Which rules from 3e or PF do you use in your 3.5 games?

[Ozreth]

As the title says, and in conjunction with my recent house rule thread, I'm curious how many of you playing 3.5 have kept some 3e rulings in your 3.5 and/or added some PF?

[yeetusmcgeetus]

Dying at -con instead of -10 is much more interesting, plus more forgiving in almost all cases, AND makes odd numbers in con actually worth something

[Ozreth]

Dying at -con instead of -10 is much more interesting, plus more forgiving in almost all cases, AND makes odd numbers in con actually worth something

Ever have a player with less than 10 complain?

[Darg]

Dying at -con instead of -10 is much more interesting, plus more forgiving in almost all cases, AND makes odd numbers in con actually worth something

Oh, that's a good one. Is that from 3e or PF? It'd make diehard also a much better feat.

~~~~

I'm currently using 3e power attack (just remove the special text) and charging rules. The first has had the effect of very much shortening the gap between 1h and 2h which has seen players more willing to experiment (also makes power attack a viable option with TWF.) Working with the 3e rules for charging just works so much better. You can actually overrun as part of a charge as the 3.5 phb says you could prior to the errata, making sure you can charge is not a complicated affair with a checklist of rules requirements and houserules to adjudicate situations not covered, and ride-by-attack now just works intuitively.

[Elkad]

Ever have a player with less than 10 complain?

I've been the player with <10 Con. (a 6 con 6 str Xeph Ardent blaster/constructor). I spent a lot of power points on Vigor (from Expanded Knowledge) throughout the day, and liked to stack Haste from a party member with my own Xeph Speed Burst to make SURE nothing ever got in melee range of me. Made a fun challenge.

The Duskblade in the same party had a Con near 30, and Diehard.

I can't think of anyone else who has run a low-con character though.

[Ozreth]

Oh, that's a good one. Is that from 3e or PF? It'd make diehard also a much better feat.

~~~~

I'm currently using 3e power attack (just remove the special text) and charging rules. The first has had the effect of very much shortening the gap between 1h and 2h which has seen players more willing to experiment (also makes power attack a viable option with TWF.) Working with the 3e rules for charging just works so much better. You can actually overrun as part of a charge as the 3.5 phb says you could prior to the errata, making sure you can charge is not a complicated affair with a checklist of rules requirements and houserules to adjudicate situations not covered, and ride-by-attack now just works intuitively.

The con thing is from PF.

I'll have to look at the 3e charging rules, thank you!

[Ozreth]

I can't think of anyone else who has run a low-con character though.

True, it is rare enough, can't even think of a time in my games a person has had <10 con. I suppose it would be a wash, as your HP in general is going to be lower, so that sort of balances out dying before -10.

I might give this a whirl in my current campaign.

[Elkad]

True, it is rare enough, can't even think of a time in my games a person has had <10 con. I suppose it would be a wash, as your HP in general is going to be lower, so that sort of balances out dying before -10.

I might give this a whirl in my current campaign.

DM wanted a Tier3 game. I talked it over with him, and made a glass cannon blaster out of what is a solid Tier2 class normally. Put a construct out for some meatshielding, and then poke things with rays when I wasn't running for my life. Being exceptionally squishy was part of the bargain I made with myself.

[Remuko]

Its been a while since playing 3.5 but I loved 3.0's size rules. gave more variety and made more sense imo. also made reach a bit more intuitive. Large (Tall) had reach 10' but Large (Long) had reach 5'. in 3.5 some creatures of the same size just inexplicably have different reach. i think it was more understandable when there was a bit more justification for it. but yeah i hate how in 3.5 everything is a square shape. I want long serpentine enemies to be like 100 feet long and 10 feet wide (2x20 squares on a grid) and the ability to have it not all always be in a straight line on top of that!? so cool

i also kinda miss the 3.0 DR rules. but im more split. I like a lot of the reason why 3.5 changed them but it caused issues in doing so that i dont like so idk.

[Ozreth]

Its been a while since playing 3.5 but I loved 3.0's size rules. gave more variety and made more sense imo. also made reach a bit more intuitive. Large (Tall) had reach 10' but Large (Long) had reach 5'. in 3.5 some creatures of the same size just inexplicably have different reach. i think it was more understandable when there was a bit more justification for it. but yeah i hate how in 3.5 everything is a square shape. I want long serpentine enemies to be like 100 feet long and 10 feet wide (2x20 squares on a grid) and the ability to have it not all always be in a straight line on top of that!? so cool

i also kinda miss the 3.0 DR rules. but im more split. I like a lot of the reason why 3.5 changed them but it caused issues in doing so that i dont like so idk.

I like the explanation in 3.5 that the space monsters take up (now with round bases) is the space they need to fight effectively assuming they are constantly moving, whereas previous sizing (seemingly ported straight from wargames) assumed a stagnant creature size. Makes for moving miniatures around easier, that's for sure.

I am also completely split on DR rules as well as weapon sizing rules between the two editions, two of the more contentious changes. I can go either way, therefore I just use the 3.5 rules as those are the books we use at the table.

[Darg]

I am also completely split on DR rules

Same, DR/magic is just extremely anticlimactic but the amounts of DR got pretty ridiculous. Some things I want to try are the original 3.0 versions of some spells like cat's grace with the 1d4+1 or emotion which got split into multiple spells with the 3.5 update.

