|
I've been lurking for a while, and I was surprised earlier to run across a discussion that implied pretty heavily that the best thing a GM could possibly do for the sake of balance and rules is put his or her foot down and ban everything that came before that fateful day in August when 3.5 was fixed.
Not to criticize that approach: It has occurred to me as well, and sorely tempted me, but my group is rather fond of the nice, shiny set of completes, races of books, books of various extreme moral perspectives, and of course, the love-it-or-hate-it Tome of Battle, not to mention the campaign specific rules such as Dragonmarks and the Artificer in Eberron, and selling them on the PFRPG (as opposed to the big rules reset button that would be switching to 4E or a retrogame such as Hackmaster).
I'm even fond of a lot of the optional stuff - my game's GMPC/Main Villain was a Diamond Mind rapier fighter who went LE when he decided he wanted to force the rest of the world to be as disciplined as his diamond mind training had made him. There are some niches and non-twinky mechanical functions that aren't filled in the core. The Swashbuckler class and it's Int mod to damage bonus, some of the ToB fighting styles (especially Diamond Mind and White Raven, which as I see it are unique in marrying those concepts to functional, competitively balanced mechanics), and those few non-broken spells in the spell compendium that serve a logical worldbuilding function, not to mention that I'm still using my 3.5 monster books for those creatures that a certain company keeps all to themselves.
On the other hand, my game has a PC that by 12th level had abilities that could scare the pants off a mid/high-level Exalted PC and utterly destroy anyone who did not have several more class levels or some very specific magic items or spells, and some of the problems that PF fixed (nerfing the more brutal save-or-die/suck spells, banishing CoDzilla and making the Wizard-for-all-occasions balanced against the other classes). We're actually *playing* Exalted between d20 games, and I actually fear the power level of Dragon-Blood Exalts less than I fear the power of 12th level d20 characters.
As I see it, the three major options available to the beleaguered GM are to leave the d20 kitchen sink right where it is with all the risks and problems inherent, ban everything that doesn't have a PF logo or a PF compatibility seal, or spend weeks and reams of paper converting all of the Scary Coast-Dwelling Wizards' 3.5 stuff, or burdening my players and my free time with an "approved" list of spells, feats, etc.
Has anybody else found a more practical means of converting *some* of the 3.5 material forward? I'd be interested in any ideas...
Thanks for reading!
|
As the DM, I operate a soft ban. In general, I'd like my players to use PF only stuff so I'm not overwhelmed with options to balance. I help out with this by maintaining an options list so they can find things to match what they want that are already allowed.
If they really want something from another source, they have to explain what it does, why they want it and why I should allow it. This tends to keep them away from the broken things. I also run it past the experienced members of my group to see if I missed anything.
I've been doing it this way: Our first game with the new rules was Pathfinder ONLY, but the players can approach me and present something from 3.x that they want, and I'll take it home, convert it so that I find it to be a satisfactory for PF, and it can be brought in the next game.
This doesn't allow for someone to start in a non-core base class as of yet, but the next time someone has to roll up a character (none have died as of yet) they can ask me to convert some other base class.
I did the ban everything but core for some times now. Some games I let some stuff in but even playing 3.5 allowing everything was akin to madness to me. Much of the splat junk was never meant to work with stuff from other splat books.
So folks starting to be very careful in what they allow in just makes sense to me. To many allowed everything in 3.5 then cried the system is busted. It was not always the system but GM's not watching what they let in. And this lead to burn out and a great dislike of the system that really ran better without the junk.
As always YMMV
|
|
I've been doing it this way: Our first game with the new rules was Pathfinder ONLY, but the players can approach me and present something from 3.x that they want, and I'll take it home, convert it so that I find it to be a satisfactory for PF, and it can be brought in the next game.
This doesn't allow for someone to start in a non-core base class as of yet, but the next time someone has to roll up a character (none have died as of yet) they can ask me to convert some other base class.
