Pathfinder 1E Just how compatible is Pathfinder?

Argyle King · Jun 18, 2011

Inspired partially by my curiosity about the game and partially by this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/307398-just-how-compatible-essentials.html

A few times I've considered picking up Pathfinder. From briefly viewing it, there are a few things I'm not crazy about, but I'm willing to give it a try. I have a more 3rd Edition books than I can count, so I'm curious about three things:

1) How much of it can I use? (Are there some books you've found which don't work well?)

2) How difficult is it to use? (How much work is required to convert?)

3) What are some things to watch out for? (Are there some classes/races/monsters/feats/etc which don't translate well or possibly need some adjustments?)

Crothian · Jun 18, 2011

Johnny3D3D said:
1) How much of it can I use? (Are there some books you've found which don't work well?)

You can use anything you want. However, we have chosen to use none of it. If it was broken in the days of 3e is is still broken now. With the rules changes and increase in power of many of the classes some things that might have been borderline before could be too much now. Also, with characters getting more feats and more abilities it can be easier for players to find combination that work well together.

IronWolf · Jun 18, 2011

Johnny3D3D said:
1) How much of it can I use? (Are there some books you've found which don't work well?)

It is really up to you how much you use. When it was just the Core Rulebook I think people might have mixed the systems more. These days with the APG out and Ultimate Magic released and Ultimate Combat on its way I think more games might be moving to only Pathfinder only options as the Pathfinder game now has a lot of options.

Fluff and setting books of course work quite well.

Johnny3D3D said:
2) How difficult is it to use? (How much work is required to convert?)

If you want to convert a lot of GMs will just convert critters and such on the fly coming up with their CMD and CMB numbers. More involved would include a few additional feats, but that is probably only more necessary for a longer running NPC depending on your comfort level.

Here is the official Conversion Guide

Johnny3D3D said:
3) What are some things to watch out for? (Are there some classes/races/monsters/feats/etc which don't translate well or possibly need some adjustments?)

Our group is Pathfinder only so I cannot comment very well on what to watch out for as we've just bypassed any mixing and mingling issues.

DragonLancer · Jun 18, 2011

I kept all my 3.x monster source material and I've yet to find anything that didn't translate over well.

Spells, feats and prestige classes will need a through scrutiny but most should be fine.

El Mahdi · Jun 18, 2011

Mechanically I think it's just as compatible with 3.5, as 3.5 is compared to 3.0.

Taste wise, it's a little different. If you liked the direction of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5, then Pathfinder is the continuation of that with an eye towards fixing what many percieved as the main problems with 3.5's play experience.

If you didn't like the feel of 3.5 as compared to 3.0, then you probably won't like Pathfinder.

Personally, I think Pathfinder has some great stuff in it. Mechanically they've fixed some of the more annoying aspects of the 3E/3.5E rules. Taste wise, for me it went too far towards making the classes unrealistically powerful. I would have liked to see it go back towards 3.0 to balance the classes, but still with the mechanical fixes they came up with, rather than powering percieved week classes upward - but that's just me. YMMV. If you're a decent tinkerer though, it's probably not that hard to do that yourself.

Overall though, I think they did an excellent job.

Cyberzombie · Jun 18, 2011

In general, you shouldn't have much trouble porting over your 3e stuff. Like Crothian, though, I haven't. I generally find Pathfinder material superior, whether from Paizo or from most of the 3rd party publishers.

For practical advice: Subtract 3 ranks from the ranks needed to join a prestige class; if it needed 8 ranks in 3e, you'd change that to 5 ranks now. If you even want to bother with the prestige class. It's quite possible to run a single-classed character up to 20th level and get exactly the sort of character you want in Pathfinder. Prestige classes are the biggest thing I'd worry about porting over, but they'll probably be the thing you'll be the least interested in porting over.

Most monsters you could use as-is. Pathfinder characters are a little bit more powerful than 3e ones, so keep that in mind. Extras, mooks, and supporting cast can probably be run as-is. It's not worth the effort to convert them. Main villains or other important NPCs might be worth updating so they pose the proper challenge to PCs. But you could take your 3e modules and run them pretty easily for Pathfinder.

The biggest rules change is combat maneuvers. Everything from disarming to grappling to tripping is covered by one rules set and two stats: CMB (combat maneuver bonus) and CMD (combat maneuver defense). You'll need to get those rules down and get those stats for NPCs and monsters. It's not difficult, but you do need to get used to a different way of looking at combat maneuvers. And get used to your players actually using them, instead of deciding it's too much of a pain.

I highly recommend giving Pathfinder a try.

Viktyr Gehrig · Jun 18, 2011

Cyberzombie said:
For practical advice: Subtract 3 ranks from the ranks needed to join a prestige class; if it needed 8 ranks in 3e, you'd change that to 5 ranks now. If you even want to bother with the prestige class. It's quite possible to run a single-classed character up to 20th level and get exactly the sort of character you want in Pathfinder. Prestige classes are the biggest thing I'd worry about porting over, but they'll probably be the thing you'll be the least interested in porting over.

If it's a class skill for the most obvious entry path, this.

If it's a cross-class skill, you want to go in the other direction. You want to double the ranks before you subtract 3. Otherwise, the skill requirements for a lot of "multiclass" PrCs become trivial.

Cyberzombie · Jun 18, 2011

Viktyr Korimir said:
If it's a class skill for the most obvious entry path, this.

If it's a cross-class skill, you want to go in the other direction. You want to double the ranks before you subtract 3. Otherwise, the skill requirements for a lot of "multiclass" PrCs become trivial.

Hmm. I just flipped through my Complete Adventurer hardcover after you pointed that out. You're right; my advice would make getting in to a lot of those classes trivial. But I think your formula goes a little too far the other direction. Most of the requirements were 8 ranks for something central to the concept and 4 ranks for an associated ability, with the intention that you could join the prestige class at 6th level. So I'd make major abilities 5 ranks (unless they need to be more) and associated abilities 3 ranks (so that you have some actual commitment to them).

That does bring up another important point -- Pathfinder has a lot fewer skills. You don't have Hide and Move Silently; you have Stealth. Again, that won't matter for most NPCs or monsters, but it WILL be a major point for some prestige classes. You may have to change and add prereqs and change the skill list for them. If you bother keeping them, that is.

TheAuldGrump · Jun 19, 2011

Though it also bears mentioning that my players, at the least, are a lot less likely to grab a prestige class than they were in 3.X. Even the sorcerers.

The Auld Grump

Cyberzombie · Jun 19, 2011

TheAuldGrump said:
Even the sorcerers.

Yeah, 3e characters with sorcerer levels fell into two camps: those with 1 level so they could qualify for a prestige class, or those with 6 levels so they had 3rd level spells and could qualify for a prestige class.

Now I would unhesitatingly *actually* take the class. The undead-blooded sorcerer in my game has a lot of fun putting zombies to sleep and charm personing them.