Is Paizo's Pathfinder really compatible with 3.5?

[iwarrior-poet]

I have been looking at Paizo's Pathfinder for awhile now. At first I was very interested in it. It seemed to bring some good reforms to the 3.5 gaming system (it is dubbed 3.75). It has been billed as compatible with 3.5.
paizo.com - Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
However, the more I read it, the less I think it could really fit into an existing 3.5 campaign. The revisions to feats, skills and base classes---while helpful, would be very difficult to easily adapt to a lot of 3.5 material. Stat blocks from many resource based NPC's and monsters would be invalid. I know I could Houserule partial implementation of Pathfinder---but I would rather do an all or nothing switch. The conspiracy theory part of my brain wonders if Paizo is promoting Pathfinder as backwards compatible---but really wants everyone to drop their old stuff and only purchase other Pathfinder Products. This might have worked if I didn't already have a large investment in 3.5 stuff.
My friends and I have been doing a Forgotten Realms Campaign for over seven years. We have spent over $1000 combined on various 3.5 materials. I HATE how 4e pushed a giant reset button on the entire FR (let along the actual gaming mechanics). I really would like to move into a reformed gaming system (in particular one that might eventually get a good digital gaming aid) that allows me to retain my investments in materials, but Paizo is looking like less of an option.
Thoughts?
Suggestions?
(Preemptory----I am will staunchly resist 4e suggestions and I already know about PCGen and CMP datasets. That is another nasty problem... Don't get me started...)

 

[Vorput]

Admittedly, I haven't been actively following pathfinder's changes. I did read their beta phb released awhile back.

I think it's doable. I was able to convert from 3.0 to 3.5 without too much trouble- and for a year or two kept using my 3.0 MM (I was DMing). Some things with mechanics were probably off, but it's nothing the players ever noticed. Things won't fit exactly, but I think you can make it work without too much hassle.

But again- I haven't looked at all of Pathfinder's more recent changes.

 

[resistor]

My group runs the Pathfinder APs (3.5e) against Pathfinder-rules characters, and it pretty much Just Works(tm) without any conversion, except a few skill consolidations that are easy to do on the fly. The characters are slightly more powerful vs. the competition, but the APs are fairly tough to begin with, so it works out. For easier adventures, just lower the "expected party level" on the cover by one.

Yes, the monsters and NPCs are using outdated versions of some rules/powers, but nobody ever notices or cares.

 

[Alzrius]

James Jacobs has said on more than one occasion that the final version of Pathfinder, released August of this year, will have less changes than the Beta release does; hence, it'll be more compatible with straight 3.5 than the Beta is.

 

[Kerrick]

As someone who's done a variant system with a lot of similar changes, I can tell you that a) revising skills (especially monster skills) is a LOT easier; b) revising classes is a bit harder, because of all the new abilities. The fighter and sorcerer are probably the worst because they didn't have much to start with. It doesn't "invalidate" anything, not like 4E did - it just requires a little bit of work to make your classes, monsters, and whatnot PF-friendly. It's like going from 3E to 3.5; it's just that the changes are a little more obvious and sweeping.

I'd just check out the Beta, try it for a session or two, and see how it goes - that's really the only way to see if it will work for you or not.

 

[Grymar]

I'm running a Pathfinder in Eberron game right now and it is a total hodgepodge between 3.5 and Pathfinder. For instance, the party has two fighters (PF), a scout (3.5), a ninja (3.5), a bard (PF), a duskblade (3.5), and a monk (PF). I had to change the skills on the scout, duskblade and ninja, but otherwise they fit in very well.

I'm running monsters right out of the MM's with just some skill tweaks (if even needed) and I have to keep in mind a few changes to the more common feats like power attack and cleave.

Spells haven't been an issue yet since most of the changes are on the higher levels and we aren't there yet, plus I don't have many pure casters in the group.

Had I gone pure PF and not allowed the Complete classes, it would have been easier, but still I'd say that PF is 90% compatable with 3.5 and as mentioned, the final release promises to be closer to 100%

 

[dmccoy1693]

Before going any further: Define Compatable.

If you define it as: works in complete harmony with absolutely no different whatsoever, you're looking for identical.

