Backporting Pathfinder to 3.5

[lord pringle]

So for the first time since the Advanced Race Guide released I went to a pathfinder game last night. Two people in the game were playing Kineticists and extolling their virtues. As a result, I splurged and got a bunch of the pathfinder pdfs that I had been putting off because I don't like a lot of Pathfinders design choices. But now that a lot of the ideas are getting closer to the design space I like (no per day limits, fun modular gimmicks, fun abilities that allow for both dips and full 20 levels) I want to use a lot of the classes in my 3.5 games.
I'm not quite sure how to go about doing this though. Are there any assumptions Pathfinder makes that 3.5 doesn't? Should I go whole hog and use the pathfinder core classes?

[Sayt]

Just a few reversals from the PF conversion guide:

Add 4 skill ranks to prerequisites: PF has ranks in skill capped at HD.
PF's classes are HD and BAB are (usually) connected, Fullbab =d10, 3/4=d8, 1/2=d6. PRCs and classes may warrant adjusting for parity with other classes. (Probably not worth it)

But personally, to your second question? Yes, absolutely, and you should use the unchained version of the Monk and Rogue as well, IMHO. The PF base classes, offer much more versatility and choice in chassis than the 3.5 classes do.

The Pathfinder base classes lose out on some of the good 3.5 alternative levels or ACFs, but there isn't really any reason that A PF uMonk couldn't take Prayerful Meditation, or a PF Barbarian take Whirling Frenzy.

Some of the larger alterations like Mystic ranger might take a bit of work, but I think are still fundamentally compatible.

[Eldariel]

So for the first time since the Advanced Race Guide released I went to a pathfinder game last night. Two people in the game were playing Kineticists and extolling their virtues. As a result, I splurged and got a bunch of the pathfinder pdfs that I had been putting off because I don't like a lot of Pathfinders design choices. But now that a lot of the ideas are getting closer to the design space I like (no per day limits, fun modular gimmicks, fun abilities that allow for both dips and full 20 levels) I want to use a lot of the classes in my 3.5 games.
I'm not quite sure how to go about doing this though. Are there any assumptions Pathfinder makes that 3.5 doesn't? Should I go whole hog and use the pathfinder core classes?

I definitely think PF Core Classes are by and large superior designs to their 3.5 counterparts, and the Unchained classes are further one more step closer to not being entirely horrible at their given job. I also largely prefer the leveling scheme, the CMB/CMD system, the favored class system, the poisons, and the skill system in PF. I think it might be more fruitful to take PF as the base and then include any and all 3.5 material you feel like, though you can certainly do the opposite too. There are some case-by-case problems that crop up in either direction but they're nothing you can't deal with using some swift judgment and arbitrary rulings.

[Chronikoce]

I DM a game that uses base pf + 3.5 all but psionics (doesn't fit the world for this game).

My group has enjoyed it and there haven't been any major issues from combining 3.5 classes (dragonfire adept and factotum) with pf class (witch and paladin).

Back porting would be a bit harder I think simply because I find it easier to buff 3.5 stuff that turns out to be too weak instead of nerfing pf stuff that turns out to be too strong.

[lord pringle]

I definitely think PF Core Classes are by and large superior designs to their 3.5 counterparts, and the Unchained classes are further one more step closer to not being entirely horrible at their given job. I also largely prefer the leveling scheme, the CMB/CMD system, the favored class system, the poisons, and the skill system in PF. I think it might be more fruitful to take PF as the base and then include any and all 3.5 material you feel like, though you can certainly do the opposite too. There are some case-by-case problems that crop up in either direction but they're nothing you can't deal with using some swift judgment and arbitrary rulings.

So, I'm going to be honest, I'm totally (and unfairly) biased against Pathfinder. My scant few pathfinder games have always been more amateurishly run than 3.5 games and pathfinder society always reminds me of that meme with the robot hammering in the no fun allowed sign. The system barely altered any of the broken bits of 3.5 and missed out on all of the cool stuff for melee characters. And, just when I was considering maybe switching to Pathfinder, Sean K. Reynolds nerfed monks, showing that the people in charge had no idea how their own game worked. So, I'm hesitant to do pathfinder for real, instead of just 3.5 plus Alchemist, Vigilante, Investigator and everything in Occult Adventures.

