3.5 / PF Mashup: Anything goes. Can it work?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I'm looking to put together a game, consisting of 3.5 rules at it's core, and allowing full use of Pathfinder material for my players who prefer PF. I currently don't have any specific books or builds disallowed, so it's anything goes. Can it work?

I'm well aware of most of the game-breaking, uber-munchkin on crack builds from 3.5 to watch out for. Honestly, the group consists of long-term friends who are not power-gamers, optimizers, etc(they actually jokingly call me the group's "optimizer").

A few things:

1. I choose to work from 3.5 because honestly, I as a DM, am much more comfortable with that system than Pathfinder. I know the ins and outs, I know the rules loopholes, and I already know a gajillion house-rule fixes we've used in this group. I have well over 100 books for 3.0-3.5, and I want to make the best use of them with minimal conversion. That said, I can convert things on the fly very well, things like adding in CMB/CMD, etc.

2. I want to include PF material, because I like many of the changes PF made, but not enough to fully convert to it as a full time system. My players are currently involved in several other PF-rules only games, and I want them to have the option of using rules they are freshly familiar with.

3. I'm sure I'll think of other things that will pop up in this thread, so this list is by no means all-inclusive.

So what do you guys think? Can it be done? Or am I tap-dancing in a minefield?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pathfinder will do far less damage to 3.5 than 3.5 would do to Pathfinder, so you shouldn't have any problem.


Well Races get a few benefits picking favored class and other things isntead of HP/Skill.

Are you doing away with CMB CMD? Tripping for example is very different between the two. Freedom of movement will shut down tripping in 3.5 but not in Pathfinder.


CMB and CMD are going to be included(as I mentioned in the OP). Any new mechanics such as that will be added to keep it flowing. I'm basically giving my players the freedom to choose between 3.5 and PF versions as they see fit. I like massive amounts of diversity, and if that means multiple kinds of Power Attack existing in the same game, I can work with it.

If I were worried about powergaming or min/maxing, I'd have a much tighter reign on what's being allowed. But, I know these players really well, some for over 20 years, and they've proven they are much more about playing and having fun, not min/maxing.


This is my usual game. I've even run it with these rules plus Gestalt. I have a second game that's pure PF, but it's mostly full of newbie players.

If you're willing to put in the work as a GM, ready to roll with the punches, and have a good group, yes, it's very doable. And it lets those mountains of 3.5 books you have on your shelves cease collecting dust for a while.


Orthos wrote:

This is my usual game. I've even run it with these rules plus Gestalt. I have a second game that's pure PF, but it's mostly full of newbie players.

If you're willing to put in the work as a GM, ready to roll with the punches, and have a good group, yes, it's very doable. And it lets those mountains of 3.5 books you have on your shelves cease collecting dust for a while.

Even gestalt? Good to hear! I am willing to put in the work, and I have a mountain of material to work from. I just had too much stuff left in 3.5 I never had a chance to run to fully move on to PF full time. Maybe once I've "exercised these demons," I can then make the full switch to PF.

The key to it all I feel, is my group. I know their playstyles and expectations, and I've seen their peaks and valleys, so to speak. I know really well how to handle obstacles that arise, and can keep the pace of the game going.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Fortunately PF spent more time dealing with things that 3.5 allowed you to break than putting in things that would break 3.5 but....
Remember that the core classes got a huge boost in PF, so your PF Barbarian will be substantially more powerful than a 3.5 Barbarian in class abilities, same with Fighter, etc. Also, some feats were nerfed in PF to make them less ludicrous (and some were improved), so you might want to pick a version of the feats that's universal for your table. I point out Cleave and Power Attack as primary options for this treatment, as they're both fairly commonly picked and have notiveably changed mechanics between versions. Races as well have seen an uptick in power, so your core races may need to have a standardized version (3.5 or PF) to avoid two people playing half-orcs with wildly divergent bonuses and abilities.
I started playing PF by mixing it into my 3.5 Eberron campaign, and I've found that things work better and you have better parity within your group if you use PF as your base and bring in the 3.5 material you want to add. Just my 2 cents.


