Backwards compatibility is the claim, but we know there is often a lot of work to be done to make it work.
Which PF supplements have you found can be most easily used in 3.5 games with little to no fuss?
Printable View
Backwards compatibility is the claim, but we know there is often a lot of work to be done to make it work.
Which PF supplements have you found can be most easily used in 3.5 games with little to no fuss?
Basically all of them, and I recommend in particular the adventure paths (if you want lengthy well-written adventures), and certain classes that don't really exist in 3.5 (e.g. oracle, alchemist, magus).
The main thing you need to account for is the skill list, and whether to use 3E or PF rules for combat maneuvers (but most players and monsters don't commonly use those anyway).
But really, none of the PF classes are going to be unbalanced if placed directly into 3E; and any regular 3E party would have no issue playing the PF adventures.
Thanks for the response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
1.Using classes like oracle, alchemist and magus is attractive to us, and witch especially. How do people generally approach adjusting the skills for classes?
2. For combat maneuvers we tried using the PF method but found it ended up being a little clumsy in otherwise 3.5 rules, and we don't mind them as they are. My group does use them often, but adjusting the statblocks for monsters etc became annoying work for me. Its simple enough but its just one more thing. There doesn't seem to be a lot of reward for the work of fixing the small issues that crop up from this change. But if someone has done it successfully I'd like to know their experience because on paper we like the CMB/CMD idea.
3. I also was under the impression that PF classes were overall a bit more high powered than 3.5 due to some power creep. One thing that comes to mind is infinite cantrips. So spell tables would need to be adjusted as well, no?
The adventure paths we are aware of, we played Rise of the Runelords when it was 3.5, Kingmaker (using PF) and I'm currently running Age of Worms with 3.5.
(1) That's pretty straightforward; if a PF class has Acrobatics, give them two or three out of Balance, Jump, and Tumble. If a PF class has Stealth, give them both Hide and Move Silently. Stuff like that. This is literally a five-minute fix.
(2) Well it's up to taste, the main thing is that PF maneuvers resolve faster (once calculated) because they're a single roll instead of multiple and/or opposed rolls; and the other is that any attack and defense modifiers (except armor/natural armor) also apply to PF maneuvers (and not necessarily to 3E maneuvers).
(3) Frankly that depends on how much your group is into optimizing. PF has a higher floor, 3E has a higher ceiling.
You are correct that (almost) all PF classes are slightly stronger, but they compensate by making most staple "I Win" spells weaker (e.g. Glitterdust). Infinite cantrips, that's basically a ribbon ability; I wouldn't worry about that one. But getting additional rage powers / rogue talents / sorcerer bloodline spells, and so forth, yes that's a clear power boost.
(edit) except for Cure Minor Wounds, that is.
HTH!
1. That part is easy, but what about skill point allotment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
2.Theoretically should adding the CMB/CMD stat and using the PF rules for maneuvers be all that is needed? I'm trying to think about how this crops up down the line with various feats and spells and abilities and what issues could be run into.
3. My group doesn't optimize at all. They never learned how and it isn't on their radar. But a class having infinite cantrips and getting some sort of ability boost every level (there aren't really dead levels in PF if I recall) might seem a little unfair even if just flavor wise.
It might seem easiest for us to switch to PF, but we played it years ago and decided that the flavor (a little more high powered early on, the art and fluff being tied to Golarion, infinite cantrips etc) just didn't attract us. We have so many 3.5 books between us and everyone is happy with it. We just thought it would be cool to throw in some PF stuff if it was easy enough, but every time I approach it things start to become more fiddly than it seems worth.
Paizo released their Conversion Guide early on. It's intended to show how to convert from 3.5 to Pathfinder, but you can easily do the reverse. And I believe the guide was free from Paizo's website.
Well, then the PF classes end up with the same amount of skill points as the 3E classes. If you feel that is not enough (which is a common sentiment about 3E) then I suggest giving most (PF and 3E) classes +2 or maybe +4 skill points per level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozreth
Yes. CMB = BAB + Str (or Dex if weapon finesse) + size mod + any attack modifiers (for trip/disarm/sunder, that includes your weapon bonuses, too). CMD = 10 + Str + Dex + size mod + any defense modifiers except armor and natural armor.Quote:
2.Theoretically should adding the CMB/CMD stat and using the PF rules for maneuvers be all that is needed?
Notably, for most player characters, your CMB is actually the same as the bonus on your regular attack.
And note the Dirty Trick maneuver which is new to PF.
Well, if infinite cantrips bother you, the easy answer is to not give infinite cantrips (instead, finite ones like in 3E). Getting something at every level shouldn't be a problem, as there are also 3E classes that get something every level (e.g. Druid, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk).Quote:
3. My group doesn't optimize at all. They never learned how and it isn't on their radar. But a class having infinite cantrips and getting some sort of ability boost every level (there aren't really dead levels in PF if I recall) might seem a little unfair even if just flavor wise.
Life had caused a friend from dropping out of regular play, but when he was able to run with us for a stretch again he GM'd. Since he was more familiar with Pathfinder rules, but we were more in love with the Eberron setting, he ran a Pathfinder game in Eberron. If the setting is all, there's nothing wrong with porting the ruleset over. (We did use PF skills and CMB/CMD which took a minute to settle in to our 3.5 mindset)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozreth
I don't know that we felt any more or less "high powered" early on, and the unlimited cantrips really didn't have that big an impact on overall play in a group that does do some modest care in character creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozreth
All the books . If you familar with both 3.5 and pathfinder anything you want to incorporate is a couple minutes of re adjusting .