[Wildstag]

Dying at -con instead of -10 is much more interesting, plus more forgiving in almost all cases, AND makes odd numbers in con actually worth something

I actually loved that change. I always joked with friends that a 3.5 Barbarian, if doing their job right, shouldn't live past level 5.

[Fizban]

Bring back 3.0 Skeletons and Zombies, the ones with the static statblocks, none of this broken template nonsense. Fixes Animate Dead problems by turning it back into a quasi-Leadership pool of minions, and also expands the pool of usable monsters for actual 1st level adventures, win-win.

Lots of spells which lost SR checks, get them put back on, because magic resistance is suppose to resist magic.

Heroism, Greater Heroism, and Glibness spells are removed and remanded back to their original specific potion forms.

Bards can have their arcane dabbler spells that were removed for no reason back.

3.0 Disguise Alter Self, actually useful for a disguise (added a few tweaks for usability, bit of swim/flight options)
3.0 Enlarge/Reduce, get rid of those Large problems (kick size increase spells back to at least 3rd), maybe even bring back some "physics puzzle" solutions.
3.0 functions restored to Eyebite, Freezing Sphere, added a 3.0 Flame Arrow inspired Freeze Arrow. Multifunction spells are cool.
One of the options for nerfing Polymorph problems is bringing back the old disorientation penalty.
Summon Monster/Ally lists have been rewritten based on both the 3.0 and 3.5 lists to remove gimmie-OP outliers while maintaining the overall changes.

Identify's alterations for usability were based on examining its 3.0 version.
Revivify/Raise Dead/etc have been rewritten partially based on how cheap it was to raise people in 3.0 (allowing you to continue the game without destroying WBL)

Have not, but have considered, 3.0 Power Attack, which does not double damage for 2-handing. In the end I'd already made a feat cycle based on the 2:1 concepts, so this would break my own stuff, but the easiest fix for 2-handed problems is to remove the "positive change" that made it such a problem.

Attempting to find a balance between 3.0 and 3.5 Haste: I believe there's clear evidence of another "positive change" in 3.5 Haste that suggests some reversion. High level casters have too many spell slots, plus d6/level standard damage spells aren't enough at high levels, yet 3.0 Haste allowed you to cast 2 spells per round which would have doubled your damage and halved your effective spells? Smells like an oversight to me. This one also conflicts with some of the damage benchmarks I've set for higher level spells and invocations, but I feel like a high level Haste spell which gives a limited quicken refund or the like ought to be reasonable, or maybe one based on the total level of spells cast that turn (including metamagic).


And I think that's most of the specifically 3.0 "reversion" inspired changes. I don't have any from Pathfinder because, as noted in the hombew doc thread, most of the big Pathfinder changes people like to use are the very reasons I dislike Pathfinder in the first place.

[Darg]

Attempting to find a balance between 3.0 and 3.5 Haste: I believe there's clear evidence of another "positive change" in 3.5 Haste that suggests some reversion. High level casters have too many spell slots, plus d6/level standard damage spells aren't enough at high levels, yet 3.0 Haste allowed you to cast 2 spells per round which would have doubled your damage and halved your effective spells? Smells like an oversight to me. This one also conflicts with some of the damage benchmarks I've set for higher level spells and invocations, but I feel like a high level Haste spell which gives a limited quicken refund or the like ought to be reasonable, or maybe one based on the total level of spells cast that turn (including metamagic).

You could say that a 1 action spell must use a standard action if available and then have haste's partial action when used to cast a spell work like a full-round cast where it comes into effect just before your next turn. I'm not quite sold that the double casting is that bad in and of itself, but rather the fact that it breaks the action economy for a single spell slot. A place where this becomes extremely blatant is during a surprise round where you are supposed to only have a single partial action you could cast haste and a 1 action spell which is more valuable than a single whole full-round action. Making the spell finish on the next round keeps the economy, but also allows for the possibility of creatures to react to the action rather than it being a straight up better quicken spell. Could also add the stipulation of "On his next turn" to keep it from basically negating its own cost on the same turn. Can't nerf it too hard because the extra partial action does give martials access to basically pounce.

[pabelfly]

I stole Pathfinder 2e's ability score increase rule.

3e has you increase one ability score by one point every four levels. Pathfinde 2e lets you increase three different scores, and if the score is below 16, you can increase it by two, and if it's over 16, you can increase it by 1. I much prefer PF2e's version - it allows you to round out your character, while boosting your most important stat, and it incentivizes boosting weaker stats rather than fixating on your single, most important stat.

[atemu1234]

I play Pathfinder, but allow any 3e/3.5 content that didn't get updated by Paizo or Dreamscarred Press, so long as you use the most recent version.

I kept the Free/Immediate/Swift action dichotomy. In fact, I keep a copy of the 3.5 Rules Compendium for settling some disputes.

I use 2e's planar cosmology for the Inner Planes (with Quasi/Para-Elemental planes) and have been debating back porting 4e/5e's damage types to simplify some things.

I hadn't heard about Pathfinder2e's ability score increases. Maybe I could use a variant on it for my campaigns. Martial characters get +2 to one physical stat and +1 to any two others, casters get +1 to one mental and one physical.

[Ozreth]

I kept the Free/Immediate/Swift action dichotomy. In fact, I keep a copy of the 3.5 Rules Compendium for settling some disputes.

Did this change in PF? And does the RC clarify things better than the PHB? RC is one of the few 3.5 books I don't own.

[GameMaster_Phil]

Edit: Wrong thread. Sorry for that.