Josh M. wrote:
Orthos wrote:

This is my usual game. I've even run it with these rules plus Gestalt. I have a second game that's pure PF, but it's mostly full of newbie players.

If you're willing to put in the work as a GM, ready to roll with the punches, and have a good group, yes, it's very doable. And it lets those mountains of 3.5 books you have on your shelves cease collecting dust for a while.

Even gestalt? Good to hear!

Yep. Converted Savage Tide to Gestalt and ran it as an all-aboard game for about a year. (Spoiler heavy if you haven't played STAP.)

I will second Ssalarn, we use PF as the base and allow 3.5 stuff to be "converted up" (using PF regulations on things like CMB/D as you mentioned as well as skills, feats every 2 levels instead of 3, etc.), but in the end it really comes out to the same thing.


I'm going to be starting a game doing just the opposite. Pathfinder core rules and APG, then allowing some 3.5 supplements to add some additional variety.

It would be interesting to compare the two to see good/bad points of each method.


Ssalarn wrote:

Fortunately PF spent more time dealing with things that 3.5 allowed you to break than putting in things that would break 3.5 but....

Remember that the core classes got a huge boost in PF, so your PF Barbarian will be substantially more powerful than a 3.5 Barbarian in class abilities, same with Fighter, etc. Also, some feats were nerfed in PF to make them less ludicrous (and some were improved), so you might want to pick a version of the feats that's universal for your table. I point out Cleave and Power Attack as primary options for this treatment, as they're both fairly commonly picked and have notiveably changed mechanics between versions. Races as well have seen an uptick in power, so your core races may need to have a standardized version (3.5 or PF) to avoid two people playing half-orcs with wildly divergent bonuses and abilities.
I started playing PF by mixing it into my 3.5 Eberron campaign, and I've found that things work better and you have better parity within your group if you use PF as your base and bring in the 3.5 material you want to add. Just my 2 cents.

Very good points. I recently ran a short lived Pathfinder-only campaign using a 3.5 module, and even at equal CR's, the PF classed players completely annihilated the 3.5 monsters, even after converting them(and slightly boosting them). I've had a pretty solid taste of what a PF class can do to a 3.5 monster, so that's actually at the fore-front of my mind.

In any case where there is both a 3.5 and PF version of something (base class, race, etc) I will make sure the players know the differences between the two and get to decide for themselves. More than likely we'll wind up using PF core as a baseline and adding 3.5 stuff in, but golly I love my 3.5 core books...

I plan on having 3.5 versions of some things still intact, even if they kinda suck, just for world variance and diversity; things like Turn Undead, etc. Probably wind up running printed 3.5 npc's as-is, but looking to PF for new homebrews.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, if you're up for houseruling to resolve any troubles that might arise, and you have a lid back group that's got the same sort of flexibility that you do, I think it'll be super fun!

I would agree that the most likely difficulty you'll run into is figuring out how to keep the PCs challenged.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A few bits of advice:

1) Download the conversion guide. It summarizes most of the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Run any 3.5 material through that document.

2) Be very familiar with the Pathfinder rules. There are a few items that Pathfinder removed or replaced for a very good reason. Keep an eye out for such things.

3) Do not use any 3.0 material that is incompatible with 3.5 and/or has not been converted from 3.0. A few items from the Arms and Equipment Guide are problematical in that regard.


David knott 242 wrote:

A few bits of advice:

1) Download the conversion guide. It summarizes most of the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Run any 3.5 material through that document.

2) Be very familiar with the Pathfinder rules. There are a few items that Pathfinder removed or replaced for a very good reason. Keep an eye out for such things.

3) Do not use any 3.0 material that is incompatible with 3.5 and/or has not been converted from 3.0. A few items from the Arms and Equipment Guide are problematical in that regard.

Has Paizo updated the conversion guide? Because the one I have is only around 16 pages, and barely scratches the surface on the amount of changes they made to 3.5. It was little more than a free preview of what PF was shaping up to be. Less of a guide, more of a pamphlet/flyer.


