Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5290315" data-attributes="member: 7883">Given that the Adventure Paths make excellent use of non-PF 3.x content, I don't see why not.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The DM has the say in the end as to what can and can't fit in the game.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Banshee16, post: 5290315, member: 7883"] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification