Many DMs allow things from 3.5 into their campaigns -- spells, feats, magic items.
This thread is a place for people to post some of these that would be good for PF DMs to know about. Not as a warning against letting players use them because they are OP, but as useful tools to use in their own campaign.
Here are a couple to get the ball rolling:
* Brutal Throw (Complete Adventurer)
This feat is easy to qualify for and allows a character or creature to use their STR mod instead of their DEX mod when making ranged attacks with thrown weapons. There is no reason NOT to have every giant in your campaign take this feat. Swap out Improved Sunder to make room for it, as giants almost always have reach and thus less need for Improved Sunder. Another 3.5 feat to consider for your giants would be Power Throw, which is just like Power Attack but with thrown weapons.
* Scintillating Scales (Spell Compendium)
This spell originally appeared in the Draconomicon, which makes a lot of sense. Got a gunslinger in your campaign who has an itchy trigger finger whenever he hears that a dragon is around? This 2nd level spell lasts 1 minute a level and is bound to prove a very unpleasant surprise, as it basically converts Natural Armor bonus to AC into Deflection bonus to AC. Oh, yes.
I tend to allow spells and magic items from 3.5, but avoid feats and classes like the devil.
Divine metamagic is one of those things that I blame my fear on. There are very few feats in 3.5 that I would be okay with bringing into PF that don't already exist there.
And classes I avoid as well, not because any of them are broken, but because the design philosophy was so different that I feel the classes are incompatible when compared to PF base classes, and the Prestige classes are too powerful most of the time.
I tend to allow spells and magic items from 3.5, but avoid feats and classes like the devil.
Divine metamagic is one of those things that I blame my fear on. There are very few feats in 3.5 that I would be okay with bringing into PF that don't already exist there.
And classes I avoid as well, not because any of them are broken, but because the design philosophy was so different that I feel the classes are incompatible when compared to PF base classes, and the Prestige classes are too powerful most of the time.
divine metamagic seemed overpowered because of how useless turn undead was. by transforming the useless turn undead into the more useful channel energy, it was an opportunity cost that would serve to balance divine metamagic, heck, i'd allow nightsticks to provide extra channel energy uses per nightstick, the reason divine metamagic was so powerful was that it was the only use for a specific resources
most non-setting specific or deity specific 3.5 classes aren't too bad if you make the following changes, tie hit die and base attack bonus to the faster progression of the two, convert the skill list to accomodate pathfinderized skills, tweak starting gold, and ignore classes that already have a pathfinder equivalent
fairly good base classes that are almost ready for pathfinder can be found in tome of magic, tome of battle, the duskblade and beguiler from players handbook 2, and the factotum from dungeon scape. all they require is maybe the addition of talents and passivising of certain active bonuses.
I allow the Practiced Spellcaster feat from Complete Arcane. It's pretty much the only way to make a multiclassed spellcaster effective.
I use the 3.5 rule for threatened squares and reach weapons. It's simpler to understand.
For the same reason, I use the 3.5 rules for ability damage and ability drain: these effects actually reduce the score, rather than impose specific penalties. Again, it's just easier to adjudicate.
I have also surprised my players by dropping some non-OGL classic D&D monsters into Paizo APs, like carrion crawlers, umber hulks, and beholders.
As an end user of the product, it's perfectly fine to use non OGL information for your pathfinder. It's just the 'representatives' of pathfinder cannot use them in official format (i.e. PFS, Published works, etc.)
I'm all for whatever your gaming choices, but I'll say that if you've ever had to gm a player who's character is built from 8 or more sources from a past edition, you change your mind pretty quick on allowed content.
3.pathfinder is my groups game of choice. Mostly 3.5 with some pathfinder splashed into it. Although we have been updating a lot of the classes as they come out, even if it is 3rd party (looking at you dreamscarred press and your updated psionics and soon tome of battle). It's not the easiest system to use, but it makes a lot of sense to us. The only problem we've had is a wizard with access to pathfinder spells and the spell compendium makes for a lot, and I mean a lot of choices.
