I want to use Pathfinder Core Classes with their 3.5 counterparts...

[atemu1234]

What should I call them?

[Der_DWSage]

Greater [Class Name] for the most part. I don't see what you're trying to get out of using both Pathfinder's base classes and 3.5's base classes, since for the most part Pathfinder's base classes take the 3.5 version and add additional abilities. I...think the one exception is the Druid, since that'd be using the old version of Wildshape. And the Cleric's ability to Turn Undead, but that's a pretty niche corner.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Eh... some of them can be straight replacement, for example PF's Fighter is strictly superior to 3.5 Fighter (not that it is impressive), you could probably cannibalize some of the Archetypes name.

[Honest Tiefling]

If there is an option for the 3.5 version that doesn't exist in Pathfinder, I'd homebrew it as an Archetype for the Pathfinder Class. For example, the Specialist Variant Wizard types have fun and interesting abilities. In the case where the Pathfinder version is strictly better (Fighter) I'd just use the Pathfinder one.

[Vhaidara]

If you could tell us why, it would probably help. The only places where I could see this even being a choice...
1. Barbarian, for Rage uses/day instead of Rounds/day. And even then, the Rage Powers are, imo, totally worth it.
2. Bard, for the same reason
3. Druid, because that's the only class that was unarguably nerfed by PF (Wild Shape and AC)

Everyone else just got new toys. Maybe paladin if people dislike the new smite.

[Ssalarn]

Everyone else just got new toys. Maybe paladin if people dislike the new smite.

Taking away my PF Paladin and trying to make me use the old 3.5 one is the kind of thing that would lead to me just not playing a Paladin....

Like others, I'd have a generally hard time finding a reason to make the 3.5 version of a class available in the same game as the PF version. I let my buddy run a 3.5 Barbarian in our Pathfinder game back when we were still kind of transitioning over the PF, and it really just resulted in him having a really crappy experience as he was brutally underpowered compared to the rest of the party. His eventual death was pretty much a mercy killing (I felt bad about it until he gave a great sigh of relief and asked to borrow my PF books so he could plan a new character).

Many of the later 3.5 classes are pretty well balanced to the Pathfinder classes though, or closely enough that I wouldn't mind direct ports of them for groups with medium to low system mastery. Warmages, beguilers, binders, warblades, crusaders, swordsages, incarnates, dragonfire adepts, and a few others can all get along well enough (though there's great PF classes that cover a lot of those I'd probably use instead).

[Vhaidara]

Taking away my PF Paladin and trying to make me use the old 3.5 one is the kind of thing that would lead to me just not playing a Paladin....

The usual complaint that I hear is that a "smite" is supposed to be one big hit. The blow where you charge in against the dragon/demon, sword blazing with holy fire, and just bisect the bastard. The PF Paladin's smite just isn't that.

I personally prefer the PF Pally as well, I just mentioned it because it's a complaint I've heard.

[T.G. Oskar]

The usual complaint that I hear is that a "smite" is supposed to be one big hit. The blow where you charge in against the dragon/demon, sword blazing with holy fire, and just bisect the bastard. The PF Paladin's smite just isn't that.

I personally prefer the PF Pally as well, I just mentioned it because it's a complaint I've heard.

This is exactly my point, but I make a compromise and call it a "Mark", since I don't really see it as a Smite. It's not that I don't want to use it because I don't feel it's a smite, but that if I were to use it, I wouldn't call it one. It does mean I can, and might, use it, so it's not a question of mechanics but of flavor.

A real reason, though, depends greatly on a mixed 3.PF game. Divine Feats rock; you get to spend at least one use of Turn/Rebuke Undead to power up some really nice abilities, like Charisma to shield AC (Divine Shield), Charisma to melee damage (Divine Might), concealment + debuff (Profane Aura), fast healing 2 for a good amount of time (Sacred Healing from Complete Divine), and so on. Channeling Feats, on the other hand, kinda suck. The Paladin no longer has its own source of Channel Energy, instead having to use another resource to duplicate it (spending 2 uses of Lay on Hands). You get a good amount of uses, sure, but they're pretty much compromised in self-healing. Spending 1 use of LoH to get Charisma to AC/damage? No biggie, that's cool. Spending 2 uses every time? You're gonna get drained real fast, and you'll end up without LoH uses for when you really need them.

Another in which BOTH classes suffer is feats. 3.5 only gives you 7 feats (8 if human), and the Paladin doesn't get any more to compensate UNLESS it sacrifices spellcasting. Pathfinder gives you only 10 feats (11 if human), but most of the feats a Paladin could consider are split or locked away: Improved [Combat Maneuver] feats don't grant the full benefit and require a 3rd feat to reach its formerly full potential, and the Sword & Board line is all but forbidden (you still need like 3 feats, but at least 3.5 didn't made you require high Dexterity), unless you roll good stats or get insanely good allowance at point-buy. Thus, both classes end up feat-starved, usually limited to one fighting style and a few outliers.

Anyways, speaking of combining...you can choose to hybridize the concepts. Personally, the Barbarian's Rage method is fair for them at start, but later on it gets consumed real fast as you start using Rage Powers. You could use the PF method, shave off some of the points, then add a refresh method every few levels. PF's Bardic Performance, on the other hand, is shooting Bards on the foot: good to get some uses at 1st level, but at 4th level you'd wish you had 3.5's daily usage since by that level you're covering nearly all battles. If it's so necessary, a set of daily uses much like the Magus' Arcana would fare well (class level + Cha modifier uses per day). Paladins could choose to have the Smite (recharged every encounter and probably [Cha mod + 1 use/4 levels] uses per day) or the Mark (as per PF) and maybe allow them to use certain Channeling/Divine Feats via a single use of LoH. Otherwise, if you find one class to be strictly better than the other (PF Fighter over 3.5 Fighter), you can treat the lesser by using a variation on the name. In the Fighter example, at least, I'd ditch the NPC Warrior and put the 3.5 Fighter as its incarnation, meaning the PF Fighter gets traits that the new "Warrior" doesn't, but at least both get a good set of feats. 3.5 Rogue makes no good "Expert", though.

[Der_DWSage]

Minor tangent:I feel like 'Judgement' works better for the PF Paladin's smite, as that's essentially what they're doing. The Inquisitor will have to make do with something a bit less awesome for the name of his Judgements, something more like Divine Boon, because their judgements have nothing to do with actually judging people.