PF t4-5 classes in 3.5

[12owlbears]

If I let the players in my 3.5 game use the pf versions of classes like the fighter, rouge, and barbarian would that solve some of the power imbalance?

[Jormengand]

If I let the players in my 3.5 game use the pf versions of classes like the fighter, rouge, and barbarian would that solve some of the power imbalance?
Yeah, but bear in mind that wizards will still end up being better than fighters. You might delay the problem a level or two, but apart from that... it's not going to be that amazing.

[Croix]

If I let the players in my 3.5 game use the pf versions of classes like the fighter, rouge, and barbarian would that solve some of the power imbalance?

Not by much, unless it gives them full magic progression? They took away a lot of what caster classes had going for them to balance the power imbalance in pathfinder. But it'll certainly improve the mundanes, but so would letting them use the classes in Tome of Battle. Problem is, magic can solve everything, even when they aren't specialized to do that, where mundanes can solve some things with either a pointy stick or class skills.

[Spore]

If I let the players in my 3.5 game use the pf versions of classes like the fighter, rouge, and barbarian would that solve some of the power imbalance?

Not really.

Fighters become "fightier", Rogues become "roguey" but it doesnt really help T5. Paladins and Rangers benefit heavily (to an extent that may scratch close to T3 and the Sacred Servant Paladin being securely T3), some base classes are very powerful: Inquisitor is a great substitute for pieous rangers, ninjas are more competent rogues, and alchemist weak but flavorful jack of all trades for people who dislike bardic performance.

That being said, fighters still have 2+Int Skills on max ranks, rogues still suck at fighting and cavaliers still solve most problems by either charging at it or setting up for a charge and then charging at it.

[Psyren]

Rogues get helped a lot if you use PF sneak attack. Paladins and Rangers get a big boost as well. Beyond that, this won't change much. Be sure to mix in 3.5 material, such as individual feats, spells and ACFs, to help them.

[Firechanter]

You can certainly backport those classes into 3.5. Then at least they get the best of both worlds: for instance, a Paladin with PF chassis but 3.5 ACFs and Feats - that might turn out pretty sweet.

I'd still prefer a Warblade over a PF Fighter hands-down, though.

Personally, my favourite mixture is to use most things of 3.5 and add in a few things from PF, such as:
- racial bonuses (except half-orc, shouldn't get a floating bonus)
- Traits
- PF Feat progression (but keep 3.5 feats!)
- some classes or elements from classes -- the bits that would upgrade Mundanes, if Paizo didn't shaft them on the Feat front.

[Coidzor]

If I let the players in my 3.5 game use the pf versions of classes like the fighter, rouge, and barbarian would that solve some of the power imbalance?

It'd help Paladins and, IIRC, Rangers most of all. Rogue's... sort of a mixed bag. If you backport PF rogue to 3.5, you'll want to give them the best of both worlds in terms of sneak attack, since it was changed by PF, in some ways for the better and in others as a nerf.

Barbarian's got a mixed bag as well, so you'll have to retool a bit more as it comes up depending upon source access.

Fighter's just a straight upgrade, but it doesn't really give anything to bring it up against casters, then again, none but the Paladin revamp do that, and that just makes Paladin compare more favorably to Bard.

[Snowbluff]

Rogue would be... meh. I still wouldn't play it in either edition.

Ninja is alright, but obsolete next to invisible fist builds for the most part.

Paladin is better when you mix the 3.5 options with the PF stats. Battle Blessing should have been built into the PF paladin, and you can use other options.

Fighters are barf. They added numbers. Great.

Rangers and Barbarians are not classes I would play. PF ranger is worse than Mystic, Sword of the Arcane Order, or Wildshape ranger, so there's no real improvement there.

[Coidzor]

Rangers and Barbarians are not classes I would play. PF ranger is worse than Mystic, Sword of the Arcane Order, or Wildshape ranger, so there's no real improvement there.

Well, yeah, if you just only use PF Ranger and none of the stuff for it in 3.5, yeah. But I don't see how using PF Ranger in 3.5 would prevent you from taking Sword of the Arcane Order. :smallconfused:

And Mystic Ranger and Wildshape Ranger are both easily applicable to the Pathfinder version, with the only real possible hitch being favored terrains. But then you could just not worry about them as they're not that much of an issue anyway. And the improvement to a d10 HD is just sorta meh either way, but it is something.