Pathfinder Tier System

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I agree. And I like pathfinder. And I like what they did with the base paladin. But I am also pretty sure that I can build a 3.5 paladin that would be more powerful and more versatile than the PF paladin. So did pathfinder raise the paladin's tier? No, not in my opinion. It is ultimately, at this moment, less flexible and therefore farther from T3.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but are you saying the (practical) ceiling is what determines the tier? I thought it was supposed to cover all levels of optimization in its considerations.

[Gnaeus]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but are you saying the (practical) ceiling is what determines the tier? I thought it was supposed to cover all levels of optimization in its considerations.

But it is also a description of options. 3.5 paladin has more options. It has more and better spells. An unoptimized healbot cleric could be strictly worse than a Healer, but he is still T1, because he still has more options. A blaster sorc can easily be built at T4, but he is listed at T2, because he could be picking Planar Binding and Polymorph. Even the worst built 3.5 paladin (so long as he has a 14 wis) can benefit from the better spells at his disposal. He can always find someone with Craft Wands and churn out some nice swift action wands for himself. Yes, he might choose only junk feats, but he might pick Shock Trooper, Animal Devotion, Sacred Vitality and some gems from ToB.

[Psyren]

I agree. And I like pathfinder. And I like what they did with the base paladin. But I am also pretty sure that I can build a 3.5 paladin that would be more powerful and more versatile than the PF paladin. So did pathfinder raise the paladin's tier? No, not in my opinion. It is ultimately, at this moment, less flexible and therefore farther from T3.

Pathfinder's strength is its compatibility with 3.5. Almost any option you could use to optimize the 3.5 Paladin can be used to boost the PF Paladin; therefore, the only demarcation between the two is the chassis, and the PF Paladin's is superior in every way.

[Gnaeus]

Pathfinder's strength is its compatibility with 3.5. Almost any option you could use to optimize the 3.5 Paladin can be used to boost the PF Paladin; therefore, the only demarcation between the two is the chassis, and the PF Paladin's is superior in every way.

Really? So if I go into a Pathfinder Society game with my shock trooper they will let me play it? Hmm, no.

What about the optimization tournament for Pathfinder at Dragoncon (Cheesegrinder)? Can I bring the Spell Compendium? Wait for it...... No.

O.K. How about my local Pathfinder game, run by my local DM? Could I get all that stuff? No. Could I get little bits of it? Probably. But wait, I play in a 3.5 game also, with a DM who has a lot of system mastery and cares about balance. Could I get him to approve the PF paladin? Probably.

PF=PF. 3.5=3.5. PF+3.5 beats either, but you are no longer talking about PF OR 3.5, but a combo system involving both and including DM houserules about how to merge content. Saying PF paladin beats 3.5 paladin because my DM allows 3.5 material is just like saying that Monk is an awesome class because our houserules make it rock. That is true, while at the same time being totally useless.

[Psyren]

Really? So if I go into a Pathfinder Society game with my shock trooper they will let me play it? Hmm, no.

What about the optimization tournament for Pathfinder at Dragoncon (Cheesegrinder)? Can I bring the Spell Compendium? Wait for it...... No.

Non sequitur; Pathfinder Society is a sanctioned format, and does not represent the totality of Pathfinder. That's like saying you can't use your Extended Deck in a friendly Magic: The Gathering game because it's not Standard-legal.

O.K. How about my local Pathfinder game, run by my local DM? Could I get all that stuff? No.

That's an issue with your DM, not with the system itself. The system is fully-compatible with only minor alterations needed.

Saying PF paladin beats 3.5 paladin because my DM allows 3.5 material is just like saying that Monk is an awesome class because our houserules make it rock. That is true, while at the same time being totally useless.

Yet another non-sequitur. The Pathfinder system was explicitly designed with backwards compatibility in mind; my houserules are unrelated to this objective. From paizo themselves:

"The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has been designed with compatibility with previous editions in mind, so you'll be able to use your existing library of 3.5 products with minimal effort."

Thus allowing 3.5 material is not just an option, it is an intended feature of Pathfinder from the start. That a given group chooses not to do so, does not change the fact that they can.

