Need help merging 3.5 and PF base classes and races to equilibrate them

[IORI_17]

I'm starting a new campaign as a DM and I'd like to try something new. I've always played with 3.5 rules but I feel as some classes and races are way too weak compared to others (things everyone knows). I've read that Pathfinder powers up almost everything and I like some of their ideas (half elves getting a +2 and a bonus feat or more spells for sorcerers), so I was thinking about doing a mix of it and 3.5's base classes/races.
I would keep 3.5's most powerful classes (such as wizard, cleric and druid) as they are and add PF's version of the weaker ones (sorcerer, paladin, ecc), same for the races. I hope this could equilibrate a bit more powers on the table, to avoid having players feeling useless toward others. Thus I need help from someone more experienced than me and who maybe has played both games.
Which are the versions you would put together? There are other rules I could consider adding from pathfinder? I don't want to give up on 3.5 since the whole group is used to playing it and I love the vast material it offers. I've already seen something about an elusive "3.5P" version but what I found wasn't enough.

[DarkSoul]

I use Pathfinder's martial classes from the Core Rulebook across the board. Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue. No one's played a sorcerer so I haven't had any reason to use that class. I also use Pathfinder's feat progression for character level feats (odd levels instead of every third). I don't use PF races, though. There are a couple of feats that I use as well, even if they haven't been taken by any of my players yet.

One thing I did to keep my own sanity is to limit the PF classes to the options that appear in the Core Rulebook. There are already enough 3.5 books to go through for obscure feats, classes, etc.; I really don't want to have to go through all the Pathfinder books too looking for possibly-overpowered interactions.

Also, the "3.5P" you refer to is just common shorthand for mixing the games together like you're about to do.

[Kaje]

Does using the pf feat progression ever result in delayed access to things, such as not being able to enter a prc until level 8 instead of 7 because you couldn't take a feat until level 7 even though you qualified at 6?

[DarkSoul]

Yes, it would delay them. It delays Leadership by a level too, which is the most relevant example I can think of as one of my players just took it at level 7 and then a PrC requiring it at level 8. The DM would need to either houserule PrC requirements or the players would have to wait a level, and that's something to discuss within each gaming group.

Also, one thing I would also recommend keeping is XP costs for magical items and spells. I got rid of them for my group and I don't think that was the right decision, because there's nothing stopping character gear value from outpacing the WBL guidelines except available crafting time.

[Hunter Noventa]

Yes, it would delay them. It delays Leadership by a level too, which is the most relevant example I can think of as one of my players just took it at level 7 and then a PrC requiring it at level 8. The DM would need to either houserule PrC requirements or the players would have to wait a level, and that's something to discuss within each gaming group.

Also, one thing I would also recommend keeping is XP costs for magical items and spells. I got rid of them for my group and I don't think that was the right decision, because there's nothing stopping character gear value from outpacing the WBL guidelines except available crafting time.

Well that and giving them enough money to craft with in the first place. If your players have enough downtime to overcome WBL, that's a problem with DMing, not the system.

To address the OP, trying to merge them the way you are is tricky business. Pathfinder really is the same ruleset as 3.5, and about 90% of the classes and feats involved would work in either without much trouble. Though our group prefers to move 3.5 stuff into pathfinder, when we can't find something in Pathfinder.

But the big thing I would port from PF is the way skills work. First, several skills got consolidated, so classes that have stupidly low amounts of skill points *cough*Fighter*cough* aren't spread out quite as badly. And there's no ridiculous 'half ranks' when it comes to cross-class skills, no 'level +3' max for skill ranks. Your max ranks in a skill is equal to your level, and putting points into a cross-class skill gets you a +3 bonus, so it ends up being the same as in 3.5.

There are also some feats that are just plain better in one version over the other. Like, Pathfinder Skill Focus is just plain better than the 3.5 version, though both are still subpar choices, it's just one that came to mind.

And as a final note, bringing in the PF version of martial classes won't fix the power disparity between them and casting classes.

[EldritchWeaver]

And there's no ridiculous 'half ranks' when it comes to cross-class skills, no 'level +3' max for skill ranks. Your max ranks in a skill is equal to your level, and putting points into a cross-class skill gets you a +3 bonus, so it ends up being the same as in 3.5.

Fixed that for you.:smallsmile:

[Xerlith]

I think you're better off completely switching to Pathfinder (it's easy) and forward-porting 3.5 materials on case-by-case basis (ToB Classes were an insta-port for me).

The spellcasting classes are, actually, a bit weaker than 3.5 (Druid got nerfed hard, both spells- and wildshape-wise, Sorc got a versatility buff, Wizard is better at lower levels), because there's still A LOT less high-powered spells.

[illyahr]

Use of Pathfinder Unchained is a must for Monks. It also causes less paperwork for Barbarians as Rage doesn't boost Strength and Constitution directly, it just adds bonuses to attack and damage rolls and temporary HP.

Fighter gets a slight buff in PF, but it doesn't address the core issues of the class. You are better off finding a homebrew on these forums that you like.

The Path of War classes and abilities are better balanced than Tome of Battle and they give more options than just melee attacks, so I would look into that as well.

[EldritchWeaver]

The Path of War classes and abilities are better balanced than Tome of Battle and they give more options than just melee attacks, so I would look into that as well.

While this is true, be aware that better balanced means "Tier 3" and not "Tier 5". So PoW classes are doing things outside of "move and hit" and "hit several times". It has been compared from switching fom checkers to chess - same board, completely different playstyles. So mixing PoW and core martials won't be fun for the latter and it is extra work for the GM to deal with their new capabilities (but it may be certainly worthwhile doing that effort).

[Pugwampy]

I only play a PF / 3.5 hybrid game . The reason PF was created was so it could be backwards compatible with 3.5 . There are tons of cool 3.5 books with feats and classes you could use . I dont see any need to change anything other then adding channel energy to older divine casters . Thats a massive upgrade .

My monsters are either old school or PF , to be honest i dont see much difference and same applies with most classes . What you do with your hero is more important then what he comes with .I do remind the players a PF class is a bit stronger

Any Dm vet can make any 3.5 class work even surpass the PF class noobie and that before the dice gives you 1 .

If someone wants a 3.5 class but asks for the higher HP its PF counterpart enjoys I wont refuse .

No need to worry about game balance . There was never one to begin with .:smallsmile: