Backporting/Sideporting Rules - what do you do?

[atemu1234]

I'm basically a Pathfinder/3.5 lifer at this point, but I've experimented with a couple other games and editions. I'm curious - people who play a lot of 5e/4e, or Pathfinder 2e - what rules introduced in those games have you brought into games in 3.5 or Pathfinder? Or from other systems entirely.

[Crake]

I haven't actually done it myself yet, but I really like the pf2e 3 action system (which pf1e has some psuedo-workable rules that can implement them), and the 5e upcasting mechanic, which I think can just generally replace the "minor" "lesser" "regular" "greater" etc versions of different spells, and just have them scale depending on the spell slot you use to cast them.

[Kurald Galain]

My favorite is inspiration (or hero points, or whatever you want to call them) that give you a reroll. In fact I've been using those well before 5E existed.

I haven't actually done it myself yet, but I really like the pf2e 3 action system (which pf1e has some psuedo-workable rules that can implement them), and the 5e upcasting mechanic, which I think can just generally replace the "minor" "lesser" "regular" "greater" etc versions of different spells, and just have them scale depending on the spell slot you use to cast them.

I'm a fan of 5E's upcasting too. I'm not sure why it would help to make a list of all 3E/PF feats and spells, and decide if they're one, two, or three actions (or variants like "only usable as your first action" or "one action but only once per turn"); because that's how PF2's action system works.

[Crake]

I'm not sure why it would help to make a list of all 3E/PF feats and spells, and decide if they're one, two, or three actions (or variants like "only usable as your first action" or "one action but only once per turn"); because that's how PF2's action system works.

It would likely be more of a "standard = 2 actions, move = 1 action, swift = non action" sort of thing as a general rule, but then slowly homebake in specific exceptions, like for example, attacks are 1 action, and anyone can do multiple attacks from the get go by spending multiple actions at a penalty sort of thing.

There IS a reason I haven't gotten around to actually implementing it though, because it would be a big hassle to actually properly implement and adjudicate.

[Shockwave]

In my current game I'm using the Spell preparation rules from 5e (Caster Level + Casting Attribute = Number of Slots) - And it seems to working okay.

[Quertus]

I'm basically a Pathfinder/3.5 lifer at this point, but I've experimented with a couple other games and editions. I'm curious - people who play a lot of 5e/4e, or Pathfinder 2e - what rules introduced in those games have you brought into games in 3.5 or Pathfinder?

Eh, as a rule, when I'm playing D&D, I'm playing by the rules of D&D. It's very rare I experiment with changing things - my house rules typically are encapsulated as "Balance to the Table" and "Don't be a ****". Although I am really tempted to forward-port (grandfather clause?) real Wild Magic from 2e.

Or from other systems entirely.

Ah, I'll happily add content, as original D&D is rife with things like crashed spaces ships and such. Especially existing d20 content, like Jedi, Aeis Sedai, WoD Mages (the true Reality Benders) and even some homebrew <element>-Benders have been seen at my tables (ie, tables where I'm a player or GM). Plus things like Laser Rifles (OK, those were in the 3.0 DMG, so no addition necessary) and Dragons (half-dragons?) from Supernatural have seen play. I'm still trying to homebrew a MtG Mage I'll find acceptable.

[Chronos]

It's trivially easy to import 5th edition's trait-trait-ideal-bond-flaw personality framework to any game at all. There aren't any mechanics tied to it at all, and it's not really necessary for an experienced roleplayer, but it's a good guide for someone new to roleplaying on creating a framework for describing a character's personality.

5e backgrounds do have some mechanics attached to them, but they'd be very easy to port to 3rd edition, and fill a niche that's not really well supported in the rules as they are. Basically, pick two "adventuring" skills and two "non-adventuring" skills, and get them as class skills and probably a few starting ranks in them, or you can replace one or both of the non-adventuring skills with languages known, plus you get a trait that mostly exists as a way for the DM to dangle hooks for you.

[pabelfly]

I pretty much stole Pathfinder 2e's ability score increase system for 3e. You get three ability score increases that go to three different stats every four levels (I believe PF2e does this every five levels). If a score is under 16, you get a +2 to that score. If a score is 16 or more, you get a +1.

In comparison to the 3e system, I liked that PF2e's system gave you more options, you don't just automatically invest in your most important stat, and nearly any stat is a good choice to add an ability score increase to.

[glass]

I'm basically a Pathfinder/3.5 lifer at this point, but I've experimented with a couple other games and editions. I'm curious - people who play a lot of 5e/4e, or Pathfinder 2e - what rules introduced in those games have you brought into games in 3.5 or Pathfinder? Or from other systems entirely.