[Gnaeus]

Non sequitur; Pathfinder Society is a sanctioned format, and does not represent the totality of Pathfinder. That's like saying you can't use your Extended Deck in a friendly Magic: The Gathering game because it's not Standard-legal.



That's an issue with your DM, not with the system itself. The system is fully-compatible with only minor alterations needed.



Yet another non-sequitur. The Pathfinder system was explicitly designed with backwards compatibility in mind; my houserules are unrelated to this objective. From paizo themselves:

"The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has been designed with compatibility with previous editions in mind, so you'll be able to use your existing library of 3.5 products with minimal effort."

Thus allowing 3.5 material is not just an option, it is an intended feature of Pathfinder from the start. That a given group chooses not to do so, does not change the fact that they can.

It isn't a RULE Psyren. Spell Compendium says that you could add spells to other classes that aren't listed. You CAN add those spells to Wu Jen. Maybe you should. But if you do, it is a houserule. A houserule supported by text, even design intent, but a houserule. RAW, there are no Wu Jen spells in the SPC.

3.5 material is not PF material. It is not even 100% compatible with PF material. They are not the same game. You cannot port 3.5 into PF without modifying classes, spells, feats, magic items. Play with whatever rules you like. But 3.5 is not part of PF. The more splats PF publishes (partially duplicating 3.5 materials with differences), the farther apart they get. Is Oracle the same as Favored Soul? IDK. Are both automatically in play in every PF game? Houserule.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

In any event the other thread discussing 3.5 use in PF games showed that use of 3.5 material runs the gamut between none and all. One guy even had a rule where if PF and 3.5 had something with the same name you use the better one, so 3.5 PA was back in (for instance). This means that the "pure" PF paladin, the "pure" 3.5 paladin, and the "hybrid" 3.P paladin should all be part of the discussion.

The thing is, a big part of what the tiers miss (IMO) is how easy a class is to screw up. Since I'm around a lot of players who are crunch-averse, to say the least, having classes where you can be effective with minimal effort is key. The pure PF paladin does that better than the 3.5 paladin.

[Gnaeus]

In any event the other thread discussing 3.5 use in PF games showed that use of 3.5 material runs the gamut between none and all. One guy even had a rule where if PF and 3.5 had something with the same name you use the better one, so 3.5 PA was back in (for instance). This means that the "pure" PF paladin, the "pure" 3.5 paladin, and the "hybrid" 3.P paladin should all be part of the discussion.

Fair enough, as long as it is clear.

[Lastgrasp]

Is Paizo house ruling 3.5 material into their Adventure Paths? If you read through their Adventure Paths they use 3.5 material from Book of Fiends, Tome of Horror series, and Advanced Bestiary.

[Big Fau]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but are you saying the (practical) ceiling is what determines the tier? I thought it was supposed to cover all levels of optimization in its considerations.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? While the Tiers take into account the abilities of the classes, actual optimization plays very little role in determining the tier of a class. Optimization provides a massive variable that makes it too difficult to determine the class' tier. The Tier system looks at it from a level playing field, which means optimization only contributes so much.


Basically, the Tiers system JaronK created was a survey that he handed to each class. On each survey was a few questions based on stereotypical encounters a player can expect over the course of the campaign (combat being only one of them). He then took what he knew about 3.5 and filled in the answers for each class.

Classes that had multiple answers (3+) for each question ended up being bumped up a Tier. Classes that could not answer the questions with more than one or two relatively minor answers were placed in Tier 4. Classes that gave only one answer for all of the questions were put into Tier 5. Classes that could not read the questions and just scribbled on the answer box were put in Tier 6.


The Truenamer opted to donate blood instead of taking the survey. We have yet to find the body.

[Psyren]

It isn't a RULE Psyren. Spell Compendium says that you could add spells to other classes that aren't listed. You CAN add those spells to Wu Jen. Maybe you should. But if you do, it is a houserule. A houserule supported by text, even design intent, but a houserule. RAW, there are no Wu Jen spells in the SPC.

This argument is disingenuous. If you're making a 3.5 Paladin stronger than a PF Paladin, you are by necessity using splat support to make it so, because the core-only 3.5 Paladin cannot hope to stand up to the core-only PF Paladin.

