Pathfinder Tier System

[Psyren]

That still isn't what it says.

Sure it is. We can go back and forth like this for awhile longer, but I don't think it will go anywhere.

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.

Exactly; since splats are both compatible and require approval for both systems, the only true basis on which to compare the two classes is core.

As above though, I don't see us agreeing on this (I certainly won't), so let us part ways amicably.

[Gnaeus]

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

It isn't a rule. It is a suggestion of a possibility. Find me one place, in a pathfinder rulebook, where it says that all 3.5 material is rules legal in a pathfinder game. All the D20 products are compatible. Their rules work more or less the same. That does not mean that you can play a Jedi in 3.5.

[Psyren]

It isn't a rule. It is a suggestion of a possibility. Find me one place, in a pathfinder rulebook, where it says that all 3.5 material is rules legal in a pathfinder game. All the D20 products are compatible. Their rules work more or less the same. That does not mean that you can play a Jedi in 3.5.

It doesn't say "d20 compatible." It says "3.5 compatible." As in D&D 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

Exactly; since splats are both compatible and require approval for both systems, the only true basis on which to compare the two classes is core.

You are still wrong. Core vs core is one basis. All 3.5 vs all PF is another. You could compare All 3.5 vs All PF +3.5, if it was clear that that was the houserule you were using. Or 3.5 core + x number of splats vs. PF + x number of splats (which is kind of similar to how the tier system was developed).

But I agreed from the first that PF core paladin is better balanced than 3.5 core paladin.

It doesn't say "d20 compatible." It says "3.5 compatible." As in D&D 3.5.

com·pat·i·ble
   [kuhm-pat-uh-buhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
capable of existing or living together in harmony: the most compatible married couple I know.
2.
able to exist together with something else: Prejudice is not compatible with true religion.
3.
consistent; congruous (often followed by with ): His claims are not compatible with the facts.

Because 2 things are compatible does not mean that they are the same. All the D20 products are compatible. They are not one giant game, they are lots of different games. Compatible here means "You can import rules from that other source if you choose to do so, and it won't frack up our game mechanics" (whether or not it is actually compatible is a different question, to which my answer is mostly, but not entirely).

[Psyren]

You are still wrong. Core vs core is one basis. All 3.5 vs all PF is another. You could compare All 3.5 vs All PF +3.5, if it was clear that that was the houserule you were using.

Why wouldn't you use the latter? That was the intent of Pathfinder from the start.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

Because you're quoting without considering the context. The very point I was making was that the PF Paladin has a higher floor than the 3.5 Paladin. In actual low-op play, outside a stroke of luck from the newish 3.5 Paladin player in his build decisions, the PF paladin is going to have more and better options. Your insistence that there are these neat, linear power relationships between classes holding all these other variables - including optimization - constant is an assumption, and a questionable one at that. Classes respond differently to different levels of optimization. The Druid is 'broken out of the box,' while it's easy to screw up a wizard (just look at V). This matters. It might make tier descriptions more messy, but it also makes them more correct and applicable.

[Shadow Lord]

Because you're quoting without considering the context. The very point I was making was that the PF Paladin has a higher floor than the 3.5 Paladin. In actual low-op play, outside a stroke of luck from the newish 3.5 Paladin player in his build decisions, the PF paladin is going to have more and better options. Your insistence that there are these neat, linear power relationships between classes holding all these other variables - including optimization - constant is an assumption, and a questionable one at that. Classes respond differently to different levels of optimization. The Druid is 'broken out of the box,' while it's easy to screw up a wizard (just look at V). This matters. It might make tier descriptions more messy, but it also makes them more correct and applicable.

I once played with a Druid who wasn't good. And by not good, I mean the Monk in the party, who wasn't optimized, was better than anyone else. Though that might be more because the group had a DM who didn't understand how to play the game. [IE: At level six, the group could beat an Adult Red Dragon. And they were very low-opt]

[navar100]

I will amend what I wrote earlier to say there is one Pathfinder Class I think is below Tier 3 - Cavalier.

A player in my group tried it and was sick of it by level 4. He always had to leave his mount behind because it couldn't go where the party needed to go. He was also annoyed he sucked for wearing heavy armor. Paladins are like that too, but they get other cool stuff it's just an inconvenience. For Cavaliers, it matters big time when they already are The Suck for not being on a horse. The play was ok with the Challenge and Tactiful Feats goodies. He was thinking of either multiclassing and never look back or just dump the character and play a new one when a roleplaying opportunity to do so presented itself. However, with the help of me and the DM he tweaked the class so that while he still made good use of a mount he wasn't The Suck without one, including having armor training like the Fighter.

Reading the class myself I also felt it was too specialized and rather boring. Its abilities are not as cool as the Paladin, overall less effective than the Barbarian and Ranger, and not as diverse as the Fighter could be with all his feats. It would have been fine if condensed and made into a Prestige Class a Fighter or Paladin might consider.