Pathfinder Converts: what non-PF 3.X stuff do you typically import?

[Psion]

In Trailblazer, iterative attacks work kind of like a monk's flurry of blows -- at BAB +6, you can make two attacks in a full attack, each at a -2 to attack (so your attacks are -2/-2 rather than 0/-5). Then, every +5 BAB past that, the penalty is reduced by one.

So at BAB +16, rather than getting attacks at +16/+11/+6/+1, you get +16/+16. Both your attacks have a good chance of hitting, rather than having one at good, one at so-so, one at hmm, and one at "20 always hits, right?".

Yeah, that.

Supposedly (didn't run the numbers myself), you actually get a damage boost except in corner cases.

After reading more of Trailblazer again, I'm thinking of using their take on action points as well.

 

[IronWolf]

After reading more of Trailblazer again, I'm thinking of using their take on action points as well.

Did you see the Hero Point rules in the APG? I am planning to use those in my upcoming Kingmaker campaign.

 

[Psion]

Did you see the Hero Point rules in the APG? I am planning to use those in my upcoming Kingmaker campaign.

I did, and am considering that as well. It seems like HP are more sparse, but you can do more with them. But I find the reasoning behind the Action Points a bit stronger (make up for not having the supposed magic item set, surmount save-or-suck issues).

 

[IronWolf]

I did, and am considering that as well. It seems like HP are more sparse, but you can do more with them. But I find the reasoning behind the Action Points a bit stronger (make up for not having the supposed magic item set, surmount save-or-suck issues).

I think both are good systems and you probably can't go wrong with either option.

My main goal with an action point system is to help the PCs in those situations where the dice are rolling poorly for them or the GM is on a hot streak. I am hoping the action points will be another option to help turn things around for the characters without the need to resort to DM fiat.

 

[Glade Riven]

Well, I'm working on a Pathfinder campaign setting, so when I DM that what will be included are items that I've pulled from OLG sources. Flavor stuff, mostly. I weigh it against Pathfinder core in terms of power level.

One thing I'm a fan of is Iron Kingdoms, and converting it is pretty easy. Liber Mechanika (a book with an alternative magical item crafting system) doesn't even need to be changed to work.

I am considering some of the Unearthed Arcana elements that were in the SRD/Modern SRD for alternative systems. Mainly for flavor.

If I was starting as a new player in a campaign, I may ask to play a trollkin (Iron Kingdoms) or a Warforged (Eberron), neither of which need tweaking to work with Pathfinder - allowance would be up to the DM and what the group needs. There's a lot of things I'd like to play as, so creating a character to suit the group isn't an issue.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Supposedly (didn't run the numbers myself), you actually get a damage boost except in corner cases.

True-- but I still have some reservations about what constitutes a "corner case."

Against very high and very low AC creatures, you're obviously better with four attacks than with two.

So they are corner cases with respect to the spectrum of ACs. However, if your campaign regularly features very high and very low AC creatures, their status as "corner cases" comes into question.

Fair enough?

 

[Psion]

True-- but I still have some reservations about what constitutes a "corner case."

Against very high and very low AC creatures, you're obviously better with four attacks than with two.

So they are corner cases with respect to the spectrum of ACs. However, if your campaign regularly features very high and very low AC creatures, their status as "corner cases" comes into question.

Fair enough?

Certainly.

And as for me, I neither seek extreme ACs nor think that "spam for the 20" is something I want to encourage, so I think it's a pretty safe assumption most of the time.

 

[Banshee16]

Title says it all: if you now consider Pathfinder your primary 3.X version game, what stuff- if any- do you import from other 3.X games (including 3.5 itself)?

(Those playing other 3.X games, feel free to chime in about what you do as well.)

Given that the Adventure Paths make excellent use of non-PF 3.x content, I don't see why not. It's not like PF is restricted to only PF content for adventures, so why should players be restricted?

As with all stuff in earlier versions of 3.x, handle with care. The DM has the say in the end as to what can and can't fit in the game. And, if you put something in, and learn that it's breaking the game, make the player remove that element and respec.

From what I understand, the base classes were rejigged in Pathfinder so they were more balanced against later base classes that appeared in 3.x from Wizards and other sources.....and also rejigged to match better with later PrC's etc. Hence, the Mystic Theurge for instance got a slight bump in abilities, which brought it more in line with later blend classes like the Arcane Hierophant.

Banshee

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

My two main games use Boox of Experimental Might rules.

Magic Item Compendium and Spell Compendium are both used (MIC is used a lot in one of the games where we're only 4th level).

The DMs in both games will also create new feats and items. For example, in one game our Rogue wanted to be able to stow a weapon more quickly so she has Quick Stow. She can now stow a weapon, draw a different one (as part of her move action) and wade into combat without leaving her crossbow lying on the ground 25 feet back.

My cleric in the other BoXM campaign has Mobile Spellcasting, so pretty much anything is possible. We just have the DM review it, tweak if necessary, and off we go.

 

[NotZenon]

I like some of the classes from Arcana Evolved, like the mageblade, runethane, totemwarrior, witch (and others). Arc Ev also has a cool hero point system (which i will be comparing to the APG and Trailblazer once they arrive in the mail).

I greatly prefer the metamagic system in Arcana evolved to the pathfinder/traditional 3.5 system. They also have some cool ceremonial feats in that book.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me like Monte cookes stuff has a greater emphasis on system balance that WotC stuff.