Pathfinder Tier System

[Sunken Valley]

Here is what I think it is:

Tier 1: Druid, Wizard, Cleric, Witch,

Tier 2: Sorcerer, Oracle,

Tier 3: Bard, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist, Inquisitor,

Tier 4: Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Adept,

Tier 5: Fighter, Cavalier, Monk, Expert,

Tier 6: Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner,

[Psyren]

Didn't Druids get wailed on with the nerfbat? Though they're probably still T1 even so.

I would add Psion and Student Wilder at T2, Wilder (other) and Psywar at T3, and Soulknife at T4. Artificer Wilder may also be T2.

Generalist Psion is pretty close to T1.

[subject42]

I would put fighter in T4.

Fighters can normally do well with Melee damage and/or one to two combat maneuvers (assuming people actually read the rules). They certainly handle that better than a monk. They don't handle social scenarios well, and are generally outshone by other classes.

It's close, but I might move Rangers into T3. They can do one thing quite well, but due to limited casting, class features, and high skill points, they can still be not-useless if their specialization is neutralized. Some spells will allow them to end encounters.

[Ashram]

Didn't Druids get wailed on with the nerfbat? Though they're probably still T1 even so.

I would add Psion and Student Wilder at T2, Wilder (other) and Psywar at T3, and Soulknife at T4. Artificer Wilder may also be T2.

Generalist Psion is pretty close to T1.

The only big thing I remember of druids getting nerfed was wildshape, and only because you now keep your base physical stats when you wildshape rather than gain the animal's physical stats.

[MeeposFire]

I would put fighter in T4.

Fighters can normally do well with Melee damage and/or one to two combat maneuvers (assuming people actually read the rules). They certainly handle that better than a monk. They don't handle social scenarios well, and are generally outshone by other classes.

It's close, but I might move Rangers into T3. They can do one thing quite well, but due to limited casting, class features, and high skill points, they can still be not-useless if their specialization is neutralized. Some spells will allow them to end encounters.

The fighter is really not any different from before. They do a little bit more damage and have slightly better AC but essentially their problems are unchanged. All the things you mention about rangers are still about the same as it was in 3.5 with slightly higher numbers. That is the problem with PF "fixes". They give classes slightly higher numbers but do not deal with the actual problems in the system.

[Big Fau]

I would put fighter in T4.

Fighters can normally do well with Melee damage and/or one to two combat maneuvers (assuming people actually read the rules). They certainly handle that better than a monk. They don't handle social scenarios well, and are generally outshone by other classes.

The thing is, the Combat Feats are their only class feature (everything else may as well be a racial trait; seriously it's all just minor numerical bonuses), and the Combat Feats SUCK.

The "damage output" you speak of is considerably weaker than what the class was capable of in 3.5, tripping is still limited by size category (can't go over one size above you), tripping now requires Combat Reflexes to even function (since it costs you AoOs now, something it never did before), any of the other combat options will eat your feats dry (even with the PF feat increase), and the class is still irrelevant outside of combat.

They fixed NOTHING about the Fighter. NOTHING!


It's like they went onto WotC, found one of the Fighter "fixes" that just added numbers, and then copy-pasta'ed it. They then took an axe to every single feat the Fighter actually used, and expected it to be balanced out.

[subject42]

The fighter is really not any different from before. They do a little bit more damage and have slightly better AC but essentially their problems are unchanged. All the things you mention about rangers are still about the same as it was in 3.5 with slightly higher numbers. That is the problem with PF "fixes". They give classes slightly higher numbers but do not deal with the actual problems in the system.

What are the problems that weren't corrected, exactly? By what I've seen in-game, and based on the class feature lists, it seems that they fit the molds of "T4 == One Trick Pony" and "T3 == Good at one thing, not terrible at others" fairly nicely.

[Big Fau]

What are the problems that weren't corrected, exactly? By what I've seen in-game, and based on the class feature lists, it seems that they fit the molds of "T4 == One Trick Pony" and "T3 == Good at one thing, not terrible at others" fairly nicely.

Tier 5 is a One Trick Pony. Tier 4 is a One Trick Pony with options outside of that One Trick (such as the Ranger's ability to contribute outside of combat situations by acting as a Scout, medic, or trapfinder with an ACF). Tier 3 is Good In Every Situation That Doesn't Require 9th Level Spells.


As for what's wrong with the fighter, this post (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11742.msg403888#msg403888) on BG is a nice summary of it. The whole thread is a good explanation, but that one post summarizes it.

[MeeposFire]

What are the problems that weren't corrected, exactly? By what I've seen in-game, and based on the class feature lists, it seems that they fit the molds of "T4 == One Trick Pony" and "T3 == Good at one thing, not terrible at others" fairly nicely.