A few bits and pieces:

I use the Bloodied condition from 4e in basically every edition/game which has hit points.

I want to implement something like WoT/AE/5e/PF2 scaling by spell slot in PF1, but it remains perennially unfinished (largely due to its needing a whole bunch of new spells). EDIT: Which is not technically a backport now that I think about it, since scalable spells were a thing in "Relics & Rituals" by SSS for 3e IIRC, although there were all of about six of them - I cannot seem to find my copy to verify the exact number.

I'm sure there are more, but that's all I've got for now. I'll post again if I think of anything else.

[Quertus]

I'm not sure if this counts, but I implement partial success / scaling success in 3e (and most any RPG, tbf). Much like how a few modules have Gather Information give scaling responses based on the check results, I tend not to just have binary pass/fail rolls whenever I can help it.

[atemu1234]

Not to reply to my own thread, but I've been debating coming up with a variant on the whole Morale system from AD&D - it always seems odd that monsters don't have any rules for when they should be fleeing in d20, unless there's a paragraph somewhere that I missed.

[Crake]

Not to reply to my own thread, but I've been debating coming up with a variant on the whole Morale system from AD&D - it always seems odd that monsters don't have any rules for when they should be fleeing in d20, unless there's a paragraph somewhere that I missed.

I always just did this from a common sense perspective, dunno if there needs to be hard rules in place for it, because not all creatures will flee under the same circumstances.

[glass]

Not to reply to my own thread, but I've been debating coming up with a variant on the whole Morale system from AD&D - it always seems odd that monsters don't have any rules for when they should be fleeing in d20, unless there's a paragraph somewhere that I missed.

That's something I would like to do also, but haven't yet.

I always just did this from a common sense perspective, dunno if there needs to be hard rules in place for it, because not all creatures will flee under the same circumstances.

That's easy to say, but much harder to do in the heat of the moment when you've got a dozen other things to think about IME!

Also, it would be nice to have a solid mechanical distinction between "fleeing to raise the alarm" and "fleeing because they know they're beaten" - so the PCs don't feel the need to chase down and murder the fleers in the latter case (thereby defeating the object).

[Crake]

Also, it would be nice to have a solid mechanical distinction between "fleeing to raise the alarm" and "fleeing because they know they're beaten" - so the PCs don't feel the need to chase down and murder the fleers in the latter case (thereby defeating the object).

Those two circumstances aren’t mutually exclusive, and also shouldn’t be transparently communicated to the players imo

[pabelfly]

Also, it would be nice to have a solid mechanical distinction between "fleeing to raise the alarm" and "fleeing because they know they're beaten" - so the PCs don't feel the need to chase down and murder the fleers in the latter case (thereby defeating the object).

If you wish, you can communicate to the players by having the enemies say why they're fleeing.

[glass]

Those two circumstances aren’t mutually exclusive, and also shouldn’t be transparently communicated to the players imo

If you're fleeing in panic, your direction of travel is going to be semi-random, based on which direction feels safest at the time. The GM could rule that the fleeing whatever "randomly" ran straight to the nearest guard post, but I would not do that because I am not a ****.

Also, the difference between fleeing in panic and falling back in good order is going to be pretty obvious, unless someone makes a Bluff check or equivalent to fake the former while actually doing the latter.

[Crake]

If you're fleeing in panic, your direction of travel is going to be semi-random, based on which direction feels safest at the time. The GM could rule that the fleeing whatever "randomly" ran straight to the nearest guard post, but I would not do that because I am not a ****.

Also, the difference between fleeing in panic and falling back in good order is going to be pretty obvious, unless someone makes a Bluff check or equivalent to fake the former while actually doing the latter.

I mean, fleeing toward reinforcements seems like it's generally the safest option in most circumstances.

[glass]

I mean, fleeing toward reinforcements seems like it's generally the safest option in most circumstances.

If you've been routed, doing the exact opposite of what the people who just routed you and are in a position to kill you want does not sound all that safe to me. Also, "toward reinforcements" implies fighting again, which routed enemies are neither desirous of doing nor likely capable.

All of which is beside the point, which is this: To my mind, the whole point of morale systems in RPGs is to say "this fight is won" and skip the mop-up. Both to save table time that would be spent on said mop up for hopefully more interesting things, and to avoid all PCs having to be sociopathic serial killers. Having the enemy rout but then forcing the PCs to chase them down and murder them all anyway achieves neither of those goals.

[Chronos]

OK, suppose that the enemy does flee in a panicked rout, and they get away. Eventually they're going to get their wits about them, and when they do, they're going to go to the guard outpost or whatever.