The problem is that using 3.5 splats in a 3.5 game is every bit as optional as using them in a PF game; their inclusion is not assumed. Both Complete Divine and Complete Champion, for instance, refer to their contents as options. Since they are optional for both systems, the line you are drawing between them is arbitrary.

I'll put it this way;

Is Oracle the same as Favored Soul? IDK. Are both automatically in play in every PF game? Houserule.

Is Complete Champion a WotC sourcebook? Sure. Is it automatically in play in every 3.5 game? Houserule.

[navar100]

I can have shock trooper and the other components for 3.5 mounted charge builds. One round kills any foes that I can hit. And since I can fly and you can't, I can hit a lot more stuff.

That is a reflection on feats, not paladins. Some people do complain about the change to Power Attack which leads to Shock Trooper not being worth anything. However, it's a wash. The change in Power Attack means two-handed weapon are no longer the be all/end all to melee combat, which is a good thing. Two weapon fighting and sword with shield fighting are viable options now, with feats to help them along as well. Two-handed weapons are still good. Pathfinder Power Attack is a good feat in its own right. -1/+2 is significant for one handed weapons, -1/+3 is terrific for two-handed weapons. At 4th level this becomes -2/+4 and -2/+6. That is a big deal. It improves from there.

Oh? Wow! I only need a 14 wisdom. But you are casting spells as a standard action from a crummy list. I am casting spells as a swift action from a much better list. Per rules compendium, I can use swift action wands as a swift action (without spending an action to draw, because they are in my wand chamber). Per Pathfinder SRD, you can't. Given that my spells are things like Lion's Pounce, that is HUGE.

3E paladin needs Str to hit and damage, Con for hit points to survive, Wis for spellcasting, and Cha for saving throws. Getting a 14 wisdom is not that easy. Pathfinder paladins don't have to worry about that. Spellcasting is based off a stat they want to improve anyway. It's a bonus.

Using wands is a magic item feature, not a paladin class feature. The Pathfinder spells are the same as 3E, minus Spell Compendium, plus Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Magic. The difference of few spells is meaningless. If you absolutely must have Battle Blessing, there's no harm in allowing it despite playing Pathfinder. My DM is allowing the paladin player to do it.

You are obviously unfamiliar with Underdark knight. Also, my 3.5 paladin can get a dragon mount, which is perfectly happy in swamps or mountains, and vastly useful in other locations.

Now you are being obtuse. A dragon mount? That requires DM approval. That is not standard practice for a paladin, regardless of what is written in a book. It's an option the DM has to agree, not an automatic thing.

If you want to talk about alternative class features, paladins get plenty in Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Magic. Still, some people like the magic weapon instead of the mount. It's an option. More options = good.

But you don't get to use turn undead attempts to do anything but heals. 3.5 paladin can use Travel or Law devotion to dominate the battlefield with them, or animal devotion for flight and other benefits. With Mystic Fire Knight, I can do a targeted greater dispel magic 1/day, which is far superior to removing minor status conditions (both more flexible and able to be used offensively).

Pathfinder changed Turn Undead to channeling. Turn Undead is a feat that works better than 3E Turn Undead. A paladin could take that if he wants. However, the paladin is better off just letting the cleric channeling. His Lay On Hands is the better option for him. If he needs to use it on himself it's a swift action. Those devotion feats have nothing to do with the paladin class. They are feat options, not class abilities. Your complaint is more about not every single 3E feat ever published exists in a published Pathfinder book rather than paladin class abilities.

Thats nice. you can become immune to things that probably won't hurt you anyway because paladins have awesome saving throws. I can use sacred vitality to burn a turn attempt to become immune to ability damage, ability drain and energy drain for a minute at a time. Some of those get no saving throws.

Immunity is a good thing. Sacred Vitality is another feat, not a class ability. In Ultimate Magic, paladins can get a set of alternate class abilities that focus on anti-undead stuff, such as protection against energy drain, should a paladin player want to go that route.

No, Pathfinder Paladin has better numbers than 3.e paladin. 3.e paladin has a meaningful spell list, better magic items available, better feats available, better alternate class features, better mounts available, better PRC's available (except for Dragon Disciple, that is a point for PF paladin)

The Pathfinder Paladin class it stronger than the 3E Paladin class. What Pathfinder lacks is not having every feat ever published in a 3E book. If such feats are important to you then use them with your Pathfinder Paladin. They are compatible.