I do like that - it takes the burden off of the GM and also adds to the uncommon flavor of non-core stuffs (Oh wow, he's got Alacritous Cogitation, he must have learned it from a true master wizard!), though I might allow some non-core 20-level classes because my players might mutiny if they can't be Scouts, Swashbucklers, or Swordsages. There's very little character death in my games so having my players so I need to have those classes available from the start.
I agree, best way to play pathfinder is to work from the core, look at all the other material with a mind towards how it will affect the balance of PRPG.
Lots of stuff you can use, but just allowing it will ruin balance very quickly 'a soft ban' like Paul said,
if that doesn't appeal to you, you can play from 3.5 and use prpg as a big book of options,
or you could mix them up and make your own homebrew, though that is the most work.
I have a long running campaign going and it might be hard to convert characters to PRPG, so I am playing with the option to convert them as best I can, converting feats and PRC classes as best I can working with my players.
I prefer to work from core rpg and adjust some things I do not appreciate fully and houserule them out, add an houserule or two and continue playing.
maybe on the surface, expect players to find niches where you didnt, best to go from core and judge any 3.5 material on a case-by-case.
No offense, but geez, it sounds like a 3.5 hate fest going on here.
I allow pretty much any book I have from 3.5. If I don't have the book, you have to bring me the book and let me read it.
I take the approach of only banning things that are broken as written, or don't work with PF as written (pretty much tome of battle is all I disallow, it's too hard to balance for me). The epic stuff is out because I don't run epic games.
Other than that, I'm a good enough GM that it's not that big a deal, to toot my own horn. Honestly, a GM has infinite resources, he can balance anything if he wants to.
To be more specific though, I allow all the splat books (redid most of the classes to match PF standards, either buffed or just altered skills, depending on class. Healer from Miniatures book got a big rewrite, warlock got only skills changed, duskblade got a tiny adjustment, not much). Feats are on a 'as taken' basis, mainly because not all of them function with PF anymore, and domains are out because it's a pain to convert them. Other than that, go for it.
That was sort of the point of the game, per the developers, continue to use 95% of your 3.5 stuff as is.
hmm.. I don't see the hate, I am just saying they are not fully compatible out off hand, if you mix them up expect to do some extra work on balancing it.
That was sort of the point of the game, per the developers, continue to use 95% of your 3.5 stuff as is.
Yep that was the point, but no one every said 95% at the same time, every game. Nothing wrong with using what ya got, also nothing wrong with limiting what you allow in.
As I said many GM's allowed everything, then cried broken. It's not the the systems fault if someone got overwhelmed and let their players run hog wild. Some folks can handle such a game, many can not or simply have no wish to.
|
A friend of mine and I are running a Curse of the Crimson throne adventure path. He ran Edge of Anarchy, I ran Seven Days to the grave, and now my friend is beginning Escape from Old Korvosa. For the players, we are strongly encouraging them to take only Pathfinder stuff from the Rulebook. Our reasoning is this: Lets give the new rules a try. So far no one has asked if they can use some 3.5 stuff.
As for the Curse of the crimson throne adventure path, we are running it largely un converted. Where we can do so easily we convert, (I.e. taking a cleric and swapping out their turn undead for channel energy, or using the Pathfinder Bestiary entry on an Otyough instead of the one in the module or 3.5 MM) but otherwise, especially with the NPCs we stick to their 3.5 stats. There hasn’t been a real problem so far and things are running smoothly.
Oh one thing we have noticed, We are using the medium experience schedule for level advancement, and we have found both due to a large party, averaging 8 in size, it goes up to 14 and down to six, that the PCs have begun falling behind the level suggested in the module. We have tried to rectify this by awarding big fat story xp awards at the end of each chapter.
Our plan is for the next campaign we run, we will allow 3.5 stuff and pathfinder, but for now we want to give the new rules a try.
|
Sticking with the Core book for a litle while, say until everyone one runs 2-4 different PCs and you get at least one PC to high levels for a few sessions, is important. This way the group really gets the feel for the new rules and game balance stuff so that when you convert other classes and PrCs you're better experienced with the new system.
