I and my group allow 3.5 material on a case by case basis, the same way we do most non-core material.
same as kolotroni
I agree with Kolokotroni, I treat 3.5 stuff the way I treat 3pp stuff. I review it and then make a call. No blanket bans.
Same as Kolokotroni.
We used it a bit at first but now we don't use any 3rd edition stuff at all.
My group does it on a case by case basis with the exception of the Spell Compendium which is always allowed.
Paizo doesn't release spells enough to keep up with our constant craving of new spells.
I am currently playing a Spirit Folk witch with a bunch of spells from the Spell Compendium. I like playing spell casters that avoid the "standard spells". You won't find Fireball, Magic Missile or Flaming Sphere on any of my arcane casters. I have been playing D&D for over 20 years so I am bored with those spells.
We also adapt 3.5 modules & use 3.5 feats specifically familiar feats and Reserve spell feats.
I have just purchased Pathfinder, after playing 3.5 for about 6 years. I intend to allow 3.5 items/spells etc. in my games after clearing them.
I do I just keep out the stupid stuff like persistent spell. Mostly the spell and magic item compendium.
Same as kolokotroni. Let's keep the chain going.
I and my group allow 3.5 material on a case by case basis, the same way we do most non-core material.
Part of said group.
Yeah, we continue to use 3.5 material (magic items, feats, spells, some PF-converted classes), although the "we" there refers predominantly to ME, I think. I think everyone else is either looking forward, or can't be bothered to pour over as many books as I do when thinking about character concepts.
There's absolutely no reason to outright bar 3.5 material, although I would also warn against giving free reign to all 3.5 stuff without DM perusal first. There are a lot of pieces that are perfectly compatible with, and on the same power level, as Pathfinder, while others don't quite fit (mostly because they weren't appropriate in 3.5 either).
One important thing to keep in mind, however, is that you should be double-checking that PF hasn't replicated or replaced something from 3.5 before allowing it in PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play 3.5 with a bit of added Pathfinder stuff, so yes. XD
With some of the APs being 3.5 conversions, I don't see why not. As with above, we use some material.
I allow most (but not all!) Pathfinder materials. I'd consider 3.5 stuff on a case-by-case basis, but haven't used any of it since we switched. Not even sure that all my players have 3rd Ed. books.
Anyway, I have certainly continued to use 3rd Edition adventures (slightly beefed up).
We play either pathfinder or 3.5. No mixing.
Only 3.5 that sneaks into the pathfinder is things paizo haven't made rules for. Like how does touch spells work...
We ran 3.5 with PF the first year PF came out. Then we killed 3.5 and buried it in a non-disclosed cornfield. Now it's PF and PF 3PP material only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think that about 95% of all PF players use 3.5 material, and of that 95%, roughly 80% don't realize it. Has nothing to do with allowing (or not) older books, just with faulty memories and using a rule you thought you recalled.
Aside from that bit of glibness, we do use some 3.5 material, but not often. Essentially, we only use it on a case by case basis and usually to patch a perceived flaw or unfun bit of rules in Pathfinder. Tumbling springs to mind as a situation where we felt that the official rules just weren't cutting it.
Wait, i am seeing a lot of copycats here. (Rolls up sleeves, prepares to draw) there's only room in this messageboard for one copycat, and i reckon that ims the one.
I never banned it. I did finally sell my last 3.5 books after the APG came out.
Though, as Kolokotroni, I treat them as I would with any 3pp, in practice there are some 3.5 books that are used as often as the standard Pathfinder books. Mostly, I use:
-The Complete Book of Eldritch Might
-Manual of the Planes (though I also use the AD&D version a lot in conjunction with this one)
-Libris Mortis
-Draconomicon (though this one is a recent inclusion, since my previous Pathfinder campaigns had no dragons of any kind)
I used 3.5 to supplement Pathfinder until Paizo started expanding their options with things like the Advanced Player's Guide. After that it didn't seem as necessary.
Our group used it at one time, but as more and more PF material was released we slowly let go of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
60% 3.5 edition
15% Pathfinder
15% Homebrew
10% 3rd party material (Both PF and 3.5 ed)
I switched the group to Pathfinder and never looked back. There were at lot of issues with 3.5 that Pathfinder fixed and the lack of rules bloat and splat content made it the best choice. We stick to the books in the PRD and the rest is home brew or a case-by-case use of official Pathfinder content. There's only been one or two instances where we used the Tome of Horrors. As for 3.5 content, any attempts to use 3.5 content have been a problem. With 3.5, we had twenty different books at the table at any one time, with people using content from each and it became really unmanageable. I find that if we allow one thing in from 3.5, then we're suddenly back to playing 3.5 as every player suddenly wants to use their favorite min-max, broken, 3.5 class/spell/rule of choice to recreate their old characters. If you say no to one and not the other, then you end up possibly dealing with people being unhappy. It can become a Pandora's box or can of worms easily. The only time I've even remotely considered 3.5 content was to include old monsters that were D&D specific and not covered under the OGL, but converting and balancing have made it not worth it. Pathinder is perfect and more than enough to meet our needs.
|
Our group allows An occasional spell, like brambles or spikes (cleric), some feats that PF does not have (like Deft Opportunist (+4 on attacks of opportunity)), and most material from spell compendium and magic item compendium.
