D&D 3E/3.5 Anyone still making 3.5e material?

[haakon1]

Is anyone still publishing for 3.5e, or is it all Pathfinder now?

I assume I'm not alone in not converting to either 4e or Pathfinder.

Just how compatible are Pathfinder adventures to 3.5e? Are folks "converting down" to 3.5?

I suspect it would be like "converting down" from 2e to AD&D, which I did a lot of back in the 1990s (not a fan of even-numbered editions). That was OK, as in 90+% of the time, whatever was in 2e had an AD&D equivalent, but it was a little tedious -- renaming stuff, redoing NPC's, changing monster rules, etc.

 

[Sylrae]

Pretty much everything is PF or 4e for new stuff.

If you want to run PF stuff in 3.5 it's not that hard to do though.

Feats: Should be transferrable with no changes.

Equipment: Definitely usable with no changes.

Spells: Transferrable down. No PF Spells have Exp Requirements, instead costing more gold. You could convert some of the pricey gold cost ones to less gold + exp, following the pf conversion guide in reverse.

Races: Take away one of the +2 ability score mods and you should be good.

Classes: The most work. They didn't get a big power boost, but they got a big utility boost. Dead levels are virtually nonexistant. Nobody gets less than a d6HD. Polymorph effects took a nerf, so wildshape is a bit less broken. Mostly you need to decide whether to leave the HD the same or move it down a dice.

You could run the modules as is. Ignore CMB/CMD and use the 3.5e combat maneuver mechanics instead. You'll have to fudge skill points since you get alot more of them in pfrpg, and you have a smaller list. You should be able to run NPCs as is or with small changes.
I'd suggest you switch to the pfrpg skill system, even if you keep the 3.5e skill list. the players wont be way behind the enemies in skill ranks.

Class skills give a +3 bonus if you have a rank in them.
Max ranks = level.
no x4 at level 1.
cross class skills don't cost double or have a lower maximum rank.
if you increase your int at levelup, you gain skill points retroactively just like you would for hp with con.

 

[Sylrae]

Personally I'd recommend jumping onto the Pathfinder bandwagon. their core system is a bit tighter(more internally consistent) than 3.x (though I'd prefer it be even tighter than it is), I haven't seen any of their changes as worse than 3.x.

I know the compatibility described above, because I do alot of the reverse. I play and run PFRPG, and I want to be able to use much of the 3.x content (as a DM AND as a player).

Pathfinder characters tend to be "BETTER" than 3.x characters, but not necessarily more powerful. They tend to have gained a pretty slight power boost, and a big boost in utility. You have more options, but not really more powerful options.

A few classes got their balance shifted up or down a tad. BAB is tied to HD now, so everyone gets a d6, d8, or d10 (Barbarian keeps the shiny d12).

I like the PFRPG System better than 3.x, and everyone I've played with who knows 3.x ends up liking PFRPG better after they try it (except when they say "I want to use X from 3.5, but PFRPG doesn't have it.")

Note: While compatible, I know alot of PFRPG DMs who won't allow classes from 3.5, worried that they will be over or under powered (this is mostly superstition). Personally I tend to allow but require converting (usually slight changes), then I add it to my ever-growing library of usable PFRPG options.

You can reverse engineer it back down to 3.5, but it's worth it to convert the 3.5 you want up to PFRPG instead. As explained above, alot of the stuff is usable as is, or the conversion is pretty easy, Classes being the only part that take much work.

Monsters in PFRPG are better balanced for their CR as well. There's some mathematical analysis at the back of the bestiary that makes it alot easier to make new monsters.

One thing I should mention:
LA no longer exists.
It wasn't a very good system to begin with, and Paizo dropped it entirely.
The slight power boost that races got puts them around the +1LA mark though, so +1 LA races can be used with little change.

For people who want the higher LA creatures for players, I'd recommend building a custom base race and then a player class that emulates the monster's abilities (I ditched LA a long time ago), but I know most people don't want to go to that much work to play the monsters they want to play. Here's the best option I've seen that's already done for you. Designed for 3.5, but it works just fine in PFRPG as well.

 

[pawsplay]

As a self-publisher, I briefly considered staying with 3.5 until the next big thing came along. As it happens, we got Pathfinder. The skills list improvements and spell changes alone make it worth the price of admission. Even though I am not a Golarion player, it is still easy to make Pathfinder do what I want it to. In fact, the Dragon Warriors setting, a mythic, low-magic medievalish setting, is being supported in Pathfinder. In other words, most publishes these days are finding the Pathfinder rules very agreeable, irrespective of their feelings about Golarion specifically, or Paizo generally. There are a few dual-stat things here and there, but for the most part, I would look for Pathfinder replacing 3.5 as the core, much as 3.5 replaced 3.0.

