I'm seriously considering using the luck feats. But that's really about it.
Short answer? No.
Long answer? No, but with the possibility of a yes, if you can come up with a very good reason why Pathfinder doesn't address that specific concern in any way shape or form, either by having a similar something somewhere else, or specifically leaving it out for balance purposes.
I don't allow 3.x material in my PF games. A lot of the 3.x supplement material was poorly designed and even more poorly balanced, even for use without PF. And the flood of badly designed material quickly became far too easy to break. That said, if a player really wants a feat or prestige class option from an older book, I try to find a way to make it work rather than just saying no, but I'd rather redesign a balanced option for my game than just let something fly. I've hung on to my favorite handful of 3.x books, because I still play 3.5 far more regularly than I play PF, but use them mostly for flavor, often remaking options within them even for 3.5 games.
Um, my whole campaign is 3.5, run in Pathfinder.
Conversion is basically a non-issue. The few times I had to overhaul something to make it fit, it usually ended up better.
|
We ran Rise of the Rune Lords while allowing some 3.5 stuff and then pure, uncut Pathfinder for Kingmake and now Serpent's Skull. Honestly I haven't felt the need to even ask my DM to allow 3.5 material. I've found that if the Pathfinder books (which we use all of) don't cover it then I need to bug my DM about working on a homegrown sollution.
Honestly, I actually prefer it this way too. I now have many fewer books to dig through when building a character and don't feel the pressure to multiclass rediculously to get the character I want.
Now if I can just convince my DM to allow some form of sneak attack progression for the Master Chymist to complement the new Alchemist archtype :-)
|
Yes.
But it's funny, I've learned over the last couple years what my favorite things were from all those extra books.
Scout gets used.
Warlock gets used.
.... That's pretty much it.
.
Surprisingly, I don't use my BELOVED Spell Compendium that I used to feel was more necessary than my PHB. Same with my MIC.
As far as other stuff, I'll only bring it out on the (very) rare occassion when a Player is specifically looking for something.
A couple days ago a Player was describing the kind of character he wanted to run and I thought it sounded like a Verrick or a Mojhe. And he'll be playing a Verrick Monk of the Sacred Mountain in my upcoming Campaign.
A couple years ago someone wanted to play something that sounded like a PrC from the Complete Divine (or was it Complete Champion?) And he did.
But that's what, twice in 3&1/2 years?
But I'm glad I've got them for if I do need them.
I use 3.5 monsters. That's about it.
Yes. We use the monster manuals and the spell compendium. As for the other books, we only pull them down to compare any changes between the two systems.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I don't use 3.5 at all anymore. I'm just about to trade in my PHB 2 3.5 because I now have the magus to replace the duskblade.
Half of my six players were brand new to RPGs last year and two of them started with PF. Trying to add in 3.5 wouldn't make sense--it is out of print and out of mind for everybody else in my game group.
Pathfinder has been very helpful in finding new players I'll say. The new box coming should add quite a few more to the ranks. I wouldn't want to create a barrier to new players coming to my table by trying to retrofit a defunct system.
And as I think about it, I really didn't use much 3.5 stuff beyond the core except for monster manuals. I use more Pathfinder books than I ever used 3.5 race/class/magic/terrain/monster specific/crazy new approach to magic books.
|
|
Regarding monster books -- for me it doesn't count cuz I've always used all my monster books for pictures -- and I've never used my monster books for stats.
But the illustration of Kobolds in the 1977 Monster Manual -- That's what Kobolds look like (not the new crappy pic!) so when they appear in my game that's the book I use to show my Players. ...Cover of the 1980 Fiend Folio and all the Githyanki illustrations over the years -- still use 'em. 2E Monstrous Compendium and it's Annuals -- use as often as I use the 3E books. And more often than my shiny new Bestiary and Bestiary 2 (well, not that new anymore).
I'm willing to consider it, if PF doesn't have something for the idea already. For example, the APG negated most of my need for the Complete books.
