Pathfinder Classes in 3.5?

[Thealtruistorc]

I've been arguing with my buddy about this for a while now so I decided to ask you guys: should Pathfinder base classes be allowed in a moderately optimized 3.5 game? I'm aware that several classes in pf were buffed significantly, but those were underpowered or outclassed in 3.5. Wizard got some minor buffs, but some of the alternate class features in Unearthed Arcana or Complete Mage outclass or at least rival the pathfinder wizard's buffs.

And what about the new Pathfinder Classes? Are Alchemists, Oracles, and Inquisitors balanced next to the 3.5 classes? I want to hear what you think.

[Coidzor]

Yes, you should be fine having Alchemists, Oracles, Maguseses, and Inquisitors in a game alongside Dread Necromancers, Warblades, Bards, Sorcerers, Psions, Psychic Warriors, Wildshaping Rangers, etc.

How they balance against 3.5 classes depends on the 3.5 classes you're comparing them to. They all stand neck, head, and shoulders above 3.5's Fighter, Monk, and Samurai, for instances. Whereas the Oracle compares just fine with the Sorcerer, though it does make the nakedness of the 3.5 Sorcerer a bit more apparent.

[Spore]

Try to adapt the classes hit dice and possibly shift some class features in levels since they are designed to not give you dead levels (odd levels give feats).

[ArqArturo]

I think the plural of Magus is Magi

[137beth]

I can't find the link right now, but one of the authors of the Path of War book said that it was intended to be useable alongside ToB. That is why their martial adept base classes don't directly line up with the warblade, swordsage, and crusader.

I have used some pathfinder classes in my 3.5 games. I ended up replacing the soulknife with its pathfinder equivalent, and ported over the advanced psionics guide/ultimate psionics classes without any issues. For a few of the classes (particularly full casters like the witch), it is worth downgrading d6 hit-dice to d4s.

No one in my group has used or converted the alchemist, oracle, or inquisitor specifically. For the oracle, it really is a pathfinderization of the favored soul, so you'll probably want to pick one or the other. The magus could be fine, but you will probably need to convert some magus-related feats with it. Paizo has a tendency to release feats primarily useful for one class, so converting a Paizo class may require converting feats to go with it.
The alchemist has some wonky mechanical issues that you should consider if you try to convert it. The interactions between extracts and magic are much less clear than the magic-psionics transparency. Depending on your rulings, you may need to convert a bunch of alchemist feats as well.

I think the plural of Magus is Magi
Yet another advantage to the Duskblade: no one argues over its pluralization:smalltongue:

[Anlashok]

They're pretty ok in 3.5 and fall in line comparably where they are in pathfinder if you make a straight transition.

There is some potential overlap you might wanna watch out for. In many ways the Alchemist is a more balanced Artificer... and the Oracle and Magus will overlap with the Favored Soul and Duskblade more than a bit. The Summoner however manages to fit alongside the DN, Beguiler and Warmage pretty effectively as a fourth school specialist wizard.

Witches and Arcanists will be kinda ridiculous, but they're like that in pathfinder too.