[Gnaeus]

{Scrubbed}

If you're making a 3.5 Paladin stronger than a PF Paladin, you are by necessity using splat support to make it so, because the core-only 3.5 Paladin cannot hope to stand up to the core-only PF Paladin.

The problem is that using 3.5 splats in a 3.5 game is every bit as optional as using them in a PF game; their inclusion is not assumed. Both Complete Divine and Complete Champion, for instance, refer to their contents as options. Since they are optional for both systems, the line you are drawing between them is arbitrary.

3.5 by its rules supports 3.5 materials. They are for the same game. I don't have to convert complete champion to 3.5. I would have to convert complete champion to Pathfinder. 3.5 has rules about duplicate content. Pathfinder cannot list all the same stuff as 3.5 for copyright reasons, so it cannot always clarify when its stuff is reworked versions of non OGL stuff. The line I am drawing between them is not in any way arbitrary. It is listed in the front of the books which game they are for.

Is Complete Champion a WotC sourcebook? Sure. Is it automatically in play in every 3.5 game? Houserule.

If I run a game with all 3.5 sources, it is in play by raw. If I run a game with all pathfinder sources, it is not in play by raw. If I run a Pathfinder game that includes it, I have to write houserules. Trying to figure out if the Oracle replaces Favored Soul, if Magus replaces Duskblade, or if Antagonize replaces Goad, those are all houserules.

Using wands is a magic item feature, not a paladin class feature. The Pathfinder spells are the same as 3E, minus Spell Compendium, plus Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Magic. The difference of few spells is meaningless. If you absolutely must have Battle Blessing, there's no harm in allowing it despite playing Pathfinder. My DM is allowing the paladin player to do it.

Using paladin wands, and making paladin wands, is totally a paladin class feature. As a class feature, it is actually stronger than their actual spells per day.

You cannot make swift action wands in PF. By the rules. If your DM changes that, he is changing the rules.

Tell you what. How about a contest. Same game. Flying dragons. Only melee paladins. One of us can fly based on their class abilities, and one can't. Guess you lose. Meaningless?

{Scrubbed}

A dragon mount? That requires DM approval. That is not standard practice for a paladin, regardless of what is written in a book. It's an option the DM has to agree, not an automatic thing.

If you want to talk about alternative class features, paladins get plenty in Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Magic. Still, some people like the magic weapon instead of the mount. It's an option. More options = good.

Everything in any game is an option the Dm has to agree. The difference is that in 3.5 the rules support it, and in PF they don't.

Pathfinder changed Turn Undead to channeling. Turn Undead is a feat that works better than 3E Turn Undead. A paladin could take that if he wants. However, the paladin is better off just letting the cleric channeling.

Do you know which 3.5 feats allow you to use channeling to power them? None. You could write a houserule.

They are feat options, not class abilities. Your complaint is more about not every single 3E feat ever published exists in a published Pathfinder book rather than paladin class abilities.

Immunity is a good thing. Sacred Vitality is another feat, not a class ability. In Ultimate Magic, paladins can get a set of alternate class abilities that focus on anti-undead stuff, such as protection against energy drain, should a paladin player want to go that route.

It doesn't matter which section of the book it is listed in. Natural Spell is a feat, not a class ability, would you like to argue that druids don't gain class versatility from Natural Spell? The 3.5 paladin has more legal options. He can make stronger, more versatile builds than a PF paladin. Yes, he uses feats to do it.

The Pathfinder Paladin class it stronger than the 3E Paladin class. What Pathfinder lacks is not having every feat ever published in a 3E book. If such feats are important to you then use them with your Pathfinder Paladin. They are compatible.

Such feats are important to me. I can't use them with my PF paladin, because while some of them are close to compatible, the pathfinder games I play in use pathfinder rules, which those are not.

[Psyren]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

"This argument is disingenuous," followed by my reasoning why? And you're threatening me as a result?

3.5 by its rules supports 3.5 materials.

As does Pathfinder.

I don't have to convert complete champion to 3.5. I would have to convert complete champion to Pathfinder.

This is true, but is no more a significant barrier to adaptation than converting 3.0 material to 3.5.