I'm running a 3.P solo gestalt campaign. It's going great. Both my player and me have fun. There where no problems, but that's probably because we have similar preferences and communicate a lot.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I ran such a game for ten levels over a year. It works just fine.


Keep us posted!


It's looking more and more like I'll just wind up using PF Core as a baseline, and converting on the fly. I'm only really using PF for my player's benefit; if it were my choice, it'd be all 3.5 with some PF stuff added along the way. My players have all switched up to PF and are active in other PF games, and I don't want the added confusion of switching back and forth. One of the players is fairly new and having to play catch-up with the rules as is.


I do find it more streamlined that way, since I prefer the core mechanics of PF myself (their skill system, their feats progression, CMB/D, cantrips/orisions at will, etc.). Just as long as you and the players are on the same wavelength where the systems differ, I think it'll go well.


I agree up to a point. I find the big changes are much smoother, but the 1000 little under the radar changes trip me up to no end. The last Pathfinder game I tried to run was a disaster; 5 or more times per session someone had to remind me of something that changed that I missed. Things like the weight of an object, the duration of a spell, ya know, the nit-picky, really easy to miss stuff that the conversion guide doesn't address. It was extremely frustrating.

I'm an Old Fogy at heart; I'll use a blatantly inferior system if I know how to use it well, and can fix the inferior elements quickly. Another system might be "better," but if it confuses the hell out of me I have a hard time seeing what's so better about it.

I'll be right back, gotta go shoo some kids off my lawn.


Hahah no I understand completely. A lot of that stuff I tend to houserule - small size carrying capacity comes to mind immediately, I recall somewhere that it used to be "equipment weighs 1/4 of a Medium creature's, but their carrying capacity is 1/2" and it gave some small benefit to being Small, but somewhere along the line it got evened out to 1/2 across the whole board. I just houseruled it, and everyone's happy.


I just wish there was some kind of document that had the COMPLETE list of what got changed that I could reference. I'd convert to PF completely that instant. It's the constant back tracking and double-checking, and "surprise! This changed too!" that causing me so much grief.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doug Greer wrote:

I'm going to be starting a game doing just the opposite. Pathfinder core rules and APG, then allowing some 3.5 supplements to add some additional variety.

It would be interesting to compare the two to see good/bad points of each method.

Most of what broke 3.5 came from the supplements.


Well I did that last game I DM'd. There are some things to watch out for.

For instance.

PF Cantrips (unlimited) and 3.5 feat Versatile Spellcaster

Versatile Spellcaster

( Races of the Dragon, p. 101)

[General]
You can use two lower-level spell slots to cast a spell one level higher.
Prerequisite
Ability to spontaneously cast spells,
Benefit
You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.

Unlimited First level spells. I actually allowed it. It helped casters combat the 15 minute work day (which I hate), but I had to caution my players not to abuse it (Like using sleep in every room at first level)


It can work. You just have to use Pathfinder as the core, and take elements from 3.5 on a case-by-case basis. I've allowed a few feats from 3.5, such as Graceful Edge for a bard/paladin in my current campaign (it lets the character finesse a one-handed slashing weapon, so long as she doesn't wield or carry anything in her other hand). You just have to consider how each feat, spell, or PrC from 3.5 will interact with feats, spells, and PrCs in Pathfinder and make sure everything seems balanced.


We were 6 levels into RoTRL when the Pf beta rules were released, which we adopted, and we've played a hodgepodge of 3.5/PF ever since. I will say I think it is easier to use PF as a base and allow 3.5 material then the other way, but that is just because that is how we've run it and are familiar. You have to keep a heads up of polymorph, grappling/cmb/str check variations, classes that are for barbarians granting rage, and all that jazz. But with enough bookwork and a mature group it's no problem to use it all.


Josh M. wrote:
I just wish there was some kind of document that had the COMPLETE list of what got changed that I could reference. I'd convert to PF completely that instant. It's the constant back tracking and double-checking, and "surprise! This changed too!" that causing me so much grief.

