Is Paizo's Pathfinder really compatible with 3.5?

[Minicol]

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Yes, the monsters and NPCs are using outdated versions of some rules/powers, but nobody ever notices or cares.

Doing the same just now, and have met no problems at all so far. And that's with a split 3.5/3.P party. Just use common sense, and everything is fine.

Go Paizo !

 

[smug]

I've been DMing RotRL but with PFRPG rules and so far it's just worked.

Using 3.5 splats for PCs might take more thought, of course (although they also took thought in 3.5...). Overall I'm happy with it (and prefer PFRPG to 3.5 inasmuch as they are different).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Exactly.

I pull up a griffon off of the SRD for my pathfinder game...what do I need to change?

Skills? Jump becomes Athletics, 3+1/2HD+STR is how I've been doing it...+10. Listen/Spot become Perception, which is +8.

As long as we're borrowing good ideas from 4e, here's another one:

Skills don't really matter much for monsters, except to provide a "target DC" against which the PCs will test their own skills.

If a monster is "good" at a skill-- as a griffon should be for Perception-- then give it (HD+3) ranks.

All other skills get (1/2 HD) ranks.

Never, ever count another skill point again.

 

[Grymar]

Wulf, that's fraking brilliant.

 

[Voadam]

I find 3.0, 3.5, d20 Wheel of Time, d20 Modern, Arcana Evolved, Conan RPG, Pathfinder and even Iron Heroes all compatible with slight variations in power levels. I've mixed and matched elements from the systems and used modules from different ones without significant conversion work.

True 20's damage mechanic knocks it into incompatible for me as well as the older d20 Star Wars stuff I have using vitality and wound points.

Pathfinder's most significant change for conversion work IMO is recalculating CMB for monsters as you change the grapple numbers (size mods change between the systems). NPC skill names are trivial and the numbers rarely important IMO so I don't generally worry about them.

I considered basic, 1e, 2e, and hackmaster compatible with each other as well.

 

[Rechan]

What is CMB?

Not to derail, but I am very interested in hearing those using PF rules for AoW.

At least, when it comes to the end modules and high level play.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

My group has played 3.5 since it came out, just finished our first Pathfinder campaign and is starting up our second. This is what I think from my limited experience.

The rules are similar enough that we transitioned without a ton of effort. Some of the changes we like, others we don't. The biggest change seems to be that the core races and classes seem stronger, which afaik was a deliberate attempt to make them as cool as the options presented in books like the completes.

As far as compatibility...I don't know if I would say that Pathfinder is BACKWARDS compatible, so much as I would say it is designed so that 3.5 is FORWARDS compatible. I can't imagine trying to work pathfinder character options and feats into my 3.5 campaign. Others may have had great luck with that, though.

What is so far working quite well is using 3.5 stuff with the Pathfinder rules. I've just put together a 3.5 warlock (with feats according to pathfinder) and a pathfinder fighter, and they both look equally rockin.

 

[Voadam]

What is CMB?

Not to derail, but I am very interested in hearing those using PF rules for AoW.

At least, when it comes to the end modules and high level play.

Combat modifier bonus. BAB, plus strength bonus, plus size modifier (+/-1 per size category away from medium). This is used for grappling and other combat maneuvers instead of having different formulas for each maneuver.

 

[James Jacobs]

As far as compatibility...I don't know if I would say that Pathfinder is BACKWARDS compatible, so much as I would say it is designed so that 3.5 is FORWARDS compatible.

And that's why I'm not a fan of the phrase "Backwards Compatible." That, and because it infers that 3.5 is "backwards" or "not as good." While I, personally, like what we've done with PF RPG better than 3.5, the 3.5 rules are still perfectly usable as is.

In any event, yes, Pathfinder RPG will be compatible with 3.5. The final game, which is currently in editing, is closer to 3.5 than the beta; the beta was (like the alpha, but less so) where we threw out some crazy ideas to see how folks responded in the public playtest. Some were well-loved. Other changes, not so much. And in some cases, we realized that the 3.5 rules were more robust and elegant than we thought they were, but only realized that when we took the rules and started tweaking them in an attempt to improve them; in cases where this didn't work, we reverted.

The final game will be, I suspect, about as compatible with 3.5 as 3.5 was with 3.0. You should be able to pick up a Pathfinder RPG adventure and run that adventure using the 3.5 rules without having seen the Pathfinder RPG rules ever. Likewise, someone should be able to pick up a 3.5 adventure and run it using the PF RPG rules without having ever seen the 3.5 core rules.

We'll also have a free conversion booklet PDF available for folks who want to mix and match 3.5 and PF RPG. In any direction.

EDIT: The underlying mechanic of the rules is 100% compatible, so at the very least, you should be able to treat the PF RPG as a 3.5 expansion or alternate in much the same way Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed book works. Although PF RPG is a lot closer to 3.5's core assumptions than Arcana Unearthed is. In any case... we at Paizo would LOVE to have everyone buy the PFRPG, but we also realize the chances of that happening are cosmically tiny. Keeping every adventure and sourcebook we publish for PF RPG compatible with 3.5 is thus important for us.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf, that's fraking brilliant.

I live to serve, efendi.

To serve, and to frake.


To frake brilliantly.