In fact, it's more important in this case more than if it were a completely different game system. Since the 3.5 rules-set is only tweaked, not completely redone (like 2E to 3E) it's vital to understand the differences in minutia... I dunno how to expalin it -- it's like in chess, if you're going to start playing a completely different Opening it's no big deal: study a few simple Lines and then take the plunge and play the new Opening. If, however, you're gonna play a different Line in the Opening you've always played or tweak the move order in your Line or Opening, it's a FAR more delicate transition and you really need to be careful -- do alot more studying.
Now, once your group has all played Pathfinder D&D for a while and everyone's played 2-3 different classes and gone into 15th or 16th level and seen lots of monsters and spell alterations, then OF COURSE begin converting the Complete books, etc. It would be foolish not to. D20 is the best system for D&D ever and despite having a number of balance problems, much of the extra stuff is really fun and useful.
Oh one thing we have noticed, We are using the medium experience schedule for level advancement, and we have found both due to a large party, averaging 8 in size, it goes up to 14 and down to six, that the PCs have begun falling behind the level suggested in the module. We have tried to rectify this by awarding big fat story xp awards at the end of each chapter.
I know when the Beta rules came out they suggested to use the fast track advancement. Maybe this will help, have you tried it?
I still allow all 3.5 books that I own or can get access to. The only change I have made was that I have to approve prestige classes, and some spells from the Spell Compendium since Paizo's design philosophy nerfs spells, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
I have most of my changes posted to my Google Group. My philosophy is everything is subject to my approval, both before and after use. I'll do my best to say yes, and to have a reason when I do say no.
Soft ban here as well.
I will take individual nuggets from specific books when the players ask or when I please, but as the GM, nothing non-core gets in without my approval. Heck, nothing Core gets in without my approval!
Soft ban here as well.
I will take individual nuggets from specific books when the players ask or when I please, but as the GM, nothing non-core gets in without my approval. Heck, nothing Core gets in without my approval!
...or at least doesn't stay in for long ^_^
Eilrip, thanks for the suggestion. I have been trying to nudge the other DM over to the fast track, but he seems to want to stick with the medium advancement. the story awards are my way of trying to rectifying the descrepency when i am DMing.
Well keep in mind that the extreme size of the group and the relative strength of Pathfinder PCs vs 3.5 monsters means that a large group should lag the optimal levels unless you really significantly increase the number of monsters in each encounter.
Basically although some monsters will be harder to hit (their defenses scale up faster) there are enough things that the PCs can do with flanking, aid another actions, buffing, etc so that you continue to hit. Foes with AoA blast attacks and battlefield control spells will be the most challenging.
The only thing that sucks about using Pathfinder only is that there are very few options available to characters. My group has been playing since the game came out and we've seen every class run so far (not 1-20 of course, but at least 4-5 levels). That being said most of the 5.5 splat is either broken or absurdly weak. Once you allow one guy to bring some stuff in everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon. ATM we only run core, but I'm getting antsy waiting on some more material.
Even in 3.5. I had a "soft ban" on certain things. For instance, I did not like the flavor To9S had for my game, so it was not allowed. Same with some of the more broken PrCs (Warshaper, I am looking at you).
In PF, I am probably gonna be more picky at first. I plan on allowing core stuff, and have a list of non core classes and PrCs that I have already done some conversion work on that are allowed. Same with feats. Anything else, the player needs to ask me about, and I'll take a look at it if I happen to have the book.
Class wise, I found some of the classes that are not easily imitated in core PF were good to add, as well as some that just had a nice flavor. The 3.5 Freeport book for instance had Nobles, which were pretty nicely designed, so I am allowing them. And there are a few in Tome of Secrets I am considering. Some others, like Beguiler, I am converting to a sorcerer bloodline, to capture the flavor without needing to add a class that is basically the same as something that already exists.
