Using Core and 3.x stuff only

[joela]

Because Pathfinder is considered backwards-compatible with 3.x stuff, has anyone out there just used the Core rulebook and strictly 3.x for their games (i.e., using the various Complete books, MM, MM2, & MM3, Spell Compendium, modules galore, etc.)? Impression I get is most folks drop their 3.x stuff as soon as their Pathfinder equivalents are available by Paizo or third-party providers with an occasional dip here and there from 3.x.

[DeathQuaker]

When Pathfinder first came out and there were no Pathfinder rulebooks beside the core, we were playing a 3.x campaign that we wanted to convert to Pathfinder. Since the players had used a handful of 3.x splat material with their original builds, I allowed some degree of conversion of the 3.x books we used so they could keep their concepts as close to the 3.x ones. These books were a few of the Complete... books (mostly some prestige classes).

But even then I found that PF provided more flexibility in building a character concept--it was less likely someone needed a PrC dip or something to reflect an ability they wanted to have. When the APG and other books came out, I've largely abandoned use of the 3.x books altogether, simply because I like the options provided in the PFRPG books more anyway, and are less likely to accidentally break the game. It's not about leaving the books behind out of a broad principle of abandoning 3.x, but about using what I feel is the best material that accomplishes my gaming goals, and most of that just so happens to be Pathfinder materials, not 3.x.

There are a handful of things I might still grab from a 3.x book... for example, there's some neat mechanics in Cityscape for how to run a business. Or I might convert a monster or two. But it tends to be very specific things that fill in holes that I need filling. I will also mine both PF and 3.x books for ideas... for example, I'd like a sneaky-priest PrC for my Homebrew world, but PF has nothing like that and 3.x's options I have access to I don't like very much, but I might look at the 3.x options as a starting point for homebrewing my own.

All this said, I should note that 3.x or Pathfinder, I tend to use supplementary materials very sparingly. My philosophy is "try to build it in core, and if that seems impossible or ridiculously complicated, then find something in a splat that suits." So it's not like I went from using 3.x and a bucketload of books to Pathfinder and a few PF books... more like I went from using core 3.x and a handful of 3.x splat stuff to using PF with handful of stuff from both I feel works best for me. That the "Stuff I feel works best for me" is mostly Pathfinder materials speaks to the quality of the material, not the brand name.

[CrackedOzy]

joela wrote:

Impression I get is most folks drop their 3.x stuff as soon as their Pathfinder equivalents are available by Paizo or third-party providers with an occasional dip here and there from 3.x.

I'd agree. I think the most use of the backwards compatibility of Pathfinder is in 3.x settings & adventures.

[Blueluck]

The Pathfinder material is simply better than the old 3rd edition material that inspired it. I encourage you to stick to Pathfinder material.

[Azten]

I still use plenty of 3.5 stuff when I get a chance. There are just some things Pathfinder doesn't or can't have.

[Orthos]

My standard game is a PF/3.5 hybrid. New PF releases just mean more options for the players.

[LazarX]

The supplemental material that Paizo puts out is more than sufficient for my needs. I don't find anything lacking that's addressed in 3.X.

The major problem I have with using 3.X stuff is it's generally uneven quality and in some cases outright lack of balance. Using 3.X material in a Pathfinder game can wind up undoing most of the advantage of moving to Pathfinder.