What did Pathfinder fix? Where did it fail?

[ImperatorK]

But, it's not a huge change.  And, if the option is abandoning the huge wealth of 3.5 stuff to make use of a few improvements like the CMB thing, especially given that I'm already used to 3.5's wonkiness, I haven't felt motivated to make the switch.

What abandoning? You mean converting?

[Unbeliever]

Yeah.  The question is whether it's worth the effort of converting or not.  How much is the value added? 

And, the conversion would be a non-trivial amount of work:  going through and calculating the CMB of all the monsters in 5+ books, worrying about interactions between 3.5 stuff and PF stuff, figuring out which versions of the shared feats to use (e.g., power attack) ...

If Pathfinder were truly backwards compatible with 3.5, or very close to it, I'd have been much more inclined to play it.  But, in my limited experience, in practice it's been Pathfinder or 3.5.  And, 3.5 has more stuff to it, along with the added advantage of being old hat for me by now. 

[ImperatorK]

I've never had problems with converting. I'm doing it on a case-by-case basis. If something is going to be used by me or a player, then I'll bother with converting.

[SolEiji]

I can convert on the fly.  If I feel a monster will make use of CMB or CMD, I can calculate in a time no longer than it takes me to calculate an attack bonus.  Spells entering the play is just getting an idea of the power level of Pathfinder and seeing if its appropriate for your game.  For example, if I am using a 3.5e monster in my PF game and it uses something that's not in PF, thats fine, I use it as is.  Basically thats the gist, use things as is unless a PF version overwrites it.

In fact I've gone backwards too, and had much fun surprising my 3.5e group with a Pathfinder-only monster recently.

[veekie]

Converting is pretty much trivial really. In a pinch you can just use the grapple mod(with the size mod swapped out for CMB), and nobody'd probably notice. Most other stuff go straight in.

[Halinn]

Basically, CMB is grapple, except that the size modifier is 1/4th normal. For CMD, add 10+Dex to that.

[Agita]

Do note that Power Attack remains a buff unless you've been actively sinking more than half of your BAB into it(that is, only optimized characters would be pulling that off). Its a nerf only when you consider absolute peak.

Yes, but that was specified. Regular characters would experience it as a straight buff due to the ratio increase, since you can only dump that hard when you're already well past autohit.

You don't need to be anywhere near "absolute peak" for the PA nerf to apply. Even a merely competently above average character will be able to safely dump half of their BAB or more after being buffed by the party caster(s). If you're a "regular", i.e. unoptimized, mundane melee character without access to buffs from your party caster(s), you have other things to worry about than Power Attack.
Let's also not forget that touch attacks, which are nontrivial to get on your party fighter, but possible and a very basic tactic to get your chance to hit in the required range, are simply disallowed by PF Power Attack for no reason other than "min/maxing is evil".

This aside, I largely agree with the pluses laid out so far. Another notable change that I've only seen mentioned tangentially in this thread so far is that Pathfinder puts playing monsters basically entirely in the realm of DM fiat by removing LA. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is harder to judge, as the LA system didn't work well in the first place, but I'm tempted  to call it bad - there were some races and templates, after all, that were a real consideration for the tradeoff even without LA buyoff, and otherwise interesting templates now don't work at all without playing Mother May I. It also gets annoying when people misunderstand the whole thing and are like "nothing has LA, so all templates are free" or "CR increase equals LA increase".

EDIT: As for converting Grapple to CMB and CMD, CMD also has various other easily-missed bonuses influencing it. It's not just Dex, but any basically AC modifier that would apply to touch AC, including Deflection, Luck, Insight, etc.

[Fadier]

Removing the LA system (as over inflated as most LA's were) was a bad move. Especially when the replacement rule gains you an extra level halfway through every 2nd/3rd level, to a maximum of half your level rounded down. In pathfinder you will never find a monstrous PC with an odd base ECL.

In 3.5 you needed dubious shenanigans to be able to cast higher than your level should permit, but with pathfinder all you need to do is pick a monster with innate spellcasting (like a Neh-Thalggu, Drider or for those of you who miss the Rainbow Servant the Lamia Matriarch) and just level up in the appropiate spellcaster. Soon you will be casting far higher spells than you should.

For more brokenness just add the Young Template

[veekie]

^^
Actually the replacement guideline(its not a rule, specifically stated as a guideline) is severely contraindicated even in the same passage its written in.
It says you A) preferably not do it at all B) run the whole group as monsters of the same CR C) if all else fails and you want a mixed group, you use that guideline, but with a close eye on the monster availability.

[Fadier]

It still a little nuts though. I thought one of the key selling points in 3.5 was that you could play (almost) anything. Pathfinder only wants you to use the base races.

