Using 3.5 stuff vs using Pathfinder only stuff

[Shadowlord]

One of PF's major marketing ideas was that it was the future/revision of 3.5 and that it was backward compatible with all d20 3.5 stuff.

I see no reason for people to put a taboo on using other 3.5 materials seeing as PF was created to be compatible. If the designers wanted to exclude other 3.5 materials then they could have created a new set of mechanics all together.

The game I play is still 3.5 but with all the improvements to rough spots in 3.5 it seems likely we will move to PF rules. That said, we will probably not move to the PF campaign setting, at least not until we finish the current campaign (Nothing against the setting, but we are all more familiar with FR and that is the current setting). It is a FR campaign, all players have hundreds of dollars invested in 3.5 and I would seriously doubt we will be giving all our WoTC books up for 2 PF books (not counting Adventure Paths and the like). Our DM has given the OK to all WoTC books in our current game (and has only said NO to a hand full of things). He himself pulls material from a library of nearly all 3.5 books as well as many books from older editions of the game.

I like what I have read so far about the PF setting. In the future I would not mind running an old campaign of mine in the PF setting. However, it will likely require me to add a bit of lore to the history of the world in my game. I doubt I would exclude 3.5 books as I simply enjoy the variety and so do the players I game with.

[James Risner]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Quote:

So I think it's in Paizo's best interest to realize that most Pathfinder players are going to be using WotC's 3.5e books.

Do you think the bolded part is true?

I have 2 pathfinder groups a week right now, both are using all of WotC books (including all campaign setting books) in addition to all Pathfinder setting books with the two DM's auditing how the old rules apply in the Pathfinder game.

The other 2 games a week we play, the DM uses only 3.5 books (including all WotC campaign settings) probably because he doesn't yet own Pathfinder books (he does play in one of the games I run that is Pathfinder.)

So to me, it is astonishing to think that anyone would ever (under any circumstances) not use the backward compatibility. I can't understand not wanting to integrate all the old material. I can't believe anyone would sell off a 3.5 book when playing Pathfinder. I've never seen anyone think that way until this thread.

[LazarX]

James Risner wrote:

[

So to me, it is astonishing to think that anyone would ever (under any circumstances) not use the backward compatibility. I can't understand not wanting to integrate all the old material. I can't believe anyone would sell off a 3.5 book when playing Pathfinder. I've never seen anyone think that way until this thread.

There was 3.5 stuff I was getting rid of even before Pathfinder, large sections of the sploat books, Tome of Battle in general, and whole chunks of books that were long on the chopping block because of balance issues.

It's actually quite refreshing to chop things down to basics for a change.

And the Legends of the Shining Jewels campaign can't use any of that stuff anyway because of IP matters.

[CD8D]

Steve Geddes wrote:

A comment plucked out of another thread, somewhat out of context:

Quote:

So I think it's in Paizo's best interest to realize that most Pathfinder players are going to be using WotC's 3.5e books.

Do you think the bolded part is true? I'm sure a large number of groups will take advantage of the backwards compatibility but our group is moving on completely. We're currently selling off all our 3.5 books and playing pathfinder-only. I'd be curious to hear what others are doing now the final rules are here.

This depends on the game. I play in several groups. One group is dedicated exclusively to the Pathfinder Society Scenarios so there is not use of 3.5 material there. That group was formed as a combination of three groups that wanted to play more frequently but had difficulty aligning schedules. The society stuff is perfect for the one shot while at the same time allowing players to build up characters. My long running (for approx 8 years and will likely take another 10 to complete) has been converted over to pathfinder from the core rules perspective but I still use multiple systems/expansions with modifications from 3.5 (chaositect, ptolus, advanced series from green ronin, unearthed arcana, arcana evolved bits, forgotten realms stuff, etc.). I also run a runelords game that consists of only Pathfinder material. I play in a 3.0/3.5 game that is just now considering Pathfinder changes. Finally, I am working on the groundwork for a new Pathfinder game that is grim and gritty that will use mostly pathfinder with some modifications to the hit point and critical hit systems.

