Making PF classes compatible for 3.5?

[umbergod]

are they balanced as is? or do they need re-tooling to not overwhelm a regular 3.5 game? Not high optimization or anything like that, just interested in the Magus

[Anarchy_Kanya]

It's the same. you just need to convert skills, look up some class features if they don't use any PF-specific rules and most probably change the spell list.

[umbergod]

It's the same. you just need to convert skills, look up some class features if they don't use any PF-specific rules and most probably change the spell list.

yeah, I figured some modifications were in order, just wasnt sure how many, and if anyone has done this before

[HunterOfJello]

yeah, I figured some modifications were in order, just wasnt sure how many, and if anyone has done this before

Every single pathfinder class has likely been used in a 3.5e somewhere at some point by now. They should be easy to convert.

[umbergod]

Every single pathfinder class has likely been used in a 3.5e somewhere at some point by now. They should be easy to convert.

awesome, gonna get to work on it and see what my dm thinks. Hell, he might even like having more classes at his disposal that he doesnt have to convert himself :)

[Frosty]

A Pathfinder Paladin with 3.5 spell list and splat support would be extremely high tier 4. Very awesome.

[Larpus]

If you wanna keep things 100% absolutely with no fault "fair" some of them might need a hit dice nerf tho, you know the way Rogues were d6 in 3.5 and d8 in PF, a 3.5 Summoner is most probably d6 as well.

[Ravens_cry]

I don't think the rogue needs the Nerf. They are a class that, in the classic two weapon fighting build at least, need the extra protection of a d8 hit die. d6 just ain't enough for something expected to walk into melee range on a regular basis.

[NineThePuma]

I think that's more of an issue of "what's wrong with the Rogue" not "What needs to happen to the Magus/Summoner/(Other PF origin class) to make it fit into 3.5?"

[Grendus]

If you include PF material in 3.5, you need to make sure your players have some optimization experience. PF material is a step up from 3.5, most of the PF classes are strictly better than their 3.5 counterparts (Oracle has better class features than Favored Soul, Magus has a better spell list than Duskblade, Sorcerers and Wizards have actual class features). If your players are to the point where they can splat dive and dip, you won't have any problems, but if they still think single classed Fighters are da bomb with all those bonus feats, you may want to restrict them to one or the other.

[Coidzor]

3.5's classes are not balanced. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0) File off the PF stuff, stick it in, and have fun.

Season to taste.

[umbergod]

If you include PF material in 3.5, you need to make sure your players have some optimization experience. PF material is a step up from 3.5, most of the PF classes are strictly better than their 3.5 counterparts (Oracle has better class features than Favored Soul, Magus has a better spell list than Duskblade, Sorcerers and Wizards have actual class features). If your players are to the point where they can splat dive and dip, you won't have any problems, but if they still think single classed Fighters are da bomb with all those bonus feats, you may want to restrict them to one or the other.

hmmm, well, I know we have one new player (DM's gf) and idk how experienced the other 2 players will be. I'm guessing that I will have the most gaming experience, with ~13 years of gaming in my past

[Frosty]

I think PF is more newbie-friendly. If you might use PF classes, why not switch to PF?

[umbergod]

I think PF is more newbie-friendly. If you might use PF classes, why not switch to PF?

not my call, its the DM's choice. Though I might be able to talk him into it, since PF does have streamlined rules. Though honestly, ThAC0 was the worst >.> I don't miss 2nd Ed for that simple fact