3.5 has rules about duplicate content. Pathfinder cannot list all the same stuff as 3.5 for copyright reasons, so it cannot always clarify when its stuff is reworked versions of non OGL stuff. The line I am drawing between them is not in any way arbitrary. It is listed in the front of the books which game they are for.

What it states is that these books are optional - just as they are in Pathfinder. If you can use them to optimize one kind of paladin, you can use them to optimize the other, because both systems allow their use.

If I run a game with all 3.5 sources, it is in play by raw. If I run a game with all pathfinder sources, it is not in play by raw. If I run a Pathfinder game that includes it, I have to write houserules. Trying to figure out if the Oracle replaces Favored Soul, if Magus replaces Duskblade, or if Antagonize replaces Goad, those are all houserules.

None of which are relevant to the question of one version of the paladin vs another.

[Gnaeus]

{Scrubbed}

As does Pathfinder.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

None of which are relevant to the question of one version of the paladin vs another.

It could not be more relevant.

[Psyren]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm not insulting you, nor am I calling you a liar. I think your point of view is inconsistent, not deliberately misleading, and I have the freedom to disagree with it so long as I do not attack you personally or adopt a hostile tone.

It could not be more relevant.

It isn't, because there is no need to replace Goad with Antagonize (there are many feats with different names that have similar effects, e.g. Carmendine Monk/Kung-Fu Genius); similarly, there is no need to replace Duskblade with Magus or Favored Soul with Oracle. The level of table-ruling needed to simply add splat material to either system is insubstantial.

[Haarkla]

The 3.5 paladin has more legal options. He can make stronger, more versatile builds than a PF paladin. Yes, he uses feats to do it.




Such feats are important to me. I can't use them with my PF paladin, because while some of them are close to compatible, the pathfinder games I play in use pathfinder rules, which those are not.

Are you seriously trying to argue that a 3.5 Paladin is superior to a Pathfinder Paladin!

A 3.5 Paladin has pitiful healing and smite evil, and much fewer spells, compared to his Pathfinder counterpart.

In a typical 3.5 game a Paladin is less powerful than, say, a rogue, barbarian or ranger, and therefore a lower tier, while in Pathfinder a Paladin is relatively more powerful compared to other classes.

A Paladin will be relatively more powerful in a Pathfinder game (than in 3.5e), and if a Pathfinder Paladin were let into a 3.5 game it would be more powerful than the 3.5e Paladin, and therefore a higher tier.

[Gnaeus]

It isn't, because there is no need to replace Goad with Antagonize (there are many feats with different names that have similar effects, e.g. Carmendine Monk/Kung-Fu Genius); similarly, there is no need to replace Duskblade with Magus or Favored Soul with Oracle. The level of table-ruling needed to simply add splat material to either system is insubstantial.

First, I do not really agree. It is sometimes insubstantial. It sometimes requires easily made houserules (like the devotion feats, which do not work in PF, because they rely on turn undead uses). It sometimes involves translations with balance concerns (If PF changed x and y, and I insert z unchanged, what effect does it have? Is it too strong or weak? Warblade doesn't have a problem, Ninja and Swashbuckler look even worse by comparison with PF stuff). Sometimes it is clear and just requires work (like most monster stat blocks). And sometimes it doesn't work at all without houserules (How does the Artificer xp pool for crafting work in a game that doesn't have xp costs for crafting).

Second, and equally importantly, they aren't the same game. This isn't disingenuous, it is true. They were printed by different people. They use different rules for a bunch of stuff. They can be made to be compatible. But 3.5 is not part of PF by RAW. It isn't part of PF in a large number of the games in play. I could use d20 modern or d20 star wars rules in my 3.5 game. It is easy enough to make it work. But they aren't the same game. Statements from pathfinder agents to the contrary are more about selling books than anything else. Frack, when they were playtesting ANY of the recent books, how much traction did arguments that x was broken when combined with y 3.5 item which has never been reprinted in PF get?

Are you seriously trying to argue that a 3.5 Paladin is superior to a Pathfinder Paladin!

If what you mean is "Are you seriously trying to argue that a 3.5 core + 3.5 splats Paladin is superior to a Pathfinder Core + PF Splats Paladin!" Then yes. I am. And I have given a lot of reasons why.