[CD8D]

For that matter, I just purchased Egyptian Adventures and Eternal Rome. I generally use these types of purchases for inspiration but if I find a cool item or rules system I like, it could make it into one of my games too.

[Joana]

Devlin 'Dusk' Valerian wrote:

I decided to only, or mostly, use the PF Stuff. Only exception being the 3.5 Monster Manual(s). And now, as the Bestiary has hit my shelf, I most likly will use that one only.

george

A minor caveat: If you have yet to run older Paizo APs/modules, you might want to hold on to that Monster Manual, as not all the creatures made their way into the Bestiary, and monsters in the MM don't have statblocks reprinted in the adventure.

[Berik]

I haven't started my Pathfinder campaign yet, but when I do it will likely be only core Pathfinder, with other things considered on a case-by-case basis if people want them. We generally play in that fashion anyway, most of the group don't have any interest in buying and using the various splat books. I'm the only one in the group with very many books and I tend to get books for fluff and ideas rather than new mechanics.

[MrkMllr]

I'm with Berik on this one. I got rid of most of my 3.x over the years, bit by bit, and when 4e came out I wasn't aware of PF (apparently I was living in a cave) I unloaded the rest. Now that I am beck RPing again I find that I have mixed emotions on this.

I wish I had some other material to pull from but on the other hand I know now that I will be pulling from only PF products the flavor and balance that I need will be there. It's almost like a fresh start and quite frankly I'm glad to have it. PF is a great system to pull new or returning (like me) RPers to the hobby. The books are beautiful, well written, and honestly pretty affordable.

mrk

[Student of the Way]

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

That really depends on a lot of variables, but one I have seen before is players who have played D&D/fantasy games for many years and are either tired of playing the core classes and races or just don't like the core stuff.

I guess I just can't really relate to this. With all the existing races, alignments, basic and prestige classes, not to mention the numerous possible multi-class combinations (let alone the variety introduced through character background and role playing), I don't understand how someone could not be able to create a PC they found interesting.

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Now, the way you phrased what I quoted from you sounds like you are referring to munchkins, min/maxers and power gamers, and on that point I agree with you.

I admit it sounds like you have a lot more experience dealing with long-term players than I do, but in my more limited experience, it always seemed to me that when I GM'd or played, the people who were most vocal on using third party or non-core material were doing so not for variety but becase they thought those options gave them some sort of advantage.

Now, its been so long since I played D&D that I consider myself something of a newbie at the game, so I don't feel quite up to judging whether some obscure 3.5 supplement is balanced or not. So at this point I'm more comfortable just not trying to squeeze it into PF. Now, I would hate to lose a player becuase he felt he just could not enjoy a game unless he played a half-Deva/half-Ogre multiclassed Ninja/Onmyouji, but I just don't want to risk breaking my game and the other players enjoyment for the sake of one players excentricities.

[Shem]

Our game has gone PF Core for now. I am not letting anything else in for the moment. We are in the middle of Crimson Throne and when we are done with that I may allow other source books. I guess for me if I was to allow say the Spell Compendium I would want to look it over closely before just saying this book is okay.

I will keep my 3.5 books out for now. I have other D20 resources on my bookshelf also but as more Bestiaries come out and I have all the monsters I need I will drop a lot of the 3.5 monster books and other materials and have more PF material. I like the way the game is going.

[A Man In Black]

Student of the Way wrote:

I guess I just can't really relate to this. With all the existing races, alignments, basic and prestige classes, not to mention the numerous possible multi-class combinations (let alone the variety introduced through character background and role playing), I don't understand how someone could not be able to create a PC they found interesting.

Well, part of the issue is that a number of those classes can't deal with level-appropriate opposition at a certain level range.