Okay, first, I'd like to point out that I love planning campaigns. I've also recently started actually using google docs and groups to 'write out' ideas for my custom setting/world. As a DM, who's next new game isn't for a while, I'm worried about my players willingness to participate in the game. The reason: My players are so used to 3.5 and having all the splatbooks available to them, with all the new base classes, prestige classes, feats and spells at their fingertips, that I'm afraid of how they'd react when I say "Okay boys and girls, in this game we're playing with this one book (PfRPG)." Not only that, but I also want to limit the PrC's to a maximum of 1 in a PC's career (however that will be handled in PFRPG). This setting of mine will be using the PF RPG rules, and as such, I'd like to not go outside that for our first PF game. What should I do?
Don't spring it as a surprise. Learning a new system takes time. They've obviously spent a lot of time already learning 3.5. Play up how cool PFRPG is. Try to get them excited about it. And maybe be willing to bend a little if someone is really having trouble working inside your rules. Or at least budget some extra time to help them find a way to do what they want within your rules.
Good luck. Your players may surprise you by how reasonable they can actually be.
Thank you for the replies. One of the biggest problems for the group is learning a new system. They love 3.5, and they are very hesitant to even want to learn anything else. Since I talk about it, they mostly dismiss it, or simply ignore me when i talk about it.
Thank you for the replies. One of the biggest problems for the group is learning a new system. They love 3.5, and they are very hesitant to even want to learn anything else. Since I talk about it, they mostly dismiss it, or simply ignore me when i talk about it.
That is the cool thing about the PFRPG. it's really not like they are learning a totally new system. Sure they have changed the classes and some spells around, switched up and added a few feats, but the core mechanic is still the same as in 3.5. Our first couple of sessions I was rather surprised at how little we had to get out the pfrpg book and look up a rule.
I was worried about the same thing you were, but my group jumped right into the fray and we are all quite happy with our decision to switch over.
Good luck convincing them, it really is a great game.
One of the biggest problems for the group is learning a new system.
Then it's all about not selling then PF as a "new system". You can start, for example, by telling them "look at all sweet stuff for the core classes in here", once you get them hooked you take it from there. Introduce the changes in the rules gradually in your campaign, and don't bother mentioning resources they never use (only a handful of gaming tables ever use Combat Maneuvers for example).
Finally... if there are things your table doesn't want from PF then don't force them. In all the gaming tables I'm at we use 3.0's magic for example, so if your players like having more than 1 PrC then well, Rule Zero: The GM makes the rules and to hell with whatever others think, only fun is important.
stuff...
to hell with whatever others think, only fun is important.
Unless they think it's not fun...
"IF the DM is always right, the players will be right out the door."
It's everybody's game, not just the DM's.
However most people are admendable to trying new things if you talk to them first.
Pointing out that it is 3.5 compatible and other stuff can be used in the future... and that the beta is free should help alot.
Quite possible, it's that last part that grabbed me though. Other than that little bit on the end his post is great, and I must agree on the money.
However I seem to have a quirk requires me to return snip for snip...
Something I'll have to work on I fear.
Talk about it early. Give them an advance warning.
Tell them that it's not a new game, or even a new edition, but a revision of 3.5.
Tell them that it's an improvement to 3.5
Show them some of the changes you like best (some of the classes come to mind for me).
Bait them. "Wouldn't you like to get better ability bonuses with your race? Or more feats? PF does that!"
Since I talk about it, they mostly dismiss it, or simply ignore me when i talk about it.
Now that's just rude. Did you talk to them about it? If they keep ignoring them, do the same to them. During game. Just don't answer them any questions for a couple of minutes. If they get miffed, tell them that this was exactly how you felt. Don't overdo it, just get the point across.
I'm in a group right now who has recently had enough of 3.5 for various reasons. We are doing a little experimentation right now, and trying out new game rule systems. It's a great way to showcase new games and campaign settings.
We just finished a World of Darkness game in the Werewolf campaign setting and a couple of the players liked it. I didn't like the system or setting myself, but it was just a few sessions. I am running Burnt Offerings this Thursday for that same group but using the Savage Worlds rules along with some of the iconics that I "Savaged"
But the key is making sure the players know how many sessions they are going to be running through, and also, some don't want to make characters so having pre-gens handy is always good.
I think if you did this with the Pathfinder RPG things may go over more smoothly.
|
Mix in a few of the revised classes, for those that never seem to get picked (paladin and sorceror seem to be the most common ones to feel left out).
