Our group allows anything 3.5/3.0 so long as it's presented to the DM first and you inform him of how you intend to use it. Anything duplicated by pathfinder trumps previous editions, however.
At my table its Pathfinder books only. Though its technically backwards compatible I'm not a big fan of mixing and matching.
Also, I like it when people play with only the content THEY own in physical book form. Sharing my books are like sharing my dice, I don't like it. Why should I be the one spending all my hard earned dollars so you an use my books for an entire session because you picked a class from a book you don't own.
I think there's a single 3.5 feat allowed in my games so far. The general rule is: You can have it if it's in the books and not explicitly disallowed, or is in the house rules. Practiced Spellcaster was added to the house rules document. Players are allowed to request things for the next version of the house rules. So far they haven't.
I'm PF-only, although I do allow wizards/sorcs/casters to research new spells previously contained in 3.x, but they do so with full knowledge that I am likely to alter the level, range, dynamics, power, etc. I try my best to tell them what changes I will make before its' finished (IE, if it's in a book I own). Otherwise they can bring me the book after the rolls, but I may very well change it after I've read the official version. It's not an option many people take, but it's one I leave open for anyone.
Otherwise, no. And since I don't allow computers/tech at the table, pdf's are out also. Pulling from the SRD is fine, so long as its a class only (because classes don't need to be referenced constantly). But soon the class problem will be gone, as my UM is on its way finally. =)
We currently have 2 campaigns with 2 different GM's. In one, we play Pathfinder core, though APG stuff is allowed if cleared through the GM first. Some homebrew is thrown in at the GM's whim.
In the other campaign, any Pathfinder published material is OK.
Neither campaign uses anything from 3.0 or 3.5. Even when we played 3.5, 3.0 stuff was generally not allowed.
|
Use to be a hybrid of all. But as more and more PFRPG has come out and either replaced or made better options we use less and less. Right now it is PFRPG, most 3pp PFRPG, and a few select 3.x stuff or OGL D20 stuff we updated ourselves. I would say less than 10% of the stuff we use now is before PFRPG. Between Paizo and 3pp a lot of the old ground has been covered pretty well.
@LazarX
Dido for the most part. I play in multiple groups and it varies. One is PF only and another is PF only and 3.5 on approval (go go Master of Shrouds!) When I'm DM'ing, I lean towards PF material with 3.5 books Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium. If your looking for any material in 3.5 that PF doesn't cover, we'll explore the option and bring it up to snuff for PF rules. My new game I'm about to run is an Epic level game, so I'm referencing the Epic Handbook 3.0 a lot and converting material to PF. It';s going to be a ride!
Of the three games I play in, one is Pathfinder only, one is more or less a monthly game where everything goes and we purposely use broken feats/class and the third is a second edition game, so no such luck in that one
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
In my current Carrion Crown campaign, the only non-Pathfinder feat that exists is Practiced Spellcaster, taken by the magus/oracle. I didn't even know Practiced Spellcaster wasn't in Pathfinder until after we'd already discussed his character taking it, and it's far from being one of those weird poorly-thought-out feats.
|
|
For the players, it's PFRPG-only (and with a rather long list of vetoed stuff, from the APG onwards).
There's even some stuff that has been retconned to previous versions of the rules.
For the GM (me), it's a tresure-trove of monsters, subsets of rules, exotic spells, monstruous feats and even more stuff that I can drop without much hassle into my games.
My group is about 95% pathfinder, with just a dash of 3.0/.5. There are some things that are too good to let go. Things that typically show up in our games are:
- Obtain Familiar
- Stronghold Builders Guide
- Power of Faerun
- Weapons of Legacy
- Arms and Equipment Guide (for the rare item that doesn't have a price in pathfinder)
- And increasingly smaller parts of PHB2 & DMG2
Mostly, its the mechanics that pathfinder hasn't yet explored that gets us to go back. Most character concepts are possible now with just straight pathfinder, so we don't typically need to go back for the feats/classes/spells (obtain familiar excluded, our party seems to love cute, tiny animals).
