Is Paizo's Pathfinder really compatible with 3.5?

[ProfessorCirno]

You know what I find funny, people who on one hand complain "I don't want to buy new books I spent on 3.5 so I want to keep it" then in there next breath say "Pathfinder is the best"

You really don't see the difference in:

"Hey, 4e! Time to create an entire new class and race from scratch to play my character! Oh, better not forget the forty odd powers to go with it!"

and:

"Hey, Pathfinder! Time to tweak-oh hey, done!"

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yes, it really is compatible with 3.5. As has been mentioned, we're talking 3.0 -> 3.5 equivalency, or thereabouts. Not difficult at all, basically. I've done some 'conversions', if you can even call them that. Not heaps, but enough to get an idea of the processes involved.

But then, I've never had much issue with mixing 3.0 and 3.5, even during play. YMMV, as always.

 

[BryonD]

You know what I find funny, people who on one hand complain "I don't want to buy new books I spent on 3.5 so I want to keep it" then in there next breath say "Pathfinder is the best"

Examples of someone saying both these things?
For myself, I was very much looking forward to buying stacks of 4E books until I saw the details.


My response to the inability to use non-core classes is the same as for everything else. That is just plain silly.
Just as a random example lets look at psions. There is talk that psionics are likely coming up in the not to distant future. I'm not 100% certain, but I look forward to spending the cash not going to 4E on it.
But that is the future.
If one of my players wanted to run a psion in a game this week, we would be up and running in 10 minutes. Tweaking the class based on how mages, sorcerers or even clerics work would be very simple. When the official PF version comes around we look at it and either adapt or not based on what we want. Easy easy stuff.

 

[BryonD]

Another critically important point is the distinction between compatibility and balance.

A straight from the book 3.5 psion is 100% compatible with PF with zero effort and zero tweaks required. If I was running something with a 3.5 psion npc I would not change it any more than I tend to change npcs to suit my own preference anyway.

If a player wanted to run a straight 3.5 psion in a PF game they may (or may not) find that they are slightly less powerful than the other characters. They would be 100% compatible with no problem.
Tweaking power by adding some per day abilities or whatever is both trivial and optional.

 

[Fenes]

I never had any problem mixing 3.0 and 3.5. We're playing 3.0, with a bunch of house rules, but I've been using 3.5 sourcebooks (especially the Monster Manual) for years without converting anything.

If Pathfinder's changes are on a similar level I expect I could plug that stuff right in in the same way.

 

[roguerouge]

See my problem is this with all the core classes being upgraded (and I REALY wish I were a fly on the wall when someone said "Lets give the wizard MORE) what happens to non core classes. If I want to play a Psion, or Warlock, thenI need the DM to remake the class.

While I agree with you about the wizard, they did tamp down the power of the druid.

As far as non-SRD core classes being overshadowed? Well, we can talk about that issue when a player of a beguiler or a warmage feels overshadowed. I'm not really concerned about the warlock or the swashbuckler, as they were designed behind the power curve in all but their niche campaigns (the no-rest for the former and the no-armor for the latter).

 

[DaveMage]

While I agree with you about the wizard, they did tamp down the power of the druid..

I think the idea with the wizard (and similar classes) was to make it appealing in the later levels. In core 3.5, at around 11th level there's much more incentive to switch to a prestige class than stay a standard wizard (as you get most of the Wizard benefits with prestige classes that are +1 spellcasting/level anyway).

 

[Storm Raven]

I think the idea with the wizard (and similar classes) was to make it appealing in the later levels. In core 3.5, at around 11th level there's much more incentive to switch to a prestige class than stay a standard wizard (as you get most of the Wizard benefits with prestige classes that are +1 spellcasting/level anyway).

I have never understood why multiclassing or a system that encouraged multiclassing was bad.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

Based on my read-through of the Beta, I found Pathfinder to be less compatible with 3.5 than 3.5 was with 3.0. I found it sufficiently incompatible to effectively kill my interest in it.

I write that as someone who found the only significant compatibility issue between 3.0 and 3.5 to be (a) the revision to damage reduction and (b) the changed names of the skills.

I have played at tables where players are using both 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs, and with the exception of people getting confused regarding Wilderness Lore and Survival, run into nary a problem. I've DMed 3.0 modules using the 3.5 rules and, with the exception of tweaking damage reduction, never had a hiccup.

I would consider that to be effectively not possible with Pathfinder.

Easy conversion. But not compatible.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I have never understood why multiclassing or a system that encouraged multiclassing was bad.

I've got no problem with multiclassing. But when levels 11-20 of Wizard are just flat-out superceded by dozens of prestige classes, then there's something wrong with levels 11-20 of Wizard.

Of course, I'd argue that the problem here is bad prestige class design: No prestige class should ever give you everything the core class gives you + even more nifty stuff. But WotC let that cat out of the bag years ago. If it's to be fixed, Paizo has to fix it from the other direction.