Pathfinder 1E Just how compatible is Pathfinder?

[Glade Riven]

I'm liking some of what I'm hearing, but I'm disliking some of it too, so I'm still unsure about buying into it completely. With as many 3rd Edition books as I have (I literally have chests of books,) I'm not sure I'd want to dump everything in favor of starting over with what is still essentially 3rd Edition. I like some of the things I've heard via some of the various threads here, and some of what I've read, so I have some interest in taking some of the ideas for a 3rd Edition game.

I think the best way I can describe the Pathfinder changes is that it brought 3.5 core up to the power level of the late 3.5 power baseline and variety. And while Stormonu wouldn't recommend Book of Nine Swords, the martial system actually works fine with Pathfinder. Other than skills, I think the only change needed was to boost the HD of the swordsage up to be in-line with Pathfinder's BAB/HD ratio. Most people who play pathfinder want to avoid Book of Nine Swords, though, because it's too much like 4e and they don't want to play 4e (Bo9S seems to make Pathfinder more like Star Wars SAGA, to me, though). Other alternative systems brought out in late 3.5 should be fine.

Items & magical items can be used straight out, but it is a good idea to check with the Pathfinder spells for minor tweaks. The biggest changes were to polymorph type spells, which tweak stats instead of replacing it with an animal's or monster's stats. Things like Weapons of Legacy should work fine. Liber Mechanika from Iron Kingdoms works fine.

I would not recommend "downgrading" Pathfinder to 3.5, however. For one, Pathfinder is far more cohesive than 3.5. For another, I'd think it would be a bigger pain in the butt.

What are the exact issues with Pathfinder that makes you uncomfortable? Is there a specific product (or set of products) that you really want 'ported over?

 

[Argyle King]

I like the capstone abilities for classes. I like how favored class was handled in Pathfinder as well. I'm also impressed by what I've seen in the monster books as well as the adventure paths.

 

[gamerprinter]

While I also prefer to run and/or play Pathfinder on it's own, we do run a 3.5 campaign, but have imported lots of Pathfinder back to it. We use the Pathfinder Skills rules instead of 3.5, we allow the feat progressions of Pathfinder with the old 3.5 classes (1 every other level, etc.) We use the Combat Maneuvers mechanic from Pathfinder for CMB/CMD.

We've even borrowed a few new Pathfinder feats, but otherwise keep 3.5 classes, instead of PF classes, with the changes mentioned above.

As with Crothian and Ironwolf, though, when I run Pathfinder, we eschew all of 3.5.

In the first year of playing PF, at the end of Beta, up to the release of the Advanced Players Guide, we imported lots of 3.5 to our PF game. However, after that trial year, we've found it best to play Pathfinder alone. Especially since the release of the APG, there's been little need to look at non core classes.

Also despite Prestige classes existing in Pathfinder, nobody in our group uses PrC anymore. If the core classes don't fit, we archetype as per APG.

If it were my choice, our group would never touch 3.5 again, but our group isn't universal in its preferences, so we switch up in differing campaigns with different rulesets.

GP

 

[Argyle King]

Would it be difficult to mix Iron Heroes with Pathfinder?

 

[Cyberzombie]

I wouldn't think it would be. The skills systems wouldn't mesh too well, but I think most of the rest of it would. You'd have to pick one skill set or the other. I'd go with Pathfinder, but I *am* biased.

Iron Heroes is more powerful then standard 3e, in general, but I don't think it would be that much more powerful than Pathfinder. You'd have to judge on a case by case basis, but that happens whenever you add new rules in.

 

[Argyle King]

I made one post to highlight what I like; this one is the counterpart to that - some of the things which are less than positive (not all of them necessarily negative though.)

One of the main hurdles to me completely buying into Pathfinder is the large amount of 3rd Edition material I have. Originally I had seen that as an incentive, but this thread has made me feel somewhat otherwise.

I'm not quite sure I understand the purpose behind CMB (I think that's what it is called... the number to attempt trips and such.) Honestly, I'm fuzzy on 3rd Edition, so -Pathfinder or not- I'd have to brush up on the rules, but CMB seems to be pretty much the same as how you'd perform some of the moves attached to it anyway.

A few people have mentioned that the overall power level of Pathfinder seems to be higher. Is the meant more in reference to the classes or the world in general? I like the idea of some of the classes getting a boost, but I'm unsure how I feel toward the idea of a more over-the-top world.

 

[Papa-DRB]

I'm not quite sure I understand the purpose behind CMB (I think that's what it is called... the number to attempt trips and such.) Honestly, I'm fuzzy on 3rd Edition, so -Pathfinder or not- I'd have to brush up on the rules, but CMB seems to be pretty much the same as how you'd perform some of the moves attached to it anyway.

