to be backward compatible.

Intentions are great. I can find plenty of things where backward compatibility was not a top priority.

On a side note, given the interesting specialization bonuses in PF, focused specialist is crazy powerful. Especially for lvl 20+ characters, as you can get some sick abilities.

[Mojo_Rat]

I think PF is a way better game, but your best to start a new Campaign over using it then at best Cherry pick stuff from 3.5 you like.

our group didnt bother with any 3.5 stuff and withthe APG out its really smooth now.

[Starbuck_II]

They also can end up supercharged. A PF Bard with Knowlege Devotion is a scary, scary thing; and that's just going to the obvious. Depending on how you go about conversion something like a frezied Beserker could end up with 1:5 or greater return on power attack BEFORE adding in the tradition 3.5 power attack multiplier techniques.

to put it simply; all the balance issues of 3.5 get WORSE with the more 3.5 material you bring into Pathfinder.

Who allows a FB? Unless evil campaign: PC killing of other PCs is usually restricted I've think.