The 3.5 games I played that had the worst issues, were the ones that tended to allow anything from any book, just cause the book existed. Those quickly got out of hand. The games where a DM kept control of his world vision and only allowed things in that both fit the world and that he had gone over to make sure they were not completely whacked out, tended to work best.
I personally find the wealth of options in 3.5 one of the big reasons I play it rather than something else, and the idea of just cutting all of that away would, well, make me consider playing something else.
That said, just like before, everything outside of core needs to be eyeballed and is subject to replacement down the line.
I'm most open to non-core feats. PrCs are all over the map, so would be judged individually; I don't think I'd feel much differently in PF than 3.5 about many of them. Spells would take some consideration, given subtle changes; again, most would be on the 'you can take this, but I may change or remove it later.'
I believe it's a good idea to be flexible with redefining class abilities and allowing people to change things around, so that removes some of the sting of 'but I LOVE X spell!'
|
Has anybody else found a more practical means of converting *some* of the 3.5 material forward? I'd be interested in any ideas...
My players are min-maxers/rule lawyers. Thus, I borrow a page from Bad Axes Games' Traiblazer supp and multiple the Big Bad's hitpoints times the number of PCs while BB's lieutenants get double max. Keeps combat longer than one round. Oh, and both get templated up the wazoo...! (My own rule hehe....)
|
I'm starting a new game, using the Pathfinder RPG as the base.
My older campaign (ongoing) will stay 3.5, and some days I truly do regret letting Tome of Battle be used by one player...
The new campaign, we're starting using the Freeport Trilogy, and once that's completed, we're continuing from there, and more material will likely be added.
To START the campaign, I gave a small list of sources:
Pathfinder RPG Core book
Pathfinder Beastiary
Pathfinder Playtest classes (I've got one person trying Alchemist)
d20 Freeport Companion (Green Ronin)
The Quintessential Chaos Mage (Mongoose)
Book of the Righteous (w/ updates from Me) (Green Ronin)
D&D Astrology from Dragon Magazine 340
Book of Erotic Fantasy
My players are min-maxers/rule lawyers. Thus, I borrow a page from Bad Axes Games' Traiblazer supp and multiple the Big Bad's hitpoints times the number of PCs while BB's lieutenants get double max. Keeps combat longer than one round. Oh, and both get templated up the wazoo...! (My own rule hehe....)
Just a quick warning there-- monsters that have a lot of "asymmetric" abilities won't need as much. A creature with an area-of-effect attack or save-or-die effect (or even worse, area-of-effect save-or-die effects...) already has some extra oomph. You might count these abilities as "One PC" in and of themselves.
So rather than multiply by x4 (for a party of four), try x3 or x2.
Soft ban with my group too. Right now i have only had to ban the Frenzied Berserker class and the Leap Attack feat in fear it might make our barbarian to overpowered.
|
|
Just a quick warning there-- monsters that have a lot of "asymmetric" abilities won't need as much. A creature with an area-of-effect attack or save-or-die effect (or even worse, area-of-effect save-or-die effects...) already has some extra oomph. You might count these abilities as "One PC" in and of themselves.
So rather than multiply by x4 (for a party of four), try x3 or x2.
Understood. I'd probably drop the APs as TB suggested by said amount (minimum 1 AP).
It's really not that much of a problem, near anything can be converted , most of it rather easy, but as a DM you just can not convert entire books to make them player suitable all at once.
players will just have to tone down on using as many splatbooks as they can to create their character, I am willing to look into converting one or two feats and maybe a PRC, I'll put some spells on the to use list as we go.
At the moment I am struggling with converting :
- a dwarven battle sorcerer that uses polymorph spells to change into the 'mountain king' (hillgiant). (lvl 12, class option from unearthed arcana)
- a dwarven druid 8 / stone guardian 4 that uses stone form to get an ungodly AC
- an elven conjurer 8 / malconvoker 4, uses conjurer options from unearthed arcana I think to summon as a standard action.
- a halfling rogue 6 wizard 1 unseen seer 5, mostly the unseen seer is a bit weird, might just ask him to make it an arcane trickster instead.