CMB (Combat Maneuver Bonus) and CMD (Combat Maneuver Defense) is a unified way of doing grapple, trip, sunder, etc. in Pathfinder. In 3.xE there were different ways for each one. While it is not perfect it went a long way in making those options simpler.

 

[El Mahdi]

A few people have mentioned that the overall power level of Pathfinder seems to be higher. Is the meant more in reference to the classes or the world in general? I like the idea of some of the classes getting a boost, but I'm unsure how I feel toward the idea of a more over-the-top world.

It's basically just the classes (and the monsters a bit). There was a percieved disparity in power levels between many 3.5E classes, with that perception varying depending upon at what levels the classes were being compared. (I say percieved disparity as there is significant disagreement over which classes are/were more powerful than others based on multiple subjective viewpoints...)

Pathfinder's approach was to not nerf classes in order to balance them to eachother, but rather to increase the overall functionality of the "weaker" classes (or just at the levels they were weak at) - along with an overall cleaning up and balancing of the rules system. In essence, they provided a "boost" in power for some classes. Pathfinder classes compared directly to 3.5E classes are generally more powerful.

As with all things this is of course subjective, though for those who play Pathfinder, it seems to have improved the play experience of 3.5E for them. I agree that it seems a much more balanced game than 3.5E. If no such power disparity was percieved by a DM or group in 3E or 3.5E, then mixing and matching 3.5E and Pathfinder classes/monsters won't be a big deal. Such DM's and groups will likely only notice the changes to the general rules (especially CMB and CMD).

If one doesn't feel there were any balance issues or problems with the 3E or 3.5E rules, then Pathfinder might not provide any significantly useful changes for you - other than de facto ongoing support for 3E/3.5E.

 

[pawsplay]

I made one post to highlight what I like; this one is the counterpart to that - some of the things which are less than positive (not all of them necessarily negative though.)

One of the main hurdles to me completely buying into Pathfinder is the large amount of 3rd Edition material I have. Originally I had seen that as an incentive, but this thread has made me feel somewhat otherwise.

It's kind of a tough call. Once upon a time, one of the upsides was access to the old materials. But Pathfinder now has equivalents to many of the old sourcebooks, in some cases, vastly better versions. So it's a plus in that Pathfinder is, overall, a better game, but the downside is that those 3.5 books aren't as useful as they were a year go. I used mine to finish my first Pathfinder campaign, then I sold them off recently.

I'm not quite sure I understand the purpose behind CMB (I think that's what it is called... the number to attempt trips and such.) Honestly, I'm fuzzy on 3rd Edition, so -Pathfinder or not- I'd have to brush up on the rules, but CMB seems to be pretty much the same as how you'd perform some of the moves attached to it anyway.

It is pretty much the same, only simpler, faster, and better balanced.

A few people have mentioned that the overall power level of Pathfinder seems to be higher. Is the meant more in reference to the classes or the world in general? I like the idea of some of the classes getting a boost, but I'm unsure how I feel toward the idea of a more over-the-top world.

I'm not a Golarion die-hard; I prefer a more toned-down world. Pathfinder will do toned-down just fine. You might have to address some specific character options that don't match your campaign.

In regards to the classes, fighters are still fighters, but they get a little math help. IMO, fighters have always been the best fighters, but overall, they were not as good fighters as wizards were wizards. Pathfinder made good strides in that area. Sorcerers get more flavor and a reason to single class. Barbarians, bards, and rogues are more interesting and customizable. Paladins are about the same in terms of peak power, but are not as weak out of their element. Clerics, wizards, druids are about the same, although polymorph got the fix it always needed, and certain combos have been nerfed (or left out, in the case of nightsticks and such garbage). Rangers are a sort of "best of 3.0/3.5 edition" with medium armor and strong hit dice, but good skils, options, and fighting bonuses. Monks are a bloody mess, but that's what they were before; now they're a bloody mess that can at least pull off a credible full attack.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

A lot of what were non-core base classes in 3.5 are now archetypes, as described in the APG - variants of more common classes. So, as an example, a Scout is now a Rogue (Scout). And some archetypes can be stacked. (Choosing archetypes seems to be one of the more enjoyed aspects of char gen at this point - the players discussing what works best for what result.)

So some things can be handled by simple substitution. If there is a class from a Complete book then look to see if it is already covered.

One category of feats from the Complete series that I do not allow are the Reserve feats. While a wonderful concept they were WAY over powered. Pathfinder handles things in a much less over the top fashion - cantrips and orisons are unlimited. They may not do much, but you can cast them all day long.

The Auld Grump