I'm more likely to use Arcana Evolved stuff than 3.5 stuff, really.
Insofar as I use PF material in 3.5, yes.
What do you mean by that?
Short answer? No.
Long answer? No, but with the possibility of a yes, if you can come up with a very good reason why Pathfinder doesn't address that specific concern in any way shape or form, either by having a similar something somewhere else, or specifically leaving it out for balance purposes.
A third reason for Pathfinder to leave out certain feats could be because they are not OGC. For example, I don't think it would be possible for Pathfinder to have anything like the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats from Book of Nine Swords.
I'll basically agree with W E Ray's response -- yes, the PFRPG games I play in sometimes use 3.5 material, but less and less as time goes by (and more PFRPG material comes out).
What do you mean by that?I run a 3.5 game with elements of PF in it. So basically the complete opposite of the OPs question.
Ok...why? I'm interested to see why people stick around in 3.5.
Current DM's campaign is using Tome of Battle and Stormwrack. Our group is doing a lot of ship travel, so a source of material for managing ship maneuvers and combat was a necessity.
Tome of Battle, just because, I think.
My new campaign when I get around to finishing it is primarily Pathfinder based, but I have pulled in a few things from other 3.5 sources that help me flesh out the world I have envisioned in my head.
Thus far, I have used, Monte Cook's BoXM I & II, Earthblood, Green Ronin's Advanced GM's guide and Spiros Blaak, a couple of small things from Oone Games Heroes and Magic and one or two ideas from Bad Axe Games Trailblazer. There is other 3PP Pathfinder material as well.
I am having to specifically line item veto certain items from the core rule books for Pathfinder as well. Words of Power, Black Powder rules, and some of the familiar rules as I have changed the core mechanic on familiars.
My attitude towards 3.5 is the same as my attitude in general for anything non-core to be introduced to the game, and that includes custom classes, races, spells, items, whatever.
As long as it is balanced and thematically appropriate, I will almost certainly allow it. If it is not balanced or thematically unsupportable (like laser pistols) I will probably not allow it.
Some specific 3.5 thoughts:
1. Spell Compendium - There are a lot of good spells in the spell compendium that I would be fine with introducing to Pathfinder, but there are also a lot of unbalanced spells (Bite of the Wererat anyone?) that I would disallow. Case by case basis.
2. "Complete XXXX" splat books. I like some of the concepts in these and dislike others. Those I think are balanced I would be fine with. Scout, probably OK. Spellthief, I love the concept and feel it is, if anything, underpowered, so probably OK. That crazy ninja-assassin class which I can't recall the name? Probably not.
3. My general bias is against the third party splat books since I think those typically provide too many opportunities for crazy unpredictable synergies which end up with crazy overpowered munchkin builds. But I won't make a blanket "no" statement.
4. I tend to make up my own monsters so I didn't use the monster manual much anyway. But in general I would be more likely to disallow a 3.5 animal than a 3.5 monster, just because of wild shape, animal companions and summon nature's ally spells which were crazy exploited in 3.5. No proto-human apes with opposable thumbs wearing humanoid armor and weilding vorpal swords in my campaigns. Of course I didn't allow those in 3.5 either...
|
|
Ok...why? I'm interested to see why people stick around in 3.5.
In the interest of not derailing the thread, you can read my responses here on an earlier thread.
But the basic gist is that it did not change the rules in a way I liked enough to warrant relearning the game again.
Yes, I allow stuff from 3.5 on a case by case basis. Highlights in my current game a couple items from the magic item compendium, a few classes for npcs (the 3.5 scout and beguiler are still 2 of my all time favorite classes), and one of my player is using some spells from the Spell Compendium.
For me at this point I put 3.5 material in the same objective category as 3PP stuff. I take a look and approver or disallow it based on requests from players or based on things I want for my monsters/npcs.
Ok...why? I'm interested to see why people stick around in 3.5.
