It effectively requires major rewriting to be functional. It doesn't particularly care if those rules are good, just that they exist. Pathfinder attempts to have rules for everything. Unlike the aforementioned fighter they get a ton of skill points and class skills, and while they're not the heaviest hitters or the chunkiest front-liners they can still hold their own. Inquisitors aren't at the top of the food chain, but they're very far from the bottom. They have fewer skill points and few class skills, though the latter can be somewhat remedied by selecting traits that grant you class skills. If you play a class like a fighter, you will inevitably wind up being limited in what you can do outside of combat. >roleplaying opportunities constrained by crunch At lower levels combat should be fairly cut and dry. It can be, but that is largely dependent upon how familiar the party as a whole is with the system. OP, what do you know about the person who is going to be DMing for you? I think that's something we really need to know before we can offer any advice. >and will have no place at the table unless your GM is terrible. Pathfinder tried to not be that system, but floundered in its execution. To put it in terms that someone familiar with 40k would understand, imagine a system in which psykers were able to wield the power they do, but they have total control over it and there are never any negative ramifications for using it. >I've never played 3.5 either, so if you could be a bit more specific.