If you define it as: withs with minimum effort, has differences, but the base foundation is is the same, that is compatable.

Pathfinder is the latter. Sticking with 3.5 is the former. Pathfinder is to 3.5 what 3.5 was to 3.0. Detect Magic in 3.0 required a spellcraft roll to know what school the spell was from and allowed you to see an aura even if you could not see the item; Detect Magic in 3.5 allows the caster to know the school instantly but requires that you be able to see the item to see the aura. So for all tense and purposes 3.0 Detect Magic is a different spell than 3.5 Detect Magic, but they serve the same purpose. That's what makes them compatable.

In the same way, Disarm is different in Pathfinder and in 3.5, but they serve the same purpose. 3.5 has Disarm being opposed attack rolls. Pathfinder has it being a CMB roll vs a static defensive value. Different procedure, same purpose, accomplishing the same things.

And yea when you're talking skills, some judgement calls will have to be made. If you want to port over a PrC from 3.5 and it has spot, but not listen, you're going to have to make a judgement call as to whether or not perception is a class skill or not. But is it really that big of a deal? A 20th level 3.5 NPC with max ranks in a cross class skill has 12 rank while its Pathfinder counterpart has 20. But how many NPCs have max ranks in a cross class skill?

Class abilities: If an NPC sorcerer gets a spell like ability ray that they can do at will at 1st level, does it make a difference if the NPC dies before using all its spell and needing its ray? If you assign a barbarian to have 2 rage powers simply because you do not feel it will survive long enough to have better options, does that make a difference.

Most of the changes between 3.5 and Pathfinder are small, small enough to ignore on most NPCs, as long as you know how differences in things like Channel Energy vs Turn Undead or some of the other big things.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Stat blocks from many resource based NPC's and monsters would be invalid.

PCs don't have to follow the same rules as NPCs.

Just because the player sitting on the other side of your DM screen uses Pathfinder rules for his sorcerer does not mean that the sorcerer written down in your 3.5 module has to change in any way.

 

[CapnZapp]

Before going any further: Define Compatable.

If you define it as: works in complete harmony with absolutely no different whatsoever, you're looking for identical.

If you define it as: withs with minimum effort, has differences, but the base foundation is is the same, that is compatable.

... Pathfinder is to 3.5 what 3.5 was to 3.0.

This is true, but it isn't a good thing.

At least I felt completely cheated by Wizards when they made 3.5E. With so many changes it was like re-learning the game from scratch. In fact, it would probably have been easier to learn a completely new game, because you wouldn't actively have to unlearn old details as you learn the new ones.

If compatibility is defined by Wizards 3.5E then I don't want my games to be compatible.

Unfortunately Steven Cooper seems to have taken down his excellent summary of 3.0 -> 3.5 changes. There he showed there was hundreds of little changes. Some made sense, but only when looked at in isolation.

As a whole, it was certainly a new edition (that 1) came to early and 2) didn't change the fundamental flaws of 3rd Edition, i.e. the mind-boggling complexity at higher levels).

As our memories tend to be short, as a blast from the past, consider this critical review of 3.5E: Thumbs Down to D&D 3.5 Edition by Daniel R. Collins

I imagine the reaction to Pathfinder will be much the same. So my answer (not having seen the end product) will regrettably have to be "no, it won't be compatible. As the DM, you need to check and recheck every little detail, essentially keeping two hugely complex rulesets in your head at the same time."

Because it changes the details around without actually fixing anything. Case in point; Paizo's own rpg contest. Here is a NPC created specifically for the new rules - and a winning entry at that: paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / RPG SuperstarTM / Round 3 - Top 16: Create a Villain Stat Block / Gulga Cench, Scion of Cyth-V’sug

I rest my case.

 

[Dragonblade]

PCs don't have to follow the same rules as NPCs.

Just because the player sitting on the other side of your DM screen uses Pathfinder rules for his sorcerer does not mean that the sorcerer written down in your 3.5 module has to change in any way.

Indeed. This is one of the awesome things about 4e, and if Pathfinder follows along the same design model that is a good thing for Pathfinder players and DMs. Especially DMs.