3.5 rules, but revised class progression. Once the players start thinking 'Hey! That class was never that cool!', they'll start flicking through the rest...
The biggest hurdle you have to be aware of is "Why do your players enjoy all of the splatbooks."
If they are the typical "power gamer" type that is looking for every little advantage to be better than you, the GM, PfRPG probably won't appeal to them.
Now, if they are like me, and the group I am in, if they enjoy all the extra material because they found the 3.5 core rules rather bland... PfRPG should be right up their ally. There is a ton of flavor or spice just in the core rules. Add in the Campaign Setting book - and I admit that probably won't fit you game - to flesh out the races more, and nothing else may ever be needed.
So, I would say have a chat with your players. Try not to let it get too serious, and find out why they "cling" to 3.5.
If nothing else, it might give you an idea of how to "sell" PfRPG on them.
|
Okay, first, I'd like to point out that I love planning campaigns. I've also recently started actually using google docs and groups to 'write out' ideas for my custom setting/world. As a DM, who's next new game isn't for a while, I'm worried about my players willingness to participate in the game. The reason: My players are so used to 3.5 and having all the splatbooks available to them, with all the new base classes, prestige classes, feats and spells at their fingertips, that I'm afraid of how they'd react when I say "Okay boys and girls, in this game we're playing with this one book (PfRPG)." Not only that, but I also want to limit the PrC's to a maximum of 1 in a PC's career (however that will be handled in PFRPG). This setting of mine will be using the PF RPG rules, and as such, I'd like to not go outside that for our first PF game. What should I do?
It took me a little time but almost all players in my game are playing Pathfinder character the last hold out has decided to boycott my game because I didn't ask him if he wanted to play "some 3rd party crap not published by wizards" or if he "wanted the DM to limit his options as to books he could use".
Edit: oh, and I didn't just switch over immediately, I started introducing rules, classes gradually back when it was alpha. Now though I'm firmly set in Pathfinder (even going so far as to convert the RotR AP villians that's fun)
We're not munchkins, or even 'power gamers' really.. they like the splatbooks because they think some of the stuff is cool, that's it.. the one player loves the fighter, even though it's been pointed out ad nausea that it doesn't stand up to casters in high levels.. they loathe BO9S because of the amazing things the classes can do.. and they like playing with BOED because of roleplaying opportunities (even though only one player usually plays with any of the material from it)..
I've told them about the campaign, and they largely don't care, as long as they're playing D&D.. :)
Our group plays a number of different systems so PF wasn't that big of a deal to them. (Funny though that several tried 4.0 and only one liked it.)
They are eating up the PF richness. The only hang up is the CMB, so we're still operating under the old system. I expect this to a temporary thing though.
Our 3.5 game is winding down so I'm expecting PF to be 'it'. Alongside Champions and Fantasy Hero (ugh, can't get to like that system - sorry Hero fans.) If 3.5 stays alive I hope it takes on some of the richness of PF, but that'll be up to the other DM that runs it.
I'm confused by what appears to be a recurring premise on this board as regards integration of PF with WotC and 3rd-Party material. Does it have to be all PF or nothing?
I should clarify that I run an integrated PF/3.5 game. As opposed to another DM's 3.5 campaign. I just call it PF to simplify.
Of course I've restricted a number of 3.5 items, for simplicity, but many are still in use.
Adventurers go on quests to get shiney new things, a lot of times. What makes you think that your players aren't interested in some treasure, too? What helped me transition some players was buying some GameMastery Item cards. My written invitation included what I thought was a nifty item, and asked players to make a character with this item free-of-charge (also referred to Item creation, Character levels and Treasure, etc.) I had very little rules adjudicating to do, since the players were pretty creative and stuck to the rules well. I also notedthat we would use the Pathfinder system, with the written link to the download. This tactic worked well, because we believe that paizo's commitment to making gaming better was immediately visible with the GameMastery line of products.
the one player loves the fighter, even though it's been pointed out ad nausea that it doesn't stand up to casters in high levels
There's your bait. Tell them fighters become awesomer in Pathfinder and you have a champion to your cause.
And fighters do become awesomer: Bravery, weapon and armour training, the masteries, and now more exclusive feats (see the latest announcement in the announcement forum).
I'm in a group right now who has recently had enough of 3.5 for various reasons. We are doing a little experimentation right now, and trying out new game rule systems. It's a great way to showcase new games and campaign settings.
I'm not the biggest Werewolf fan, but what's not to like with the nWod system?