They did (kinda), it's called the Core Rulebook.

Pathfinder uses the D20 System, but pretty much EVERYTHING else changed. Some things are more similar to 3.5 than others, but they still changed.

A document that listed all the differences from 3.5 to PF would likely be nearly as long as the CRB. If you want to learn the rules to PF, you need to read the entire CRB, front to back, and not rely on your knowledge of 3.5, because this is a different game (slightly).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Josh, check out this thread about changes Pathfinder made, and the incomplete compilation PDF mentioned here.


Dragonamedrake wrote:

Well I did that last game I DM'd. There are some things to watch out for.

For instance.

PF Cantrips (unlimited) and 3.5 feat Versatile Spellcaster

Versatile Spellcaster

( Races of the Dragon, p. 101)

[General]
You can use two lower-level spell slots to cast a spell one level higher.
Prerequisite
Ability to spontaneously cast spells,
Benefit
You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.

Unlimited First level spells. I actually allowed it. It helped casters combat the 15 minute work day (which I hate), but I had to caution my players not to abuse it (Like using sleep in every room at first level)

Good call! I've actually used this feat quite a bit back in 3.5e. I think I'll try allowing it, but with the clause of not going crazy abusing it.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
I just wish there was some kind of document that had the COMPLETE list of what got changed that I could reference. I'd convert to PF completely that instant. It's the constant back tracking and double-checking, and "surprise! This changed too!" that causing me so much grief.

They did (kinda), it's called the Core Rulebook.

Pathfinder uses the D20 System, but pretty much EVERYTHING else changed. Some things are more similar to 3.5 than others, but they still changed.

A document that listed all the differences from 3.5 to PF would likely be nearly as long as the CRB. If you want to learn the rules to PF, you need to read the entire CRB, front to back, and not rely on your knowledge of 3.5, because this is a different game (slightly).

This is half of my problem. I have a hard time "updating" systems like that in my head. Especially updates to such an extreme as to (almost) be a new game. Almost new, but just familiar enough to make me second guess every thing I do.

But, I don't blame Paizo nor do I think less of PF because of it, this is simply a problem I have; I don't know if I've always been like this, or if it was the years of hard partying, etc. I get a particular system so hard-wired into my brain that it's difficult to keep changes straight. I can easily do the occasional errata or rule clarification, but changes on the level of Pathfinder just break my head. Every time I think I have it straight and feel comfortable, another chunk of changed rules comes to my attention and just defeats me.

I'm honestly envious of players who were able to switch up to PF with no problems. Hell, at this point, I want to switch fully so that I can be on the same page as the rest of my main gaming group. I can pick up an entirely new system much easier than trying to retrofit something on this scale.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Josh, check out this thread about changes Pathfinder made, and the incomplete compilation PDF mentioned here.

Lookin through that thread... Holy crap... I'll never remember all that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Why would you need to? Do you remember every 3.5 rule?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why would you need to? Do you remember every 3.5 rule?

lol damn near... I'm pretty OCD with that sort of thing. I was our group's nominated rule lawyer for the longest time. If I couldn't tell someone what page a rule was on, I could at least tell them what section of exactly what book it was in.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a similar problem, I read the rules for fun. So the common stuff I can recite from memory, and it causes problems when PF conflicts with that memory. But even I can't tell you the details of antilife shell are off the top of my head.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have a similar problem, I read the rules for fun. So the common stuff I can recite from memory, and it causes problems when PF conflicts with that memory. But even I can't tell you the details of antilife shell are off the top of my head.

See, back when 3.5 was the main game going on, I could tell you that...

I'm seriously conflicted, because I like most of the changes Pathfinder made, I just can't keep track of them. Things like the "Knock" spell; I love that it no longer auto-unlocks everything in existence. I love that it's useful, yet inferior to an actual Rogue in the party doing the lock-busting. But it's just one more change to keep Post-It noted on my DM screen, along with a notebook full of other things "to keep an eye out for..."