For myself, it varies from game to game and over time. At the moment, I the base of the game is core 3.5E, but heavily modified by a large amount of my own rules. On top of that, I allow non-core 3.5E options, but they have to get my approval (which is almost invariably given - there are things I would not permit [e.g. Tome of Battle], but players have not asked for them yet). Furthermore, I have my own options, including my own races and classes, that players can chose from too. Pathfinder materials are also allowed, though subject to my approval.
I'm pretty open to everything 3.5 for Pathfinder (classes, items, hazards); for classes I'm trying to find Pathfinder conversions, like for the Binder in Tome of Magic. However, I'm restricting players to Pathfinder races only... simply because the Level Adjustment just screws players around the table.
3rd, 3.5, Pathfinder, we've even had an NPC hired to cast an AD&D 2nd Edition spell to buff a PC.
Also, I like it when people play with only the content THEY own in physical book form. Sharing my books are like sharing my dice, I don't like it. Why should I be the one spending all my hard earned dollars so you an use my books for an entire session because you picked a class from a book you don't own.
You could always refer your players to the PRD if you don't like them flipping through your books.
|
|
Oh yeah, I use 3.5 stuff when I DM. I allow anything, really. My problem isn't that 3.5 stuff is too powerful, it is that it isn't powerful enough (usually). This is also due to my wife, because, when she heard one of my players mention that in his games, he was banning 3.5 material, she looked at the two bookcases filled with every 3.0/3.5 book ever published, looked at me, and said:
"We are not wasting all that money, just for you to turn around and do it again! You will allow every book on these shelves, or so help me, we are never purchasing another gaming book ever again!"
She manages our finances, so I said okay.
Of course, it might also have been so that she could continue to use material from the book of exalted deeds. Nah...
|
How backward compatable am I?...
I'm still a nut for the 3.5 Warlock and Scout. Always consider those two Classes as Player or DM.
LOVE the Hellbred Race from FCII. Always consider it.
Still kinda like a few PrCs from CAr and CAd, may look at others from the other Complete books, most notably the CS, CD, CW, CC and Incarnum.
Surprisingly, I don't really use the book that was MOST used during 3E, the SC.
Typically encourage Players to look at the Arcana Evolved. It should be encouraged in ALL gamers' games.
Oh, yeah, and Gestalt . . . . But Gestalt is equally PRG as it is 3E.
I was just wondering. Do you allow it all or are you using it all, are you Pathfinder core only, do you use supplement stuff? How does allowing 3.0/3.5 equipment impact Pathfinder? Same with feats, spells, prestige classes and the like. I'm interested to hear it.
When I have a lot of freetime to upgrade the bad guys, if needed, I am very open. Right now my time is limited so only the APG and the core book are wide open. Everything else is a on a case by case basis.
|
I am pretty much zero backwards compatibility, firstly because the only reason I play Pathfinder is for Pathfinder Society, and the rules don't allow any old WotC 3.5 material. There are some PF 3.5 stuff but I havne't actually used any yet.
But besides PFS, I really do not like having to fudge stuff between editions, when I played Star Wars d20 RCR I typically avoided OCR rules stuff, and when I played D&D3.5 I wouldn't buy anything that was 3.0 except MM2 (which I only got because otherwise owning MM, MM3,4 & 5 without 2 would look weird) and FR Campaign Setting (as there was not a 3.5 version, just an update in another book).
The only time I actually requested to use 3.5 material in a PF game was when the group in which we had been playing some PFS scenarios suggested just playing an non-PFS game, perhaps in AP, and I said I was only interested if I could get the chance to use some 3.5 material I still had sitting on my shelves unused, I suggested Tome of Battle (Book of 9 Swords) but the GM said he wasn't comfortable with that so I declined the game as I had no interest in playing in a Pathfinder RPG game set in the Pathfinder setting that was not PFS.