 

[Dandu]

Pathfinder was made by people who knew that dark and horrible things happened on the 3.5 Charop forums, but who had no idea exactly what they were.

 

[IronWolf]

I assume I'm not alone in not converting to either 4e or Pathfinder.

I would imagine there are many people not converting. People have large personal libraries of books at home, a wealth of pre-made adventurers to choose from with 3rd party offerings from the day and Dungeon magazines. Even running Paizo Adventure Paths alone could keep one busy for quite awhile.

With that said, I like Pathfinder a good amount. The books are top notch quality, the art is inspiring (and I rarely note art as a factor in my gaming purchases) and it is still in print. As groups need to recruit more people to their table I think the still in print part is apt to start to play a bigger role.

Just how compatible are Pathfinder adventures to 3.5e? Are folks "converting down" to 3.5?

If I was converting I would likely do it on the fly. There have been some posts already with the larger differences, but skill points will be off, but easily adjudicated on the fly and CMD/CMB will be listed as opposed to grapple checks and such. Still relatively easy to roll with that if you want.

I suspect it would be like "converting down" from 2e to AD&D, which I did a lot of back in the 1990s (not a fan of even-numbered editions). That was OK, as in 90+% of the time, whatever was in 2e had an AD&D equivalent, but it was a little tedious -- renaming stuff, redoing NPC's, changing monster rules, etc.

I think the work level just depends on how of a "by the book" conversion you want. If you want by the book then you'll spend more time adjusting things so they look good on paper. Otherwise if you do it more on the fly, I think it will roll pretty smoothly. Some people don't like the "on the fly" method though.

 

[aboyd]

I've stuck with 3.5. I've flirted with Pathfinder, and tried 4th. However, I've found both wanting. So I've stuck with 3.5 edition, as have the 20 or so people that I play with in various games.

I don't need new products -- for better or worse, there was soooo much product made for 3.5 edition (and still available at rpgnow.com) that I will be running modules for *years* before I look for more stuff to do. Heck, right now I run games that are only core + complete + SpC + PHB2. I assume that in a year or so I'll experiment and run a campaign that allows the Book of Nine Swords, plus maybe Dungeonscape, and a few others. Just that alone will be enough of an expansion to tax my abilities.

So I'll get bored with 3.5 edition in maybe... 4 years? Right around when 5th edition is hitting its stride?

 

[IronWolf]

I've stuck with 3.5. I've flirted with Pathfinder, and tried 4th. However, I've found both wanting. So I've stuck with 3.5 edition, as have the 20 or so people that I play with in various games.

With a pool of 20 or so people sticking with 3.5 that should help ease any difficulties of sticking with it. Having (or not having) replacement players who are sticking with 3.5 are one of the forces I think that will move some people otherwise content to an in print system.

I expect there to be 3.5 players in some fashion for quite some time, even if that number does trend downward. It is a good system and even today we see OD&D, 1e and 2e players out there.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I assume I'm not alone in not converting to either 4e or Pathfinder.

You are not alone. Pathfinder made too many unnecessary changes for me to embrace it.

Just how compatible are Pathfinder adventures to 3.5e? Are folks "converting down" to 3.5?

I'm running Kingmaker pretty much "as is." It's easy to ignore things like CMB/CMD and to figure out whether you need a Search, Spot, or Listen check instead of "Perception."

It's a little bothersome, but worth the effort, I think.

 

[haakon1]

Having (or not having) replacement players who are sticking with 3.5 are one of the forces I think that will move some people otherwise content to an in print system.

For me, it's not the availability of 3.5e trained players that's the problem. I have stable groups, and I built them largely by RECRUITING my own non-players and teaching the game -- or re-recruiting lapsed AD&D players who hadn't tried it for decades.

So the downsides for me with 3.5e forever are:
-- Low available/high cost of PHB's. I'm hording them.

-- Boredom for me. I like to read far more material than I'll ever run. This is partially solved by reading PF materials, but it seems like Paizo are the only people producing physical copy materials, at least that I can find in FLGS.

-- So far, one perspective player (who asked another player if he could join) then declined when he found it was "only" 3.5e, instead of the latest and greatest.

-- Decline of the hobby. One of the two FLGS in the town I live in closed. The non-owner worker told me that WOTC screw ups with a new version of MtG and 4e were a good part of the their problem (in his non-boss approved, possibly incorrect view).

Having dropped out of D&D from around 1990-1996 (partially due to unhappy feelings about 2nd Edition) and then run AD&D from 1996-2001, I think I can deal with the OOP issues. But used AD&D PHB's are always easy to find . . . that game had legs!