I hope the APG will give some options to keep some changes strictly in pathfinder.
|
|
We're currently playing a Pathfinder game set in Forgotten Realms with pretty much everything 3.5 allowed. There hasn't been really anything we've needed to convert.I'm dying to know what 3.5 stuff you think can make 12th level PC's so powerful, though.
It might just be my game. I have a very low-combat, intrigue-and-spying game starring a 12th level Elf Rogue/Assassin/Swordsage. She has the maneuver Shadow Jaunt, and the stances Step of the Dancing Moth and Dance of the Spider, and possesses a Ring of Invisibility. Along with a Druid casting Remove Scent, she is invisible to three senses (and who detects Assassins by taste?), can avoid ground-based hazards such as water, lava, pressure plates, etc, and can scale a smooth wall without a climb check, making her almost impossible to detect without high-powered magic or an elaborate mundane trap/ambush. The only saving grace is that the game takes place in Eberron, so it is believable for even mid-ranking merchants and nobles to hire people to lay down overlapping Alarm spells so she at least has to deal with the challenge of inventing creative ways to discover the alarm passwords.
|
|
The only WotC book that I allow in entirety is PHB2. The rest is on "player picks, DM approves basis".
One solution I've considered is allowing each PC one book, not counting PFRPG, APG when it arrives, and any setting books. I and my group are hooked on some of the 2nd ed and 3.5 settings (Planescape, the FR, and Eberron, to be specific) So a player could build a Dragonmarked Warblade with Vital Strike, or a Warforged Rogue/Scout, or a Wizard with spells from the spell compendium, but once a PC took a feat, class, or spell from a specific book, they were locked in without special story considerations (learning to be a warblade after proving themself to a grandmaster in a harrowing contest or finding an ancient spellbook with a couple of scrolls from the spell compendium). My in-setting assumption being that core and setting books are the whole of common adventurer knowledge and anything outside of the core books exists, but is incredibly exotic or esoteric.
Just like when I DM'ed 3.5, on Pathfinder I allow things on a case-to-case basis, which basically means players need to tell me in advance what they want so I can check it out. So far, I've allowed everything they've asked, since I have noticed no issues.
On the other hand, I usually design my modules/campaigns with a specific group of books in mind, so I present the options to the players before they start asking for new things. For instance, our current Pathfinder campaign includes stuff from the Book of Vile Darkness and the Complete Book of Eldritch Might, and it all seems to be working properly.
One of the main reasons I bought into Pathfinder was because I would be able to use the rather large collection of books I got from 3-3.5. I'm certainly not going to do a preemptive ban on any of them. Checking every piece of new content before I allow it is something I've been doing since AD&D.
The only WotC book that I allow in entirety is PHB2. The rest is on "player picks, DM approves basis".One solution I've considered is allowing each PC one book, not counting PFRPG, APG when it arrives, and any setting books. I and my group are hooked on some of the 2nd ed and 3.5 settings (Planescape, the FR, and Eberron, to be specific) So a player could build a Dragonmarked Warblade with Vital Strike, or a Warforged Rogue/Scout, or a Wizard with spells from the spell compendium, but once a PC took a feat, class, or spell from a specific book, they were locked in without special story considerations (learning to be a warblade after proving themself to a grandmaster in a harrowing contest or finding an ancient spellbook with a couple of scrolls from the spell compendium). My in-setting assumption being that core and setting books are the whole of common adventurer knowledge and anything outside of the core books exists, but is incredibly exotic or esoteric.
I actually really like this way of doing it. I might try to convince my group of this, who are resistant to using anything non-core. Myself, I don't want to allow everything from 3.5 in, but I have a very good selection of material from 3.5 that I hate not using.
