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

[Urlithani]

The Warlock from Complete Arcane. With a party of 6 PC's, someone ends up playing one because of their versatility with UMD, as well as devil's sight and see the unseen.

 

[Azmyth]

80% of my Pathfinder play is Society.
Pure Paizo only, with a few omissions that contradict the balancing factors introduced for tournament play.
The other 20% (my KingMaker Campaign and a PFRPG module group) are both pure Paizo as well.
After seeing the damage splat-books can have on a game first hand, I am pretty unwilling to let that happen again.
This is an unfortunate outcome, with 3PP paying for the evil deeds of others before them.
I'm sure there are some great optional rules that have been created for PF, but unless its got a Golem on it, I'm not buying.

 

[mxyzplk]

I think that myself, and a lot of Pathfinder DMs, discovered too late the trap of 3.5e glut. "Sure, use whatever Wizards put out... OH GOD NO WTF!"

As a result, there's a lot more movement back to "only stuff I explicitly allow, and that's not everything." I tailor it to the campaign. In my pirate campaign, I allow specific classes from specific sources, for example; firearms, dueling rules, stuff like that. Other stuff is approval only, and pretty much don't expect me to approve it if it's a clear min-max move - whether it's 3.5e, or Paizo published, or third party.

Because here's the problem of the "huge rules." It's not the couple specifically overpowered things. It's that you can replace every racial ability, class feature, etc. with that "perfectly crafted to make me better at X" power. So then you have a) first level characters that can slaughter ogres with impunity, meaning a lot of stories go bye bye immediately, and b) very high damage to <everything else> ratio that forces you to pit them against high CR stuff and you get a lot of randomness - whoever wins initiative kills someone on the other side! Balancing your game goes from "balance beam" to "tightrope" to "wire atop a skyscraper."

(Of course I use 3.5e monsters, settings, and adventures, but I assume that's not at all what you're asking.)

 

[Sunderstone]

Nothing. Dont allow any 3.5 rules in my PF games, especially splat (which I banned during 3.5, probably why my group never had any issues with 3.5 back when alot of folks complained).

Only 3.5 things that I allow are adventures. I usually DM so I convert these to PFRPG on the fly for the most part. easy enough to do.

 

[Votan]

Nothing. We have started to convert some monsters as part of the podcast, but in terms or spells or classes?

Nothing. The power creep and the broken nature of many of the later additions of 3.5 is what we were trying to escape when we moved to Pathfinder. Bringing along the broken stuff into a game of Pathfinder made no sense. We started playing Pathfinder to ESCAPE that 3.5 material in the first place.

Agreed. It is a good thing to have many options but too many options can make a game difficult to run effectively (if, for no other reason, the need to have a hand cart to bring all of the required books).

 

[joebobodo]

Myself and my players own TONS of 3.5 material put out by WotC and various other 3rd parties, but when I run Pathfinder, it is pure Pathfinder. Paizo-published only. I'm actually just starting to get my weekly Sunday night crew of 3.5 loyalists to convert over to Pathfinder, and so far they are really digging it.

 

[Psion]

After deciding that I dislike iterative attacks enough that I don't wish to ever use them again in a game I run, I think I'll adopt the Trailblazer iterative attack rules should I run PF in the near future.

 

[Remathilis]

Currently, a couple of misc spells and feats (mostly my shadow-illusionist PC player trying for more shadowy stuff).

Beyond that, most Goodman Game's modules and occasional monsters from MMs or ToH.

 

[TanisFrey]

After deciding that I dislike iterative attacks enough that I don't wish to ever use them again in a game I run, I think I'll adopt the Trailblazer iterative attack rules should I run PF in the near future.

What is the difference in Trailblazer rules?

 

[coyote6]

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?".