In a pure 3.5 game, I didn't have to "keep an eye out," I just ran the rules and referenced if a dispute arose.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Josh M. wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have a similar problem, I read the rules for fun. So the common stuff I can recite from memory, and it causes problems when PF conflicts with that memory. But even I can't tell you the details of antilife shell are off the top of my head.

See, back when 3.5 was the main game going on, I could tell you that...

I'm seriously conflicted, because I like most of the changes Pathfinder made, I just can't keep track of them. Things like the "Knock" spell; I love that it no longer auto-unlocks everything in existence. I love that it's useful, yet inferior to an actual Rogue in the party doing the lock-busting. But it's just one more change to keep Post-It noted on my DM screen, along with a notebook full of other things "to keep an eye out for..."

In a pure 3.5 game, I didn't have to "keep an eye out," I just ran the rules and referenced if a dispute arose.

Go buy a Pathfinder GM screen, that'll help with a lot of the little nuanced changes. And give you somewhere to put those sticky notes for the rest :)


Josh M. wrote:

I'm looking to put together a game, consisting of 3.5 rules at it's core, and allowing full use of Pathfinder material for my players who prefer PF. I currently don't have any specific books or builds disallowed, so it's anything goes. Can it work?

I'm well aware of most of the game-breaking, uber-munchkin on crack builds from 3.5 to watch out for. Honestly, the group consists of long-term friends who are not power-gamers, optimizers, etc(they actually jokingly call me the group's "optimizer").

A few things:

1. I choose to work from 3.5 because honestly, I as a DM, am much more comfortable with that system than Pathfinder. I know the ins and outs, I know the rules loopholes, and I already know a gajillion house-rule fixes we've used in this group. I have well over 100 books for 3.0-3.5, and I want to make the best use of them with minimal conversion. That said, I can convert things on the fly very well, things like adding in CMB/CMD, etc.

2. I want to include PF material, because I like many of the changes PF made, but not enough to fully convert to it as a full time system. My players are currently involved in several other PF-rules only games, and I want them to have the option of using rules they are freshly familiar with.

3. I'm sure I'll think of other things that will pop up in this thread, so this list is by no means all-inclusive.

So what do you guys think? Can it be done? Or am I tap-dancing in a minefield?

It can be done. The fact that your players are not ultra optimizers is a plus. I would still recommend excluding some supplementary rulebooks which you are not comfortable with (if there are any). On grapple rules,

stick with 3.5. Those are solid. CMD gets ridiculously high, very quickly. Good luck with the game. I hope it all works out.


Josh M. wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have a similar problem, I read the rules for fun. So the common stuff I can recite from memory, and it causes problems when PF conflicts with that memory. But even I can't tell you the details of antilife shell are off the top of my head.

See, back when 3.5 was the main game going on, I could tell you that...

I'm seriously conflicted, because I like most of the changes Pathfinder made, I just can't keep track of them. Things like the "Knock" spell; I love that it no longer auto-unlocks everything in existence. I love that it's useful, yet inferior to an actual Rogue in the party doing the lock-busting. But it's just one more change to keep Post-It noted on my DM screen, along with a notebook full of other things "to keep an eye out for..."

In a pure 3.5 game, I didn't have to "keep an eye out," I just ran the rules and referenced if a dispute arose.

Honestly I was much like you. I stubbornly wanted to keep a hold of my love of 3.5. Prestige classes where my thing. I loved coming up with crazy combos and all that.

But the more I DM'd the more I have started using PF only. The rules are more streamline. The classes are more balanced (notice I said more.... not completely). And Modules are top notch and build to be used with PF rules.

Ultimately I have moved to PF only with certain 3.5 material allowed on a case by case basis (like Versatile Spellcaster which has an un-intended effect but one I like). I would suggest you try a PF only game and just work out the quirks as you DM. Let your party know there might be mistakes and you might need to retcon every so often. Ive always found that figuring out a new system is to jump into it and figure it out as you go.