Edit: This assumes that the game in question is not using the Monsters as PCs rules. If those are in play, I lose, and every PF character from tier 4-5 gets bumped up by at least a tier, because (for example) a PF hound archon/paladin x will kick the living snot out of a paladin x+4 from either system just because CR is borked and CR as ECL is even more borked.

[Erloas]

I would have to agree with Psyren for the most part on this because, while I haven't played with a lot of DMs, I have yet to see any that give players completely free reign on what books they take stuff out of. The most common limitations are either what the SRD has or the books the DM has or "with permission." Which are kind of house rules and are kind of not. Obviously with permission is, but giving players 100 books to pick from when you have no way of checking 2/3s of the stuff they have access to is asking for problems.

The general assumption seems to be that if you are playing 3.5 then you also have access to every single thing printed for it, but I don't think thats anywhere near common practice. It also doesn't help that 3rd party books are really only different from house rules in that someone has managed to get them published. They aren't any more in line with the the "concept" WOTC/Paizo had for class X then any of the house rules.

And of course if you want to get picky about it both rulebooks explicitly state that DM's are free to change things as they see fit and that DM rules trump the rulebook.

[Gnaeus]

I would have to agree with Psyren for the most part on this because, while I haven't played with a lot of DMs, I have yet to see any that give players completely free reign on what books they take stuff out of. The most common limitations are either what the SRD has or the books the DM has or "with permission." Which are kind of house rules and are kind of not. Obviously with permission is, but giving players 100 books to pick from when you have no way of checking 2/3s of the stuff they have access to is asking for problems.

The general assumption seems to be that if you are playing 3.5 then you also have access to every single thing printed for it, but I don't think thats anywhere near common practice. It also doesn't help that 3rd party books are really only different from house rules in that someone has managed to get them published. They aren't any more in line with the the "concept" WOTC/Paizo had for class X then any of the house rules.

And of course if you want to get picky about it both rulebooks explicitly state that DM's are free to change things as they see fit and that DM rules trump the rulebook.

3rd party books aren't 3.5 RAW either. They are totally houserules. The tier system does not include materials from green ronin.

When we discuss rules, we discuss what is written in first party books. There are 500 monk fixes. A DM could use any of them. But when we discuss how monk works, we talk about core monk, or core + splats monk. We don't talk about monk + some houserule someone may have, unless it is a specific player asking about a specific game that uses a houserule. Occasionally someone will get called out for using a really rare splat, like a dragon article or an obscure campaign specific thing that not many people use. But none of this changes whether 3.5 is considered part of PF.

[Haarkla]

If what you mean is "Are you seriously trying to argue that a 3.5 core + 3.5 splats Paladin is superior to a Pathfinder Core + PF Splats Paladin!" Then yes. I am. And I have given a lot of reasons why.

Probably true, at least at higher levels.

However, you also say "So did pathfinder raise the paladin's tier? No, not in my opinion. It is ultimately, at this moment, less flexible and therefore farther from T3."

Which I disagree with. As all 3.5e classes benefited from splatbook feats ect., so the Pathfinder Paladin is relatively more powerful compared to other classes.

[Gnaeus]

Probably true, at least at higher levels.

However, you also say "So did pathfinder raise the paladin's tier? No, not in my opinion. It is ultimately, at this moment, less flexible and therefore farther from T3."

Which I disagree with. As all 3.5e classes benefited from splatbook feats ect., so the Pathfinder Paladin is relatively more powerful compared to other classes.

They did all benefit. But did they all benefit equally? Paladin got vast love in SPC and CC. (wand chambers also helped, which is in underdark?). Barbarian got pounce, but relatively little that made them more flexible, only better at their schtick (so, a stronger T4, but not really closer to T3). Ranger got WS and mystic ranger, but those ranger variants jumped to T3. Their base spell list, in my opinion, did not improve as radically as Paladin's. Fighter got more feats to pick from, which may help to ease them towards T4. But what did Swashbuckler get? Ninja?