Anyway, if I may tell you about the games I played/read about so far:
Attributes and Skills aren't given as scores, but as dice. Attributes start at d4, skills at d2 (or, rather at nothing at all). It goes up to d12, and then you get another die, for up to d12+d4 normally. Skills go up to d6, after that you must specialise (you cannot have guns d6, but you can have guns d6/rifles d8). Bonuses and penalties are steps. A one step bonus makes a d8 out of a d6, and those can go beyond d12+d4.
Your score in abilities and skills determines how many d10 you can roll, but you don't get to keep them all: If you have, say Agiliy 3 and swordfighting (Kenjutsu) 5, you roll 8 dice, but only keep 3. The numbers are added up (you may roll 10s again and add that to that one die's value) and compared to the Target Number.
You can also raise, which increases the TN by 5, but lets you do cooler stuff (but if you fail, it fails completely). Some abilities grant you free raises on things (which can be transformed into a +5 to the roll)
|
|
I'm confused by what appears to be a recurring premise on this board as regards integration of PF with WotC and 3rd-Party material. Does it have to be all PF or nothing?
Use what you like from PF or whatever other books, and go from there.
Onlyism seems to defeat the whole purpose of playing a game: enjoyment.
DM's are supposed to have fun too. If I'm trying to run an "old west" game I don't want Jedi to show up even though there's a conversion rule about it.So in my case I'm trying to reign in the overpowered unbalanced caracters power gamers can create by limiting the options to certain splat books. Here's a couple of examples of characters that are "broken" in the current games: dark template (unearth arcana template) shadow walker template (not sure I got the template right going off memory, from unapproachable east) rogue he's got a +24 to his hide/stealth and wants to be in melee (making -20 hide checks in 3.5) to stay hidden, and he also wanted to take craven (champions of ruin) and a few other feats that I've since said no too. Another character is a Vow of Poverty Warfoge Monk Saint (template BoED) of Pelor (he pitched a fit that we didn't consult him when the pantheon changed so we made pelor a demigod). These games (and the arguments every week about the changes or limiting of books or changing of spells or powers because we've seen the OP use of them) made the game not fun for myself. Either I have to pit the party against creatures or situations that only one character can overcome or I have to get some balance. Against the rogue I have to redesign the creatures with high perception to spot him and they immediately spot the entire party.
I should clarify that I run an integrated PF/3.5 game. As opposed to another DM's 3.5 campaign. I just call it PF to simplify.
Of course I've restricted a number of 3.5 items, for simplicity, but many are still in use.
> nods head <
Yeah, I wasn't making any particular indictments or anything. Just a general observation. :)
Didn't take it personally. Since PF is designed to work backwards, and needs to work with SRD monsters/etc., I think it will be next year before it really stands on its own. Even when that happens there still will be a ton of good non-OGL material to incorporate.
Creative Director
|
I can certainly understand the desire to use so many different books to build characters. It's fun to mix and match to get the perfect combo. It DOES lead to super-specialized characters, and that means a character made from lots of books is going to be more powerful than one just made from one book, but if your group's been doing this for a while, chances are good that you as the GM are used to that, so it's all good.
Anyway, while we HAVE been stressing the importance of getting us feedback on the rules as is... one of the big selling points of the PF RPG is that it IS backwards compatible. At least; it's supposed to be. So if your players want to test drive scouts and binders and psions and skill tricks, and they're up for some pretty intense playtesting, by all means run a PF RPG playtest with all of the books you have open. Some groups are doing this already, after all. I suspect that not all of the 3.5 stuff will mesh perfectly together... but then, neither does all of the 3.5 stuff mesh perfectly together due to power creep and revisions and all that that happened over the years.
Thanks James,
I was so focused on just playing PF that I had actually forgotten that it's meant to be backwards compatible. With that, I will definitely leave it open for people to play whatever we have the book for. Though, this means I may need to account for each class in the setting.
|
|
DM's are supposed to have fun too. [...] Against the rogue I have to redesign the creatures with high perception to spot him and they immediately spot the entire party.Yeah, that's called forethought and not being the players' doormat.
And, last time I checked, the Rogue is a Core Class. ;)
I wasn't saying that the players' will must rule the game. Rather, as I thought I clearly stated, the game is an agreement by both the players and the GM to make an enjoyable use of time invested.