I've said this before in similar threads, but it's worth saying (IMO, of course) again:
We run Gestalt games with pretty much every WotC splatbook available. We're currently about to start module 5 of Curse of the Crimson Throne and there have been no "OMG the players just ruined the campaign" or even "OMG the players just sleep-walked through that supposedly insanely hard encounter!" moments. The only adjustment we regularly make is that all enemies get maximum hit points per hit die, and the occasional important enemy NPC gets gestalted and/or re-built with full splat access. There havn't been any TPKs yet this AP (we did TPK once and had every character die at least 3-4 times through the length of Rise of the Runelords, which was with 3.5 rules but still gestalt with full splat access), but there have been a few character deaths.
And it's not like our group is entirely made up of anti-optimizers. We've got one player that doesn't do spellcasters very well who's forcing himself to play a spellcaster so that he can get better at them, but everyone optimizes to one degree or another. Heck, I'm a heavy optimizer myself (when I'm not DMing; we rotate DMs), and my character is one of the ones that died this AP! And not even against a modified opponent, aside from the max hit points.
So, my conclusion is that there's no harm in allowing 3.5 splats as long as your players aren't going to abuse it.
EDIT: For the record, the characters that have been used in the current campaign are:
Human Bard/Lyric Thaumaturge/Harrower // Battle Dancer (retired)
Kobold Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple // Dragon Shaman
Human Alchemist (AEG's Swashbuckling Adventures version, not APG) // Fighter? (retired)
Varana Ranger // Scout (retired/player stopped playing)
Halfling Warlock/Abjurant Champion // Spellthief (deceased)
Human Fighter/Shaman/Wild Plains Outrider/Anointed Knight // Cavalier (APG)
Human Rogue // Barbarian (forcibly retired due to symbol of insanity)
Human Oracle // Sorcerer (deceased)
Human Monk // Summoner (retired)
Human Paladin // Monk/Thief-Acrobat (retired while I DM)
Dwarf Fighter // Cleric
I think that's everything that's been played.
|
|
One of the main reasons I bought into Pathfinder was because I would be able to use the rather large collection of books I got from 3-3.5. I'm certainly not going to do a preemptive ban on any of them. Checking every piece of new content before I allow it is something I've been doing since AD&D.
+1.
o.O Wow Zurai, your campaign sounds like crazyfun.
They are! We like gestalt a lot because it allows us to make pretty much any character concept we can come up with mechanically viable. We wouldn't play it if we felt we weren't being challenged by the campaigns, but that hasn't happened yet. Curse of the Crimson Throne has been less lethal so far than Rise of the Runelords, but that's partially because the enemies are just plain not as buff and partially because they havn't gotten to module 5 yet (cue evil-DM-rubbing-hands-together-and-cackling). There's a few surprises there that should rack up some kills.
I adore gestalt.
One way I put it was: 'it's like you can multiclass without someone stepping on your air hose.'
Want to be a martial wizard? DONE.
It's also not as powerful as people imagine. I like the max hit points thing... one problem we ran into was that since threats were about 1-2 CR higher, lots of (3.5) dud or BOOM spells just failed a lot. We had breadth, but the monsters were balanced by having extra power, and this wasn't always fun.
Long before Pathfinder ever came out, I ran 3.5 with a very cautious use of splats. The well-written splats that suited my campaigns were great, but I was always very careful about allowing any supplemental material, making sure it would not upset the balance of my game or the party I was running at the time.
I also did not, nor do not, have time to read every splat ever (or rather, wanted to use the free time I had for adventure design), nor wanted to expect my players to own 100 books just to be able to play in my game. Usually if a player asks if they can have an ability/class/what-have-you I'll allow it, and if not I'll try to make a compromise so the player does not feel like they are being deprived.
I do the same with Pathfinder, but it's just that my policy has never changed. There's an added step in being sure certain things are converted over properly, make sure that say, for monsters, skill points are reallocated properly (a LOT of 3.5 monsters have skill points in hide, move silently, listen, spot, etc.) and that something that should be good at combat maneuvers as an adequate bonus/defense but that doesn't take much more time than I already made sure that the supplementary material worked for my game to begin with.