Paladin, by the end of 3.5, was certainly T4, imo, and very strong T4. They had very low item dependence for such a low tier class. They had a very big spell list, which included heals, buffs, debuffs, FLIGHT, movement powers, attack spells, etc. They got tricks for breaking action economy (battle blessing, swift action items). And they got actual useful things to do with their turn undead, which previously was almost useless. I think that few, if any 3.5 classes benefited from power creep as much as the paladin (Well, certainly the T1s did, but when you go from god>god it isn't a big change.) Complete Champion would have been the book of Paladin love, if it didn't at the same time include a cleric PRC which completely removed any mechanical reason to ever play a paladin (Ordained Champion).

[Psyren]

They did all benefit. But did they all benefit equally? Paladin got vast love in SPC and CC.

Nothing keeps a Pathfinder Paladin from using these books. You have a ghost of an argument with regards to PrCs (since you would need to houserule skill modifications/requirements to fit Pathfinder.) But spells, and feats like Battle Blessing? Perfectly transferable.

[Gnaeus]

Nothing keeps a Pathfinder Paladin from using these books. You have a ghost of an argument with regards to PrCs (since you would need to houserule skill modifications/requirements to fit Pathfinder.) But spells, and feats like Battle Blessing? Perfectly transferable.

Nothing except for the fact that they are in a different game. Nothing keeps me from using Jedi in my 3.5 game. The D20 rules work fine (I rate them as T3). Shoot, nothing keeps me from using Pathfinder in my 3.5 game. Using 3.5 in PF is exactly the same as using PF in 3.5. The exact same difficulties are present. How many 3.5 paladin threads on these boards have included the suggestion "Get your DM to let you use the PF paladin, it is on the SRD!". But it isn't RAW in either case.

[Psyren]

Nothing keeps me from using Jedi in my 3.5 game.

The 3.5 rules say nothing about allowing SW Galaxies material.
However, the Pathfinder rules do explicitly allow 3.5 material. Doing so is an acceptable variant rule for Pathfinder, no different than an ACF or Adaptation would be in 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

"The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has been designed with compatibility with previous editions in mind, so you'll be able to use your existing library of 3.5 products with minimal effort."

The 3.5 rules say nothing about allowing SW Galaxies material.
However, the Pathfinder rules do explicitly allow 3.5 material. Doing so is an acceptable variant rule for Pathfinder, no different than an ACF or Adaptation would be in 3.5.

No. They don't. That isn't what your quote says. It does not say that 3.5 is part of the Pathfinder game system. It says that with minimal effort you can use them. Spell Compendium says that you can add spells to Wu Jen, but that isn't RAW. ToB gives some suggestions for how to make an Arcane Swordsage, but that isn't RAW either. A design intention for backwards compatibility is not raw, especially since there are parts that are clearly not backwards compatible, and RAW doesn't tell you what to do with the parts that aren't. Pathfinder also expressed a design intention of improving 3.5 balance, which they not only failed to do, but which also openly conflicts with open use of any 3.5 material in a PF game (because some non-core 3.5 options are broken good and others are broken bad). Any use of 3.5 in PF is a houserule.

[Psyren]

It does not say that 3.5 is part of the Pathfinder game system.

I never said it was. I said using 3.5 material is sanctioned.

I still don't see the difference. I would need DM approval to bring Complete Champion into a 3.5 game just like I would need it for a Pathfinder game.

[Gnaeus]

I never said it was. I said using 3.5 material is sanctioned.

That still isn't what it says.

I still don't see the difference. I would need DM approval to bring Complete Champion into a 3.5 game just like I would need it for a Pathfinder game.

I would need DM approval to play a Pathfinder Paladin in a Pathfinder game. The single, overarching consideration is that one is supported by the rules as written, and the other is not. Except for rule 0, which reads houserule.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I would need DM approval to play a Pathfinder Paladin in a Pathfinder game. The single, overarching consideration is that one is supported by the rules as written, and the other is not. Except for rule 0, which reads houserule.

Didn't you see that little thing on the cover that says "3.5 compatible"? Yeah, that's RAW.

[Curious]

I would need DM approval to play a Pathfinder Paladin in a Pathfinder game. The single, overarching consideration is that one is supported by the rules as written, and the other is not. Except for rule 0, which reads houserule.

But. . . The rules as written say you can use 3.5 material with Pathfinder. I am really not certain what you are arguing any more.