Just read the fighter description for 3.5 tiers and realize that the only changes that PF did to the base class was to add a few points of damage and attack, slightly better mobility (that you won't want to use because your standard action attacks still suck), slightly better AC (that doesn't matter), and worse of all they still have no non-combat ability because they still have crap skills and skill points. The class is essentially unchanged. They mostly eliminated some silly and annoying problems the fighter had but all the real problems are still there.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Just read the fighter description for 3.5 tiers and realize that the only changes that PF did to the base class was to add a few points of damage and attack, slightly better mobility (that you won't want to use because your standard action attacks still suck), slightly better AC (that doesn't matter), and worse of all they still have no non-combat ability because they still have crap skills and skill points. The class is essentially unchanged. They mostly eliminated some silly and annoying problems the fighter had but all the real problems are still there.

Yep. Sure, a PF fighter can be tier 4 if you build and play it smart. So can a 3.5 fighter.

[subject42]

Just read the fighter description for 3.5 tiers and realize that the only changes that PF did to the base class was to add a few points of damage and attack, slightly better mobility (that you won't want to use because your standard action attacks still suck), slightly better AC (that doesn't matter), and worse of all they still have no non-combat ability because they still have crap skills and skill points. The class is essentially unchanged. They mostly eliminated some silly and annoying problems the fighter had but all the real problems are still there.

Let's go through the description of T4 and T3.



Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining.


Unless you're still raging about Power Attack, Fighters can do damage. In fact, they're fairly good at it. That meets the first criteria. With their limited skill points and marginal class features, that meets the second criteria.


Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless.


Rarely does "I hit it really hard" outright end an encounter. This also meets the criteria.



Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.


This sounds about right. They won't blow a Barbarian out of the water, but they'll outdo a warrior.






Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area.


Tracking: Ranger does this quite well.
Killing something specific: Ranger does this quite well.

The first half of the criterion is met. The second half is met by half casting, favored terrain, animal companion, and 6 skill ranks per level, which means a lot more in Pathfinder than it did in 3.5. I'd argue that the second half of the criterion is met as well.



Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.


I know for a fact that some Ranger spells can solve an encounter. I've seen it done more than once.


Is there an updated tier guide somewhere that includes criteria that I'm missing?

[Big Fau]

Subject 42, the fact remains that the only things changed by Pathfinder's Fighter are as follows:



Damage Output.
The target numbers for special combat maneuvers.
How cross-class skills work.
How high the Fighter can get his Attack Rolls.
How high the Fighter can get his AC.
How many feats the Fighter has to take to do his job.
How fast the Fighter acquires feats.



They did not change how the class plays, nor did they change what he is capable of. Note that the Ranger is capable of doing two things reasonably well: Combat and Scouting. The Fighter has only one job: Combat. He may be a freaking house when it comes to dealing damage, but he has only one trick: DAMAGE.

The Fighter is not capable of mechanically contributing out of combat (Intimidate really doesn't matter that much, since he is not Party Face Material).


The Tiers are not just a measurement of Combat Ability, something JaronK has said many times over. They are a measurement of how a class can react to certain common situations, one of which is combat.

[MeeposFire]

Here is a question for you what did PF change about the fighter that changes its tier? Remember these few facts

1. Fighter do not actually have a problem hitting or dealing damage in 3.5. They do have a problem with getting to use their damage since they are dependent on dull attacks (mobile fighter is the exception and it may be tier 4 but it is the corner case just like the dungeon crasher fighter was in 3.5).

2) AC was not the issue since a couple of extra points at mid to high levels are not enough to solve the math gap for AC.

3) Mobility was an issue but more because if the fighter is mobile then it loses production as in he is about 1/3 as effective on the move as he is standing still did PF change this outside of mobile fighter?

Look at the problems the old fighter had and describe what has been fixed to an adequate degree.

[subject42]

They did not change how the class plays, nor did they change what he is capable of. Note that the Ranger is capable of doing two things reasonably well: Combat and Scouting. The Fighter has only one job: Combat. He may be a freaking house when it comes to dealing damage, but he has only one trick: DAMAGE.

The Fighter is not capable of mechanically contributing out of combat (Intimidate really doesn't matter that much, since he is not Party Face Material).


My argument is that Fighters should be in T4 because they have moved from "Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well", to "able to do one thing competently". If you've played PF, Fighters are roughly on par with Barbarians now, if only in that one sphere.

Given that T4 specifically mentions one thing in its rubric, it seems to qualify.

The fighter can do the following things now:

1) Invest skill ranks in any skill on a 1:1 basis. You're underestimating the utility of that benefit, especially when you factor in PF traits that let you add skills as class skills. This has a significant impact on out-of-combat activity that goes above and beyond simple numbers.

2) Retrain feats. The fighter is the only class in PF that can explicitly do so. That means that feats that are useful up front but underwhelming later on can be swapped out.