Where did I suggest anything similar to having a Jedi mix it up with a Shootist? > puzzled <
Rogue is a core class but the templates aren't. And the Jedi comment is "Just because there's a conversion for a wizards product doesn't mean I as a DM have to allow it into my game." There are rules out there for converting 3.5 starwars over to 3.5 DnD (and vice versus). I personally am very happy with Pathfinder. Current characters are as is (so I'm stuck with a 4th level rogue who's a cross between the shadow batman and spiderman and has a +24 bonus to his stealth, naked) but new characters in my game are pathfinder.
Our playtest has a beguiler, an archivist, a factotum, and a knight.
So what type of characters do they run? ;-)
Update: They're hooked ;)
So far, only one player expressed interest in playing any PrC..
His character idea is a planetouched race (descendant of firre eladrin and elf, dont remember name) celestial bloodline sorcerer, eventually going into Bonded Summoner for a Fire Elemental..
The others haven't made up their mind, but aren't really concerned with the 1 PrC rule.. that's mostly because we end up playing well into epic levels (yes it does get ridiculous), and we have plenty of levels to play with.
My campaign is an attempt to slow down the leveling-up, as we play twice a week for an average of 6 hours a piece. And we usually level up once every week or so on average.
But they seem to be very interested in Pathfinder now, as well as Paizo in general. These players are used to WotC only material, so it's gonna be a slow process to get them used to another company making products for 'the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game.' :)
|
Thank you for the replies. One of the biggest problems for the group is learning a new system. They love 3.5, and they are very hesitant to even want to learn anything else. Since I talk about it, they mostly dismiss it, or simply ignore me when i talk about it.
Hi Slatz,
I have had the same thought in regards to my players/ongoing group. Especially when I announced to them that I will keep playing 3.5, but wanted to switch to the Golarion Campaign Setting (living greyhawk being dropped and the FR having undergone a change that did not fit my campaign, but still wanting to play in a setting that offered lots of fresh material in regards to modules and supplements (I am rather lazy in regards to designing things (other than adventures) myself; or rather not having enough time for this due to the reason that I have a full time job to attend to). They have been easy enough in regards to changing the Campaign setting, but when I announced to them a few weeks later that I also opted to change the system, well that was hell in my home. They thought that they had to leave their beloved D&D behind. But after explaining that this was still D&D, just not 3.5 (or 4E) but more like 3.7, they have been willing to give it a try. I have never anticipated that all of my gamers would switch, and only 2/3 did it. The other third did accept our decision and and said good by (much to my regret). They joned the campaign of a friend, and all seemed to be happy. I gave my remaining players my spare print copy of the Pathfinder rules as well as the address where they could download the Beta Rules. Two weeks later I started the Curse of the Crimson Throne Campaign /adapted to the Pathfinder RPG, and everyone liked it. Unfortunately for me, those that have been unwilling to move along and thus left our group, plus a few other players from their new group called me to express their wish to participate. This left me with more people wanting to join the Pathfinder RPG than I had seats.
I do not think that this is the result of my "great ability" in GMing. It rather is the result of my people having had the chance to check out the Beta Rules and comparing them with their preferred Game System, be it 3.5 or 4E.
Just let your players check the rules and let them decide (maybe after "forcing" them to a trial session). I am willing to almost guarantee that they will go along afterwards.
Just let your players check the rules and let them decide (maybe after "forcing" them to a trial session). I am willing to almost guarantee that they will go along afterwards.
I did just that. I told them all the new cool stuff the classes got, and they got curious. They also thought the idea of it being an open playtest was cool too.
|
When I read this thread last night it worried me. One of my concerns about Pathfinder is that it may fragment the player base of D&D3.5 even further, so rather than just a 3.5 and 4e split, it will now be a 3.5 / Pathfinder / 4e split (there will be some overlap of course).
However, scanning the thread again I feel the issues seem mainly to be around using non WOTC material and rules rather than another system as such.
But they seem to be very interested in Pathfinder now, as well as Paizo in general. These players are used to WotC only material, so it's gonna be a slow process to get them used to another company making products for 'the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game.' :)
I am glad it is working out for you. May I ask why you decided to restrict the books and PrCs when you moved to Pathfinder?
Pathfinder is meant to be backwards compatible, so if a GM is happy to allow lots of splats in D&D3.5, they shouldn't really have any issue with allowing the same in Pathfinder. Introducing restrictions on books at teh same time as moving to Pathfinder may cause resentment to Pathfinder which actually has nothing to do with the system - guilt by association :)
we play twice a week for an average of 6 hours a piece. And we usually level up once every week or so on average.