Has any of that changed? Is the tier discrepancy still horrendous? Are the people in charge actually recognizing that maybe 3.5 isn't a paragon of balance and that monks aren't the post powerful class?

(Also I'm sorry for the inevitable edition war this starts. I personally really want to be proven wrong about this)

[Sayt]

It's....still fundamentally a 3.5 derivative: wizards are still wizards, and sturgeon's law remains in effect from the 3.0 days, but recently some of the weaker classes have been getting some love. There's a rogue archetype which gives up half of it's class features to get 6th level casting off of the wizard list, Rangers continue to get more combat style choices, Fighters got two great supplements (Weapon and Armor Master's handbooks) that gives them what look like actual class features.

[BWR]

The general consensus is the optimization ceiling is lowered and the floor somewhat raised (I can't think of a single class that is more or less unplayable out of the box). They have very deliberately avoided things like the supercharger tricks or hulking hurlers because they didn't want it in their game. Some people consider that being unfair to melee, I agree with the devs. YMMV.
Casters still rule, but the discrepancy is a bit less than in 3.5. Infinite loop tricks are harder (impossible?) to pull off and a number of unfortunate spells have been nerfed. Polymorphing is far more specific and limited, low-level instawins like Glitterdust and Web are nerfed, etc. they do make mistakes, like with Blood Money (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blood-money).
If you want equality between the classes, Pf is a bit better than 3.5 but not as much as some people would like, and Paizo wouldn't be able to fix that without overhauling the mechanics to the point where it doesn't really resemble 3.5 much anymore.

Considering what they did with the Unchained monk (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/classes/monk.html) and rogue (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/classes/rogue.html), I'd say they are aware that there were issues.

In general I prefer PF to 3.5. Paizo altered 3.5 to a game that fits my preferences and level of play better than the original did. It works better for the group I run games for than 3.5.

[Eldariel]

Base PF doesn't meaningfully address the balance issues, but some variants and further developments such as Unchained Classes do help and most importantly, PF classes are less horrendously dysfunctional than their 3.5 counterparts.

That's probably the biggest advantage: PF is still under iterative development meaning things are slowly ironed out. Mostly though, it's just 3.5 with minor improvements to the overall system. Little in terms of drawbacks though if you don't care about official rulings, and import 3.5 stuff. Most of the base classes reward actually taking levels in them at least in some way.

[EldritchWeaver]

But now that a lot of the ideas are getting closer to the design space I like (no per day limits, fun modular gimmicks, fun abilities that allow for both dips and full 20 levels) I want to use a lot of the classes in my 3.5 games.

I'd recommend you to check out Path of War and Spheres of Power. While not completely free of limits, the classes in these supplements are designed with the goal to support 24 hour days, compared to the 15 minutes days.

[Arutema]

... Sean K. Reynolds nerfed monks, showing that the people in charge had no idea how their own game worked. So, I'm hesitant to do pathfinder for real, instead of just 3.5 plus Alchemist, Vigilante, Investigator and everything in Occult Adventures.

Keep in mind SKR left Paizo after Advanced Class Guide. His replacement on the design team, Mark Seifter, frequents these forums as Rogue Eidolon. (And said nerf was undone in the 6th printing of the core rulebook.) So use stuff developed since Mark's hire, the Vigilante, Unchained and Occult Adventures, to get more of a feel for how Paizo is likely to develop PF in the future.

[Endarire]

Regarding 3.5 and PF, decide which is your base system and go from there. The base system uses the maneuver system (3.5's grapple or PF's CMB/CMD), the feat progression, the skill system, the class/race versions, and anything else pertinent. The other system is the 'other' system which needs stuff approved and adapted to meet the needs of the campaign.

Saph already made a 3.5 and Pathfinder Handbook about these things (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136890-The-3-5-Pathfinder-Handbook).