The Book of Nine Swords is a favorite for most at our table, so all classes from that book are allowed as well (Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade).
I told my group I would be open to 3e and d20 stuff on a case by case basis and subject to possible revision by me. One has suggested a prestige class for later but that's all they've asked for.
I've used 3.0 modules and monsters, Trailbazer and Unearthed Arcana 3.5 stuff for house rules, and bits from other games as well.
I am now going through all my 3.5 books to create a generic "ok" list of content. I was inspired to by this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'd recommend allowing the orb line of spells from 3.5 as well with the change being that they become classified as evocations despite being otherwise untouched.
people's problems with the orbs weren't derived from a perceived imbalance, but was instead derived from the fact that they weren't evocation spells.
I'm planning a 3.5 game that will allow players to use PF content. Does that count?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I switched the group to Pathfinder and never looked back. There were at lot of issues with 3.5 that Pathfinder fixed and the lack of rules bloat and splat content made it the best choice. We stick to the books in the PRD and the rest is home brew or a case-by-case use of official Pathfinder content. There's only been one or two instances where we used the Tome of Horrors. As for 3.5 content, any attempts to use 3.5 content have been a problem. With 3.5, we had twenty different books at the table at any one time, with people using content from each and it became really unmanageable. I find that if we allow one thing in from 3.5, then we're suddenly back to playing 3.5 as every player suddenly wants to use their favorite min-max, broken, 3.5 class/spell/rule of choice to recreate their old characters. If you say no to one and not the other, then you end up possibly dealing with people being unhappy. It can become a Pandora's box or can of worms easily. The only time I've even remotely considered 3.5 content was to include old monsters that were D&D specific and not covered under the OGL, but converting and balancing have made it not worth it. Pathinder is perfect and more than enough to meet our needs.
Almost everything you said, in reverse. I must be a corner case or something, but the wealth of splatbook material never bothered me.
I try and keep it pure with no 3.5 and very little if no 3rd party stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try and keep it pure with no 3.5 and very little if no 3rd party stuff.
I see this outlook a lot, and while I can understand the want for keeping it pure and simple, I've just never played that way. I like options. Lots and lots and lots of options. I loved having 5 different Monster Manuals to choose beasties from, and even more based on specific settings, for example.
Call me crazy, but I love seeing players pull race/class combos from books I'm not familiar with(as long as it at least sort-of fits the setting). I love seeing players use options I maybe glanced over, and learning more about the game from seeing the option in play, first hand. If something turns out to be overpowered or broken, we'll fix it ourselves.
We all know that a lot of 3PP stuff tends to be pretty imbalanced and broken, but there's a lot of good stuff too. The "Legends and Lairs" books had some great material, including Traps and Treachery I and II. That, and immediately dismissing 3PP is sort of a slight against what made the OGL so great in first place. Without the OGL and 3PP, we wouldn't even have Pathfinder to begin with.
I'm not saying anyone else's preferred style of play is wrong, or that my way is "right", I'm just noting an observation.
I just can't get down with being super-conservative in a game with infinite possibilities. But, to each their own.
On the subject of the post, yep, still use a lot of 3.5 stuff. Hec, I still use a lot of 2nd ed. stuff too (rough conversions of monsters, odd magic items and spells etc.)
We all know that a lot of 3PP stuff tends to be pretty imbalanced and broken, but there's a lot of good stuff too. The "Legends and Lairs" books had some great material, including Traps and Treachery I and II. That, and immediately dismissing 3PP is sort of a slight against what made the OGL so great in first place. Without the OGL and 3PP, we wouldn't even have Pathfinder to begin with.
Do 'we all' really know this? I dont think this is a true statement anymore. I think the most prominent pathfinder 3rd party companies are excellent in their development, not the least because many of the writers for those 3pps also freelance for paizo. I dont think its the same as it was in the 3rd Edition days where wizards did everything in house. In fact there is one 3rd party company that has an easier time getting onto my table then any paizo material not out of the hardback rpg line.