The only thing I'd advise to a new Pathfinder player is to run a couple core-only PFRPG sessions FIRST--just to get a feel for how things have changed, make sure they notice some of the "little" differences that can end up being big if not accounted for.
Then work in whatever you see fit, as always.
I dunno. I've been running a game in which all official WoTC material (including Dungeon/Dragon) was fair game.
Of course, that means I get to use it too, and there's a lot of cool stuff for DMs in the splat books.
I'm actually going the opposite route - I'm gradually pulling Pathfinder stuff into my 3.5 game as I make it work - some of the "minor tweaks" make it hell to pull stuff into a 3.5 game.
I do like a lot of stuff they've done, though, and I'll probably be pulling in Pathfinder versions of spells in the near future, especially for badly broken spells like Otto's irresistable dance, for example, where they added a save.
My long-term goal is to make my campaign as compatible with future PFRPG stuff as possible, so I don't have to do conversion, but 5 years of work on a campaign is a lot to just throw out with the bathwater.
Edit: I SO wish they'd fixed a few of the horribly vague spells that cause no end of problems. Freedom of movement in my mind being one of the worst offenders in the "vaguely worded spell" category. That will probably result in one of my rare house rulings soon (the only other one I can think of was "yeah ... death from massive damage ... I don't think so.")
I try to stick with core + homebrew stuff as much as possible. That way I've got a limited ruleset that I can master without having to worry about how this feat works with that PrC works with that spell.
In general I though the PrC explosion in 3.x was a bad design choice. Instead of making the core classes viable at all levels of the game you had a situation where outside of the tier classes (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) it was almost always better to go PrC. Further many PrCs were definitely overpowered especially some of the spellcasting PrCs.
I understand the need to have some PrCs to make certain concepts viable (Eldritch Knight makes Gish Viable) but I'm not sure that a Fighter 1/Wizard 6/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Eldritch Knight 7 is a great precedent to set.
So much of the work on Pathfinder was aimed at nerfing the spells so I'm loath to include additional spells that I'd just need to convert. For instance with core only spells there is actually some cost to dropping evocation (yes evocation sucks but having a few blasts is nice) with the orb spells in place droping evocation is pretty much a given as orb spells are better in almost every way. Removing the SoDs and toning down the SoS is also a pain.
I'm not really that concerned with feats, if anything I'd say that many 3.x feats would need to get a slight increase in power.
|
|
Depends on the game. I run a CoT game which uses a soft ban. If somebody wants 3.5 material, they bring it to me (in the published dead tree form, which is a requirement that acts as a filter on its own) and I hold on to it for a week, make any changes I think would be necessary, and present them with the version that I will allow at the next session.
My Eberron game is PF core plus most material from the 3.5 Eberron books (I own all of them) BUT with the reservation that I can deny basically anything from the Eberron books. Other 3.5 material is brought in as I see necessary.
If a player feels like they can't fit a concept into the mechanics, I'll do some research and give them at least two options, take it or leave it. This helps curb munchkin tendencies some of my players exhibit.
I'd lean more towards running PF core only than allowing all 3.x material, if only because I like to know the PCs and thus be able to challenge them approrpriately. If I didn't have time to keep up on what my players are doing with their characters I probably would relinquish the DM reins to somebody else.
There's no "one size fits all" answer to your question. 3.x material ran the gamut in terms of balance and usability. As it is, Pathfinder is complete enough to simply run as is. Additional material from outside Pathfinder should be considered on a case by case basis.
Be very careful of "gish" builds they should NOT obsolete single path warriors and mages.
Honestly I really wanted Paizo to make a Pathfinder version of the Duskblade (yes duskblade is closed content but the class role- full BAB/ moderate spellcasting isn't).
A level 20 class that gets full BAB progression, two good saves and 5th level spells at 20th makes for a pretty decent class. I don't like the precedent of a spellcasting category between paladin/ranger and bard/summoner/inquisitor (personally I'd give them access to a limited selection of 6th level spells) but in comparison to some of the Gish PrC build the Duskblade base class offers less long-term payoffs.