I still stick with 3.5 for several reasons. Mainly because Pathfinder is basically 3.5, but with some minor changes (and a lot of those changes I see as totally unnecessary). Why spend money on new books when I already have basically the same thing on my shelves now?
I do use some of Pathfinders rules changes though. Like the skill system, and some of the spell changes.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Just curious, if you DM 3.5 what do you do with new to RPGs players? Do they have to go hunt down a PHB 3.5 to play in your games?
I just couldn't imagine telling my three new players to go find a PHB 3.5 somewhere so they could play. But maybe that happens more often than I realize (with maybe multiple editions even--ie AD&D 1E DMs maybe also require new players to look up a PHB 1E)?
Looks like a PHB 3.5 runs from around $20 used to around $80 new (I'll disregard the $330 one). So not impossible to find or too expensive if you're willing to buy a used book.
It just seems impractical to try to get new players to shop online for out of print books. Again, I'm honestly curious how it works.
Just curious, if you DM 3.5 what do you do with new to RPGs players? Do they have to go hunt down a PHB 3.5 to play in your games?
I have multiple copies of the core books and the SRD is available free online. (I limit everything to the 3 core rulebooks anyway. No splat books. Yeah I have them, I just won't use them.)
Creative Director
|
I do! I convert it to Pathfinder before it goes into print, but I still put things from 3.5 sourcebooks like Advanced Bestiary, Book of Fiends, and the Tome of Horrors into Pathfinder books. (In fact, one of the many reasons we wanted the game to stay compatible with 3.5 was because I wanted to keep using 3.5 3rd party books like those in Adventure Paths and the like.)
1. Spell Compendium - There are a lot of good spells in the spell compendium that I would be fine with introducing to Pathfinder, but there are also a lot of unbalanced spells (Bite of the Wererat anyone?) that I would disallow. Case by case basis.
There's a lot of spells in this book that are hiding problems. Major problems are spells like mass resist energy and mass conviction.
This book and the Magic Item Compendium (curiously two books I own) are banned.
There's fairly few things in other places that are outright broken. Most options are underpowered. . . .
Yes. Yes I do.
However, 3.X material is not automatically granted to my platers: they need to ask me if I agree or not. I convert some material, some stuff remains intact and aomw content doesn't make the jump.
Yes I do. I don't believe in wholesale banning considering that there is not much difference. Having a WoTC logo is not a good enough reason to say no IMHO. I let each each ability stand on its own.
Yes I do. I don't believe in wholesale banning considering that there is not much difference. Having a WoTC logo is not a good enough reason to say no IMHO. I let each each ability stand on its own.
+1. Not to mention that some very good, well balanced and awesome content will never be in Pathfinder because of copyright issues.
Thought I would but really haven't other than a few 3.5 Paizo products.
I use 95% PF only, but I'm planning a Spelljammer-style campaign for later levels, so the neogi, their umber hulk armies, and the illithids I love so much will be found out in the Dark Tapestry, plotting evil schemes that our heroes will have to stop!
Some of them are already "Pathfinderized," so I just print the stats and don't carry the books around. I also prefer some of the 2e and 3e illustrations for some monsters.
Classes only. No feats/spells. Nothing from Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, or Magic of Incarnum. I tried dealing with those in 3.5 and didn't like them. I do allow anything out of the Expanded Psionics Handbook, however; mainly because my sister who had just started playing went out and spent her own money on the book. And Psionics Unleashed had not been released yet. If someone presents a good case for it, I'd probably allow most anything (other than the books mentioned), but usually what my players are looking for can be found in Pathfinder. Actually, it usually is closer to what they wanted in the first place.
First edition, second, third, WoW d20, Delta Green, Etherscope, Legend of the Five Rings - they all find a home in my Pathfinder game in some form or another.
Hey Lilith, can I have some cookies?!
You may. ^_^
i wonder how you incorporate L5R into your games?
Well, the setting is pretty damn awesome, to start. :)