Do 'we all' really know this? I dont think this is a true statement anymore. I think the most prominent pathfinder 3rd party companies are excellent in their development, not the least because many of the writers for those 3pps also freelance for paizo. I dont think its the same as it was in the 3rd Edition days where wizards did everything in house. In fact there is one 3rd party company that has an easier time getting onto my table then any paizo material not out of the hardback rpg line.
We all know that a lot of 3PP stuff tends to be pretty imbalanced and broken, but there's a lot of good stuff too. The "Legends and Lairs" books had some great material, including Traps and Treachery I and II. That, and immediately dismissing 3PP is sort of a slight against what made the OGL so great in first place. Without the OGL and 3PP, we wouldn't even have Pathfinder to begin with.
Good call. My use of "we" was a short-sighted blanket statement. I think I meant it in the way of adding to my point of so many folks refusing to openly use 3PP material.
I haven't used much new 3PP stuff since PF took over, but I've always felt that having more options and more perspectives on the ruleset were good for the hobby in general. Even if there were some pretty rough, bad books out there, there is enough good material out there to far outweigh the bad.
I'm not questioning the validity or fun of a group that only uses a few books, but I can't help but feel like they're missing out on one of the biggest factors that's made the d20 system in general so great.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We play 3.5 and not PF, so... yep. Still use 3.5 content. :D
(We add PF stuff to our 3.5 game on occasion.)
98% Pathfinder only.
2% 3PP PF & 3.5 material (mostly monsters & fluff)
I didn't play much, if any, 3.5 so it's easier for me than many others and some of the folks in one of my groups hadn't really played since 2E when we picked up PF.
-TimD
Depends on the campaign. Generalyif the campaign started before pathfinder then 3.5 stuff is allowed. Those started under pathfinder are mainly pathfinder only.
Mostly same as Kolokotroni, my group uses 3.5 material when we are trying to make a specific character type or when I'm throwing some kick ass monster their way. So, I guess on a case by case basis as well.
We play 3.5 and not PF, so... yep. Still use 3.5 content. :D
(We add PF stuff to our 3.5 game on occasion.)
I still like the 3.5 bard over the PF one. I did convince my DM to allow me to play a PF bard in every way, except, we replaced the rounds used for performance withe 3.5 music uses per day. Otherwise, it was a pf bard.
It ended up being quite a nice character.
Of course, most of the spells I had to use came from the spell compendium... more 3.5 stuff. :D
It depends upon who's DMing in our group. Our current DM isn't keen on allowing anything other than PF (or even in 3.5 anything other than core - which I really hated).
When I DM it's all fair - even the 3.0 stuff.
So the order of precedence is: PF then 3.5 then 3.0
So for instance you would use fireball or power attack as defined in PF because they have been updated.
But if you want to use a spell or PrC from a 3.0 splat book go right ahead. We may have to do a quick conversion but that's easy.
My usual guidelines:
Anything in main PF books: APG, ARG, Complete combat, Core, Ultimate Magic, and PF Psionics classes.
Any other PF books or 3.5 (limited to non-Core: Completes, Tome of Magic, ToB, PHB 2, MIC, Magic of Incarnum, Dragon Magic, Book of Alignments), ask.
No homebrew. If using CA Ninja, to avoid confusion renamed Ghost Ninja. CW Samurai renamed Fear Warrior.
Gunslinger allowed, but common place guns with only early firearms: thus firearms are martial weapons.
Early firearms and their ammunition cost 25% of the amounts listed in this book.
|
This is actually the biggest bone of contention between me and my GM.
I started playing in 3.5, but it wasn't until Pathfinder that I actually owned a copy of a rulebook, so I never really learned 3.5 that well except for my own characters' abilities and the basics of the d20 system. Pathfinder I understand the rules much better, and I'd be more than happy to leave 3.5 behind altogether.
My GM still holds 3.5 in high regard, however-- he owned stacks of 3.5 splatbooks and he remembers plenty of obscure rules from a lot of them. I suspect in his mind, Pathfinder is just another set of splatbooks, a reprint of the PHB/MM, and a few rules tweaks.
For example, I mentioned wanting to play a Blight Druid (APG), and he assumed I couldn't because they had to be evil. He's thinking of the Blighter prestige class from 3.5 (though I can't honestly imagine a non-evil Blight Druid anyway). He also plays firearms like they were in 3.5-- roll max damage on your dice and you get to re-roll them. This is NOT a rule in Pathfinder, and I was surprised to see him use it, while he had assumed I just knew this was how they work. He also knows rules for obscure 3.5 exotic weapons like the Dwarven Greathammer and the Elven Thinblade, which don't exist in Pathfinder either. Finding one of these weapons as the centerpiece of a treasure hoard, therefore, is... not as exciting as he expects it to be.