Honestly I think the way to learn PF is to play PF - ONLY PF.
Maybe don't do a full campaign just a couple of pregen modules or something. Look everything up instead of just assuming you know it. Pretty soon you will know it.

THEN you move forward with allowing in the 3.x stuff.

Our group made the same mistake (at least it was a mistake for us). We tried to gradually add in some of the PF stuff without actually knowing it.
We had 2 casters casting the exact same spell with different results. PC using PF grapple vs. a 3.5 grappling monster that didn't have quite the same grappling feats. So the numbers didn't make sense. PC picking and chosing the stacking rules and enhancements from both versions. Etc...


Ssalarn wrote:


Go buy a Pathfinder GM screen, that'll help with a lot of the little nuanced changes. And give you somewhere to put those sticky notes for the rest :)

Got one :) It's pretty handy, but even it's missing some info. It has "most" of the different status effects that can afflict players, but as luck would have it, in the last PF game I ran, my players wound up with every status condition that wasn't listed on there. Wasn't much hassle just looking it up, but still. Why only list "some" of the things?


I'm supposed to be meeting with my players today to discuss the game and weigh opinions, and I'm going to put my feelings out on the table; I want to run 3.5e. I know it well, I can run it very smooth and keep the game flowing, and I have a nigh infinite amount of material to work from (over 100+ books). But, if they are not comfortable, I will (reluctantly) use Pathfinder as a base and port things in a little at a time.

Really, at this point the only reason I'm even humoring the idea of running Pathfinder rules is for the sake of my players. They all switched up to PF and are currently involved in a few other PF games, and I want there to be as little confusion in play for them as possible. Making them switch back and forth between my 3.5e game one night, and their PF game the next night, is just asking for a headache and unnecessary complications in everyone's games. So, I'm really just using PF for their sake, not my own. I've run PF games. I've handled the CRB since release day 2009, and I've decided that overall, I prefer just sticking with 3.5e. Unfortunate reality is, I'm alone in my preference amongst my group. I'll do what benefits the group most.


In all reality, the difference between PF's core rules and 3.5's core rules are so slight that any DM who can run 3.5 smooth can run PF smooth.

Sure, sometimes you'll get a rule wrong (I thought undead were still immune to crits in PF) but overall if you end up accidentally using the 3.5 rule over the PF rule, the system won't poop itself.

PF truly is just 3.75 for all intents and purposes.

The difference between 3.0 and 3.5 is roughly similar to the difference between 3.5 and PF.


Fleshgrinder wrote:

In all reality, the difference between PF's core rules and 3.5's core rules are so slight that any DM who can run 3.5 smooth can run PF smooth.

Sure, sometimes you'll get a rule wrong (I thought undead were still immune to crits in PF) but overall if you end up accidentally using the 3.5 rule over the PF rule, the system won't poop itself.

PF truly is just 3.75 for all intents and purposes.

The difference between 3.0 and 3.5 is roughly similar to the difference between 3.5 and PF.

YMMV, but I went into PF with this exact mentality, and it was a trainwreck. At least 5 times per session, one of my players(who was extremely well versed in PF rules) would point out things I was doing wrong that got changed. My confidence as a DM was shaken badly.

That the rules changes were so slight, is most of what's giving me issues. So many things got just a little tweaked, that on my initial readthrough of the CRB, I kept missing them. The broad, sweeping changes (CMB/CMD, skills, etc) were easy enough, but the gajillion little things keep tripping me up.

The only way I can make PF rules stick at all, is to treat it as a completely different game and not compare rules to ones I already know.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Josh M. wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why would you need to? Do you remember every 3.5 rule?
lol damn near... I'm pretty OCD with that sort of thing. I was our group's nominated rule lawyer for the longest time. If I couldn't tell someone what page a rule was on, I could at least tell them what section of exactly what book it was in.

Maybe that's your problem. Being a 3.5 rules geek is a major part of your comfort zone. To play Pathfinder you'd have to accept that a large part of your instinctual knowledge is not going to be fully accurate.