[veekie]

For my monster race needs I'd trust Oslecamo's entire subforum full of stuff over either WotC's whackjob LA or Pathfinder's nonexistent one.

Of course, in PF the base power is slightly higher for base races, so a lot more monsters can be turned into a base race + some unlocker feats.

[littha]

For my monster race needs I'd trust Oslecamo's entire subforum full of stuff over either WotC's whackjob LA or Pathfinder's nonexistent one.

Of course, in PF the base power is slightly higher for base races, so a lot more monsters can be turned into a base race + some unlocker feats.

Personally I think that the LA system would have worked had Wizards had a clue about what they were doing, who in their right mind thinks that a succubus is equal to a level 12 character? level 8 at absolute tops I would have thought.

Even then, I play a lot of high ECL races because they interest me with their uniqueness. Sure they arent really that strong but trying to standardise them (ala Oslecamo's classes) feels like they lose their individuality, exactly the same problem as 4th has with all of its classes.
That and they seem to lose all of their strong features (high ability scores) but still cost you several levels generally means they are still significantly weaker than normal classes.

[snakeman830]

For my monster race needs I'd trust Oslecamo's entire subforum full of stuff over either WotC's whackjob LA or Pathfinder's nonexistent one.

Of course, in PF the base power is slightly higher for base races, so a lot more monsters can be turned into a base race + some unlocker feats.

Personally I think that the LA system would have worked had Wizards had a clue about what they were doing, who in their right mind thinks that a succubus is equal to a level 12 character? level 8 at absolute tops I would have thought.

I agree.  Given that there are still some races and templates out there that are worth playing even with their LA says that the system wasn't bad, just the implementation.

[veekie]

For my monster race needs I'd trust Oslecamo's entire subforum full of stuff over either WotC's whackjob LA or Pathfinder's nonexistent one.

Of course, in PF the base power is slightly higher for base races, so a lot more monsters can be turned into a base race + some unlocker feats.

Personally I think that the LA system would have worked had Wizards had a clue about what they were doing, who in their right mind thinks that a succubus is equal to a level 12 character? level 8 at absolute tops I would have thought.

Even then, I play a lot of high ECL races because they interest me with their uniqueness. Sure they arent really that strong but trying to standardise them (ala Oslecamo's classes) feels like they lose their individuality, exactly the same problem as 4th has with all of its classes.
That and they seem to lose all of their strong features (high ability scores) but still cost you several levels generally means they are still significantly weaker than normal classes.

It mostly focuses on their abilities rather than the numerics. High stats alone are a 'false LA' in that you can function as a creature(intended to exist for the span of a single  encounter) but not as a character, special abilities are where it should be. Most 'bad LA' races are exactly that, they have level appropriate numbers, but not abilities. The succubus' entire combat role is centered around hitting a PC with a high DC charm and then going from there for example.

EDIT: Hell, some LAs are entirely worthless save for the fact that they give you much bigger numbers than anything else can for the level, and since LA rules don't include means to advance your ability DCs, they are all that's left.

[akalsaris]

Right now I am running 2 PF games, running one 3.5 game, playing in one 3.5 game, and about to start playing in a new 3.5 game. So I haven't so much switched over as I have straddled the two systems.

Love:
-The modules. Nobody else in this thread has mentioned them, but the modules are very well written, well organized, and have tons of graphics and side lore attached to them. They were the reason I started 2 PF (module) games...
-The skills consolidation. It was an obvious house rule, but it needed to be done. It's a hidden buff to rogues, bards, rangers, and wizards.
-Favored class changes. Another obvious house rule, but it was one of the dumber parts of 3.5

Like:
-I really like the witch, the summoner, and the magus.
-It's not Paizo, but I really like what I've seen of the new psionic classes. I want to play some of them really badly...
-Paladin, sorcerer, ranger, and rogue are all a little bit more fun.
-Changing dying at -10 to dying at -Con Score, and made the stabilize check a Con check. It makes death much less more arbitrary at all levels. Also, removing the 50 dmg = save vs. death rule that nearly everyone house ruled anyhow.

Don't care:
-Cleric and druid changes
-Lots and lots of worthless archetypes nobody will ever take
-New combat rules. Simpler but still a headache and they screw with an otherwise simple conversion process

Dislike:
-Monk is still a grab bag of weird class abilities and exceptions galore. Except the Zen Monk archetype is awesome.
-They buff paladin, then release the cavalier, who is strictly worse than the paladin. 
-Gunslinger suffers from the same weird exceptionalism to rules to make it work, and doesn't really seem to fit into the setting

Hate:
-I'm probably the only one, but the New poison rules really irritate me
-Lack of rules for playing monster classes