My tendency as a DM is to rely on PF material, but to utilize the 3.5 books ideas and classes as material that I can use to spice up the world as a whole. As for player's accessing it, I would be willing to allow it upon request or after I have explicitly introduced it into the game myself if and when I thought it fit.
It varies in our games.
With regard to myself as DM, I would like to see character classes taken from PF, and only use 3.5 classes if their equivalent do not exist in PF (e.g., binder). Prestige classes from 3.5 are becoming less common, but sometimes one hits just the right spot concept-wise (particularly in the case of setting-specific prestige classes) and so they get converted to PF. PF feats trump the 3.5 versions, ditto for spells. I try to be critical but fair when it comes to 'porting 3.5 spells and feats to PF.
If certain rules mechanics do not exist in PF, then I go looking in 3.5. I've kept the 3.5 DR system as I actually prefer the "golfbag" to the "one weapon to hit them all".
Monsters are PF unless they have not yet been officially converted (or will never be, like carrion crawlers, beholders, and mindflayers). Various setting-related materials continue to be used (Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Planescape, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, etc.), even some of the 1e and 2e stuff. Like others have said before, I refuse to throw out all those books just because of a change of edition.
As for within PF itself, the Core Rulebook and APG are allowed (with the occasional houserule), and UM and UC will most likely be trickling in (minus firearms). Golarion-specific rules content might be converted to more generic versions.
Modules/adventure paths ... I still have many unused ones from 3.5 (and earlier). They will be used/converted as necessary.
One campaign that I'm running is still mainly 3.5, but I'm slipping in as much PF content as I can manage (with a view to updating more as time goes on).
Another game is mostly PF, with one character from a 3.5 race. That's a goliath; I've done a slight conversion but I'm waiting for the Advanced Races Guide before making a complete PF update.
The third campaign is an unholy mish-mash between PF and 3.5. There's a PF monk/PF paladin/3.5 swordsage with at least one feat from C.Champion who represents the worst mix. The others are far more sedate.
As for games not run by myself, one is officialy PF but run by a "rules light" DM, one is still stuck in mostly 3.0 territory, and one is 4e.
We've largely discontinued the use of 3.5 material in our Pathfinder games due to the unbalancing nature of much of it. About the only thing I do allow from those books are a handful of base classes which I find fill certain roles better than existing base classes and archetypes - in particular, the Swashbuckler and the Knight. The Swashbuckler archetype for the rogue class is just not as evocative as the base class presented in the 3.5 Complete books, and the PHB2 Knight feels much more player-friendly than the Cavalier, which creates some pretty serious flavor issues in my game with the Order mechanic.
Generally, though, we don't use much 3.5 stuff any more, simply because the GMs are tired of having to cross reference things in multiple books and dealing with the Cold War-like conflict that comes of too much splat. We used to allow stuff from the 3.5 Spell Compendium with little to no restriction until we realized this choice was causing casters to severely overshadow both the players and the antagonists to fun-breaking degrees. I've also been hesitant to adopt anything from UC and UM for similar reasons.
My World is one in which I've been writing stories since 1967, so its well set in my mind. I have had to craft Races to fill in slots that exist in my world (thx to all who've done work in this field) and raid every book I can to get Feats I need to emulate features of certain groups in the world. I've tapped the SAGA system, 3.0/3.5 and their 3rd party supporters, numerous PF 3rd party producers and this messageboard, all to flesh out my world. Even with all this overload, I have players pop up tasty bits that make their ways into the mix.
We are a PF only group. We play two campaigns, one is Serpent Scull the other is a Homebrew. With the exception of a few monsters that do not appear in PF for IP reasons (i.e. displacer beast), we are PF exclusive. We are a full go for all APG, UM, and UC. I just find that adding in 3E and 3.5 can become much too complicated and the later 3.5 splat books can become very unbalancing IMPO.
In my last campaign, because we converted from 3.5 to Pathfinder halfway through, I allowed conversion of prestige classes and feats being used from the Ultimate books.