But you know what they say... No pain, no gain.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My conversion from 3.5 to PF consisted of one thorough reading of the CRB and the conversion doc and taking notes in places where I found any changes of significance. Once that was complete, I never ran into any problems. IIRC I had one "oh that works different" surprise in 3 years of running PF. Honestly, it was less of a hassle than doing the 3.0->3.5 switch.


Josh M. wrote:
Fleshgrinder wrote:

In all reality, the difference between PF's core rules and 3.5's core rules are so slight that any DM who can run 3.5 smooth can run PF smooth.

Sure, sometimes you'll get a rule wrong (I thought undead were still immune to crits in PF) but overall if you end up accidentally using the 3.5 rule over the PF rule, the system won't poop itself.

PF truly is just 3.75 for all intents and purposes.

The difference between 3.0 and 3.5 is roughly similar to the difference between 3.5 and PF.

YMMV, but I went into PF with this exact mentality, and it was a trainwreck. At least 5 times per session, one of my players(who was extremely well versed in PF rules) would point out things I was doing wrong that got changed. My confidence as a DM was shaken badly.

The only way I can make PF rules stick at all, is to treat it as a completely different game and not compare rules to ones I already know.

Just don't let it shake your confidence. You're learning the system and your players are helping.

My players call me on mistakes ALL THE TIME. I apologize and we go forth, and now I likely remember that rule.

The DM doesn't ALWAYS have to be the guy who is most well versed in the rules. We are, usually, that guy by default, but not all the time.

A DM is a story teller, first and foremost. If one guy tells good stories but one guy knows the rules better, the story teller should be the DM.

It also helps to have a PC/Laptop near by with www.d20pfsrd.com up. With it's search function you can reference rules in seconds.

Believe me, I come from exactly the same place you do. YEARS of running 3.5, and I STILL mess up PF rules. But I do feel it is the superior system and worth the learning curve.


Gorbacz wrote:

My conversion from 3.5 to PF consisted of one thorough reading of the CRB and the conversion doc and taking notes in places where I found any changes of significance. Once that was complete, I never ran into any problems. IIRC I had one "oh that works different" surprise in 3 years of running PF. Honestly, it was less of a hassle than doing the 3.0->3.5 switch.

I envy you. The conversion guide was to me, nothing more than a sneak preview. It gave broad, generalized ideas about what might kinda change, but I wanted specifics. It was helpful for casual adjustments, covering how skills work and stuff, but I felt overall it was pretty lacking.

The reference TOZ linked to above, with a google doc featuring a rough list of changes, has been infinitely more helpful.

EDIT: Thinking more on this, my BIGGEST problem is that I just wasn't ready to switch. I still have a crapton of 3.5 material I want to use, as is, without having to sit and convert it all to something else. I wasn't done with 3.5 when 4e came out, and I still wasn't done when Pathfinder came around. Hell, I still don't feel ready to actually make the switch yet. I found the ruleset that works for me, and so far nothing has worked well enough to get me to want to switch. I think this is my roadblack.


Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate you guys' ideas and feedback. It is encouraging to read so many different ways other players were able to make the switch. I haven't given up yet. I'm still trying to find that one way that makes it "click" to me. I'm gradually getting more accustomed to things.


Josh M. wrote:
... I still have a crapton of 3.5 material I want to use, as is, without having to sit and convert it all to something else ...

Ha, well I still have a bunch of 2.0 stuff I want to use.

But so much conversion is necessary that it is almost a complete rewrite. I just don't have that much time. So I do one every now and again. Usually goes over pretty well.


2.0 to PF would be a lot of work.

3.5 to PF would be a lot less work.

You'd have to add more bonus feats to prestige classes (since PF adds more feats), change some bonus feats around to the new version, calculate a CMD and CMB but then you're pretty much done.

Some classes would be harder than others. The Reaping Mauler class would be tough to convert to PF because grappling in PF isn't as strong as it was in 3.5, and the Reaping Mauler would be so good at grappling he'd be a menace with few counters other than large, hard to grapple creatures.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / 3.5 / PF Mashup: Anything goes. Can it work? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.