I play a "Core-Plus" game: Everything in the PRFPG Core Rulebook is allowed, and anything from a non-Core source (Paizo, 3rd-party, or 3.5) requires specific GM approval.
I keep a list of home rules on my campaign website, where I list the approved feats, spells, archetypes, etc. The list includes either links to the rules hosted elsewhere, or to an internal page that reproduces them. I have also tweaked a few official rules, and the alternate rules are there as well.
As an end user of the product, it's perfectly fine to use non OGL information for your pathfinder. It's just the 'representatives' of pathfinder cannot use them in official format (i.e. PFS, Published works, etc.)
I'm all for whatever your gaming choices, but I'll say that if you've ever had to gm a player who's character is built from 8 or more sources from a past edition, you change your mind pretty quick on allowed content.
Oh I agree that if you haven't mastered most of the content, then it can be very difficult.
HOWEVER, this can be greatly eased by the following:
1. Have players submit characters for approval.
2. Have such characters include the text of any non-core abilities/spells/feats/etc (as well as the source).
3. Have the player detail all present and future plans on combos they intend to have with their own abilities or with another player's. Basically "list all cool tricks you are thinking about."If you are experienced with the game and are good with balance, then that should be enough to work with. Of course, the DM actually has to be willing to look at this and think about it.
Of course, I'm also not afraid to make house rules to bump up the effectiveness of a character that is lagging behind. In both PF and 3.5 there's a problem in that many excellent concepts are hampered by bad mechanics.
I do not believe in Auditing PCs. If you allow them to do stuff that requires an audit, then that is the problem.
If a player wants to use a feat/class ability from 3.5, I'll have them ask me.
I once actually advised a player to use the Webscape expansion on his ranger to have him gain an Urban Companion rather than a familiar. He wasn't really using his animal companion and the familiar boosted his Perception by +5 making him the best scout ever. He was also an Urban Ranger, so the flavor made sense.
Dot for great interest. PF base with 3.5 stuff as available options is my game of choice as well.
I do not believe in Auditing PCs. If you allow them to do stuff that requires an audit, then that is the problem.
If a player wants to use a feat/class ability from 3.5, I'll have them ask me.
I once actually advised a player to use the Webscape expansion on his ranger to have him gain an Urban Companion rather than a familiar. He wasn't really using his animal companion and the familiar boosted his Perception by +5 making him the best scout ever. He was also an Urban Ranger, so the flavor made sense.
I don't see how it is such a problem, and it is weird if you don't have a copy of everyone's character anyway. And given that even the default game has exploits in CORE only, it is good to know what they players are planning on doing. It also helps you know what sort of stuff they think will be fun and so better enables you to make the adventures enjoyable. And if you have someone that has trouble keeping track of the rules, it helps you ensure they got everything right without singling them out.
All positives, as I see it.
I'm too busy keeping track of my own paperwork to take the time to re-do and keep copies of all the paperwork of my players. This sounds like a terrible, terrible negative to any gaming experience.
Knowing what your players are capable of is one thing, but forcing everyone to give you copies of their characters so you know everything that's going on doesn't sound like fun for me or my players.
Dotting for future reading.
I've never played in a game where the DM didn't have a copy of the characters and know the details about them. I find it very weird you think it is such a huge negative. Especially since you'll need to be making rulings based on the abilities they have. Being familiar with them helps that out a great deal.I'm too busy keeping track of my own paperwork to take the time to re-do and keep copies of all the paperwork of my players. This sounds like a terrible, terrible negative to any gaming experience.
Knowing what your players are capable of is one thing, but forcing everyone to give you copies of their characters so you know everything that's going on doesn't sound like fun for me or my players.
Considering I know what my players are using, and I have a fairly decent understanding of how the mechanics of the game work there really isn't much they can throw at me that I won't be prepared for.
Again, I have my own stuff to worry about to try and keep tabs on the PCs. I have players to keep track of their own PCs.