I envy you! I would love to have that much time to game each week - I am lucky just toget 4 hours a week, never mind 12!
It took me a little time but almost all players in my game are playing Pathfinder character the last hold out has decided to boycott my game because I didn't ask him if he wanted to play "some 3rd party crap not published by wizards" or if he "wanted the DM to limit his options as to books he could use".
It sounds as if your holdout had both the dislike of non-WOTC books but also the association of Pathfinder with restriction on books. May I ask you as well why you decided to impose restrictions (as it sounds like you did)?
I'm firmly set in Pathfinder (even going so far as to convert the RotR AP villians that's fun)
May I ask, now that you are running Pathfinder and your players are happy with the system, if GM duties moved and someone wanted to run D&D3.5 rather than Pathfinder how do you think that would be received? Would you be happy to play 3.5? Would teh other players, now that they have played Pathfinder? Is your group a single game group or is 3.5 / Pathfinder one of several games you play?
|
|
It took me a little time but almost all players in my game are playing Pathfinder character the last hold out has decided to boycott my game because I didn't ask him if he wanted to play "some 3rd party crap not published by wizards" or if he "wanted the DM to limit his options as to books he could use".It sounds as if your holdout had both the dislike of non-WOTC books but also the association of Pathfinder with restriction on books. May I ask you as well why you decided to impose restrictions (as it sounds like you did)?
I'm firmly set in Pathfinder (even going so far as to convert the RotR AP villians that's fun)May I ask, now that you are running Pathfinder and your players are happy with the system, if GM duties moved and someone wanted to run D&D3.5 rather than Pathfinder how do you think that would be received? Would you be happy to play 3.5? Would teh other players, now that they have played Pathfinder? Is your group a single game group or is 3.5 / Pathfinder one of several games you play?
The restriction was due to one player (the holdout) having a torrent download of every WotC book ever printed and pulling feats, alternate class features, and templates from all sources (and I mean all sources) to build game breaking characters. My game, and my brother's game are pathfinder/3.5 hybrids (like a lot of games out there). Currently my brother and I switch off running games he's running the Savage Tide AP and I'm running RotR. We do play other games one player used to run cthulhu, one player we game at his house the following day, and the holdout ran his own game between my game and my brother's. I don't want to go into it but a fun time was had...by him (the holdout).
Edit: oh, and my game has always been non-standard since I never set my game in any published WotC campaign (which is why I don't want warforges or red wizards). I used a pantheon from another company (Book of the Righteous from green ronin great book even though it's 3.0).
|
|
The restriction was due to one player (the holdout) having a torrent download of every WotC book ever printed and pulling feats, alternate class features, and templates from all sources (and I mean all sources) to build game breaking characters.
Do I take it these sources weren't allowed in your previous 3.5 games either? If so it sounds like the problem is in no way related to Pathfinder - but was perhaps used as an excuse bythe holdout to throw his toys out of the pram.
Thanks for the insight.
|
|
The restriction was due to one player (the holdout) having a torrent download of every WotC book ever printed and pulling feats, alternate class features, and templates from all sources (and I mean all sources) to build game breaking characters.Do I take it these sources weren't allowed in your previous 3.5 games either? If so it sounds like the problem is in no way related to Pathfinder - but was perhaps used as an excuse bythe holdout to throw his toys out of the pram.
Thanks for the insight.
Yes, there weren't allowed, I could go on but I don't want this to turn into a rant against one of my players, even though I feel free to talk here because he everything pathfinder
|
|
So if you want to encourage players to use the Pathfinder rules it seems best to:
a) Try and tackle any fears they have about it being published by a company other than WOTC. Perhaps emphasising that Paizo were the company that WOTC trusted to create and publish their official magazines (Dungeon and Dragon) before taking them in house.
Also emphasising the level of playtesting that it is undergoing by experienced D&D3.5 players should mean it won't be any more broken than 3.5 is.
b) Don't impose any restrictions on books, classes, Prestige Classes, feats, races etc that you didn't already have in place in your 3.5 game.
In essence just simply say that rather than using the D&D3.5 PHB & DMG core rule books you're planning to use the Pathfinder RPG book instead (and the Bestiary instead of the MM once it is out). All other books that were available beforehand still are.