It would be my preference in future to avoid 3.5 sourcebooks wherever possible, unless a specific class or feat really reflected a concept in the way Pathfinder could not. Mostly because Pathfinder's since effectively covered many conceptual bases better than 3.5 materials, in my personal opinion.
|
|
When I'm the Game Master I'm sort of like a bouncer at a club: Paizo, Green Ronin, Super Genius Games "Yup, you're name's on the list, step inside." Mongoose "You're name's on the list to watch out for. Get outta' here before I rough ya' up and throw ya' to the curb!" WotC and Other third party publishers can get in if they follow my rules and don't make a mess of the place.
None of the games I'm currently running or playing in use any 3.X material, excepting adventures/APs (which are then converted as much as possible.)
My houserules incorporate (or can be stretched to accommodate) almost everything I've ever read from 3.0, 3.5, and PF. Because Silverhair apparently owned every game supplement known to man, a LOT of stuff went into the blender to make the Pathfinder Puree I now play.
My group plays with one of two rules sets, depending who's GMing. A) Pathfinder Core only, B) Any Pathfinder material published by Paizo.
We never allow 3.5 material, and I've never missed it.
|
|
I was just wondering. Do you allow it all or are you using it all, are you Pathfinder core only, do you use supplement stuff? How does allowing 3.0/3.5 equipment impact Pathfinder? Same with feats, spells, prestige classes and the like. I'm interested to hear it.
We're playing Pathfinder *because* of all the 3.5 stuff my DM owns, so it only makes sense to use it.
And there's too much good stuff in 3.5 not to use! Player's Handbook II is virtually required for playing a pure Fighter, for example. And Complete Scoundrel's skill tricks are all kinds of fun.
The only 3.0 book we allow is Book of Exalted Deeds (which I'm still so underwhelmed by that I don't understand why people think it's cheesy).
I love Pathfinder, but I don't see any point in playing core-only unless I was gonna do organized play.
My gaming group is primarily Pathfinder with Super Genius Games getting an auto approve most Pathfinder Compatible 3pp with GM approval.
It varies in our games.
With regard to myself as DM, I would like to see character classes taken from PF, and only use 3.5 classes if their equivalent do not exist in PF (e.g., binder). Prestige classes from 3.5 are becoming less common, but sometimes one hits just the right spot concept-wise (particularly in the case of setting-specific prestige classes) and so they get converted to PF. PF feats trump the 3.5 versions, ditto for spells. I try to be critical but fair when it comes to 'porting 3.5 spells and feats to PF.
If certain rules mechanics do not exist in PF, then I go looking in 3.5. I've kept the 3.5 DR system as I actually prefer the "golfbag" to the "one weapon to hit them all".
Monsters are PF unless they have not yet been officially converted (or will never be, like carrion crawlers, beholders, and mindflayers). Various setting-related materials continue to be used (Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Planescape, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, etc.), even some of the 1e and 2e stuff. Like others have said before, I refuse to throw out all those books just because of a change of edition.
As for within PF itself, the Core Rulebook and APG are allowed (with the occasional houserule), and UM and UC will most likely be trickling in (minus firearms). Golarion-specific rules content might be converted to more generic versions.
Modules/adventure paths ... I still have many unused ones from 3.5 (and earlier). They will be used/converted as necessary.
One campaign that I'm running is still mainly 3.5, but I'm slipping in as much PF content as I can manage (with a view to updating more as time goes on).
Another game is mostly PF, with one character from a 3.5 race. That's a goliath; I've done a slight conversion but I'm waiting for the Advanced Races Guide before making a complete PF update.
The third campaign is an unholy mish-mash between PF and 3.5. There's a PF monk/PF paladin/3.5 swordsage with at least one feat from C.Champion who represents the worst mix. The others are far more sedate.
As for games not run by myself, one is officialy PF but run by a "rules light" DM, one is still stuck in mostly 3.0 territory, and one is 4e.
Is my arithmetic right? You're running 3 campaigns and playing in 3 more?
I'm very jealous - we have time for three, maybe four hours per week, if we're lucky. :(