[vasilidor]

On the issue of routed enemies, they don't always want to fight again. Sometimes they are so thoroughly beaten that they want nothing to do with the possibility of a second fight. Not without some sort of game changer. And this would be because they know that without some sort of change in the situation, the scenario of them getting beaten will just repeat itself.
So you route the bandits and they flee from the party, the bandits are not likely to try again without: a significant increase in numbers than last time, some sort of spellcaster backing them, terrain far more favorable, something has to change. And in D&D it can be obvious that just throwing more men at the problem just won't work. Unless you have idiot officers running things anyway.

[Crake]

Eh, i think morale rules stem more from wargames which are generally limited to a single encounter anyway, rather than a long term campaign with ramifications beyond the current engagement.

A straggler may also be keen on warning their friends, while remaining not interested in engaging again. They may warn reinforcements and then continue fleeing (after all, a prepared defense from their reinforcements means more time for them to get even further away), but in dnd, whether a straggler gets away or not is actually meaningful, and I don't think should just be handwaved, and how they react to any given situation should be thoughtfully determined by the DM, not just come down to some generic roll that has all enemies react the same way.

[Quertus]

Dealing with morale and fleeing enemies could easily be its own thread. While I’ve just been eyeballing it in 3e, I admit, it’s a complex issue that benefits from rules over players reading too much into things, asking “why is this group / individual running away? What makes them special, that they’re behaving differently?”. And the question of “what will they do once they aren’t in immediate danger” is interesting, too (and leads to players often wanting them dead more so than those still fighting) - if you were in New York and suddenly chest-bursting Aliens / Thanos / Robots / whatever other presumably “clearly outside your pay grade” threat turned the guy beside you into chunky red salsa, what would you do?

[Crake]

players reading too much into things, asking “why is this group / individual running away? What makes them special, that they’re behaving differently?”

That's only an issue if you normally play your foes as mindless suicidal brutes that fight to the death. Running for your life isn't "behaving differently" at my table, its normal.

[Darg]

Although I am really tempted to forward-port (grandfather clause?) real Wild Magic from 2e.

I've always liked wild mage from BG2. Can you point me to some books?

[glass]

I've always liked wild mage from BG2. Can you point me to some books?

I believe the Wild Mage was in the 2e Tome of Magic.

[Quertus]

That's only an issue if you normally play your foes as mindless suicidal brutes that fight to the death. Running for your life isn't "behaving differently" at my table, its normal.

Eh, "mindless brutes" (or, perhaps low-int brutes) are actually the most likely to run away; sufficiently intelligent foes might well not want to expose their backside, and instead might attempt to use their words and surrender.

I've always liked wild mage from BG2. Can you point me to some books?

I believe the Wild Mage was in the 2e Tome of Magic.

Yup. Tome of Magic was so much more fun than the 3e not-so-wild mage. "Quertus attempts to cast Fireball; what really happens is...". And that sentence might well continue with "target falls madly in love with caster", "target and caster switch personality for a while", "caster begins hiccuping", "swarm of butterflies", or any number of other crazy results that are almost but not quite entirely unlike the intended Fireball. Good times.

Granted, if I were making it from scratch today, I'd probably opt for even more chaos than Tome of Magic, but that's just me.

[SangoProduction]

Well, what I do is start a series for backporting from 5e spheres to pathfinder, then just stop after the important bits were done.... because it's a lot of work, and nothing else was really *as bad* as the Telekinesis sphere.

In specific, I like the limitation of spell points by rough level, and the augments system (bonus effects for more spell points, which has implicit limitations by the spell point cap - very fun).
Unfortunately, it seems like the PF1 Spheres had its last hurrah, and has moved onto 2e or whatever. Haven't even updated the wiki with the last book for it. It was good. And I'm considering just making an SiR of it since it's so behind on the schedule.

[Pugwampy]

I'm basically a Pathfinder/3.5 lifer at this point,

Amen Brother .


As to your question i only did it twice .

I converted some 4e dragonborn into 3rd edition stats . I dont recall anything too troubling

My other time was , literally saying players had a shared dream they were other people . I gave them 4E miniatures game cards from a starter set and we only used the cards info for an encounter .
It worked out fine for a different flavoured one time encounter . Players beat up my monsters and they woke up .

[Crake]

Eh, "mindless brutes" (or, perhaps low-int brutes) are actually the most likely to run away; sufficiently intelligent foes might well not want to expose their backside, and instead might attempt to use their words and surrender.

The use of the word mindless was intentional.

You also appear to have completely missed the point.

[Chronos]

In my experience, when enemies don't run away, it's mostly because the tides of battle shifted too quickly: Things go from seeming like they have a reasonable chance to them all being ganked in a single round, or possibly two, before they get a chance to flee.