It may cause you as a GM a bit of a headache as PF and 3.5 aren't 100% compatible, but it seems easy enough for most people to do "good enough" conversions on the fly. Just reserve the right to alter any combinations between 3.5 & PF that seem broken once seen in play.
c) If players are really against it, perhaps start using just some aspects of PF e.g. the upgraded Hit Dice for certain classes, using Combat Manoeuvres etc. Start introducing the rules bit by bit and see what your players like.
In the end though the main advice I guess is to sit down and talk to them about your desires to move to Pathfinder - determine their concerns and worries and try to tackle them each appropriately. But always be prepared to accept that some players just will not want to move to Pathfinder, and that if that is the majority of your players you are better off sticking with 3.5.
|
|
So if you want to encourage players to use the Pathfinder rules it seems best to:
a) Try and tackle any fears they have about it being published by a company other than WOTC. Perhaps emphasising that Paizo were the company that WOTC trusted to create and publish their official magazines (Dungeon and Dragon) before taking them in house.
Also emphasising the level of playtesting that it is undergoing by experienced D&D3.5 players should mean it won't be any more broken than 3.5 is.
b) Don't impose any restrictions on books, classes, Prestige Classes, feats, races etc that you didn't already have in place in your 3.5 game.
In essence just simply say that rather than using the D&D3.5 PHB & DMG core rule books you're planning to use the Pathfinder RPG book instead (and the Bestiary instead of the MM once it is out). All other books that were available beforehand still are.
It may cause you as a GM a bit of a headache as PF and 3.5 aren't 100% compatible, but it seems easy enough for most people to do "good enough" conversions on the fly. Just reserve the right to alter any combinations between 3.5 & PF that seem broken once seen in play.
c) If players are really against it, perhaps start using just some aspects of PF e.g. the upgraded Hit Dice for certain classes, using Combat Manoeuvres etc. Start introducing the rules bit by bit and see what your players like.
In the end though the main advice I guess is to sit down and talk to them about your desires to move to Pathfinder - determine their concerns and worries and try to tackle them each appropriately. But always be prepared to accept that some players just will not want to move to Pathfinder, and that if that is the majority of your players you are better off sticking with 3.5.
That's what I did. And to have 1 out of 5 players dissatified is fine. You can't satisfiy everyone all the time.
May I ask why you decided to restrict the books and PrCs when you moved to Pathfinder?
At first, I was afraid that the players wouldn't appreciate PF fully because they tend toward non-core base classes. Also, the PrC limitation is due to the fact that, in a current game i'm playing with 'said group', we're level 20, and the Paladin already has 3 prestige classes. The cleric has 2. And so on. Prestige classes don't seem very 'prestigious' at this point.
However, after some thought (and reading some posts here), I've decided to allow the material we always use. The only difference is that we're going to play with the PF rules.
Oh, not really related, but does anyone know if they posted an 'updated' Monk class, similar to what they did with the barbarian and paladin?
Just let your players check the rules and let them decide (maybe after "forcing" them to a trial session). I am willing to almost guarantee that they will go along afterwards.I did just that. I told them all the new cool stuff the classes got, and they got curious. They also thought the idea of it being an open playtest was cool too.
If you send me an email, I will provide you with a copy of SORD and SORD Plus so you can compare the 3.5e vs. PF changes (and get a cool set of products to boot). These two documents will lay out very clearly the way the PF has streamlined the system and made play a lot more *playlike*.
Steve Muchow
Myth Merchant Press
steve@mythmerchant.com
I actually bought SORD 3.5 a few days back.. sometime last week. As much as I love it (and i really love it), I do wish i had a version for PF.
Edit: Sending email
You know, allow me to put my two useless cents here.
Many players hate when you take some of their powers from them, even if this power was really broken and taking the fun from some other players. What I would tell you is to use all the great ideas the people posted, but one more thing: Try to put one more person in the group, from outside the normal group. This kind of thing is a change, and when people accept a change it's easy to chain them into other changes, somewhat like "it's all fair game".
I have one player who thinks that he understands about rules and min/maxing. He is really terrible at it, really laugheable to tell the truth, but he argued with me with every little one thing that I changed to accomodate PF, that actually "nerfed" his char. Every ability that was improved was well received, but every little one that his char had that was dowgraded met with some heavy discussion. What I did? Said: Trust me child, trust me.
Now my players play with the new rules, are interested in improving them, and I really think that they couldn't play with the old ones. "Hey, how's that of not having "weapons training" or "rogue abilities"??? This 3.5 vanilla wild shape is sick!" and things like that.
Take it easy, and trust in their maturity, I say, and when you see that they accepted a change, press on that weak spot!