3) While not specifically a facet of the Fighter, the Fighter can gain access to magic item crafting feats with an entry feat. 3.5 fighter couldn't do that before. That's definitely a boost in utility as well as out of combat flexibility.



As for the Ranger, they can handle the role of Party Face if they put the skill ranks into it. I have a Ranger in one of my games doing that, along with Knowledge duty, right now. Those Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of the selected type really stack up after a while, provided you are interacting with your favored enemies, rather than just shooting them in the face.

For spells, Residual tracking can rapidly solve any murder mystery where footprints are visible. Hide From Animals is useful for infiltration (of the non-combat variety). Dream feast means you never have to eat again. That's moderately versatile.




The Tiers are not just a measurement of Combat Ability, something JaronK has said many times over. They are a measurement of how a class can react to certain common situations, one of which is combat.

BOLDRAGE, wow.

I've mentioned out of combat now. Most of those issues are handled through the skill system.

[Dragonsoul]

Is Human Sorcerer still Tier 2 Dispite having an extra 20 spells?

[subject42]

Here is a question for you what did PF change about the fighter that changes its tier? Remember these few facts

1. Fighter do not actually have a problem hitting or dealing damage in 3.5. They do have a problem with getting to use their damage since they are dependent on dull attacks (mobile fighter is the exception and it may be tier 4 but it is the corner case just like the dungeon crasher fighter was in 3.5).

2) AC was not the issue since a couple of extra points at mid to high levels are not enough to solve the math gap for AC.

3) Mobility was an issue but more because if the fighter is mobile then it loses production as in he is about 1/3 as effective on the move as he is standing still did PF change this outside of mobile fighter?

Look at the problems the old fighter had and describe what has been fixed to an adequate degree.


1) Things such as step up, step up and strike, and following step help mitigate the mobility disadvantage. You could also use mounted skirmisher, but that's a little late in the game.

2) Access to fighter-only feats like Ray Shield make AC less of in issue, due to the fact that they're a binary proposition. Since the feat is fighter-only, I'm almost willing to call it a hidden class feature.

3) I'll admit this is still a problem. However, given the benefits of weapon training and the Deadly Aim feat (PF for bows), ranged fighters get more viable now due to the bonus to damage, which helps limit the impact of DR. Also, there is vital strike if you hate yourself.


Out of curiosity, what made you change your mind about the Fighter, Meepos? The last time this came up you put forth the argument that the fighter had improved enough to reclassify as T4.

Beyond that, JaronK states that "Fighter is high in Tier 5". Given that they get more feats, (minor) class features, and more effective skill ranks, I question how far they have to go before they're considered T4.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Fighter is still tier 5. It can be tier 4, but you have to optimize to make it tier 4, something you could do in 3.5.

[Psyren]

More accurately, specific variants of Fighter can be made T4.

The system is flexible enough that specific variants can be classified differently from their fellows. Mystic Ranger is the most common example from the 3.5 tier system, being a cut above the normal Ranger. Similarly, Arcane Swordsage and StP Erudite blow away their mainstream cousins (provided you decide how they work.) Dominant Ideal Ardents are a cut above the regular kind. And so on.

[Big Fau]

My argument is that Fighters should be in T4 because they have moved from "Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well", to "able to do one thing competently". If you've played PF, Fighters are roughly on par with Barbarians now, if only in that one sphere.

Given that T4 specifically mentions one thing in its rubric, it seems to qualify.
What you are describing is optimizing the class. Tiers do not take optimization into account specifically because it causes variance in the tiers.

The tiers are not a range, they are an average. The average fighter falls into Tier 5. An optimized fighter ranges from Tier 5 up to Tier 2 (gish only).

I would elaborate but posting from a 3ds is slow.

[subject42]

What you are describing is optimizing the class. Tiers do not take optimization into account specifically because it causes variance in the tiers.

The tiers are not a range, they are an average. The average fighter falls into Tier 5. An optimized fighter ranges from Tier 5 up to Tier 2 (gish only).

I understand the concept of an average for tiers, but I think the average has gone up.

I posit that you can't screw up the fighter in PF any harder than you did in 3.5. If that assumption is true, the floor of the sample range is exactly what it was before.

I would also state as a premise that you can't get the hilariously high levels of optimization in PF that you could get in 3.5, simply because of a smaller set of source material. Therefore the ceiling of the sample range is slightly lower.

It's the in-between areas where the values have gone up marginally. Characters are normally taking the same feats, and outside of high optimization, the various changes to the class and the system offset and improve the Fighter.

If the low-op to mid-op range has improved, the average should rise. Given that "Fighter is high in Tier 5" in 3.5, has it become "Fighter is low Tier 4", or has it become "Fighter is really high in Tier 5"?

[Big Fau]

I understand the concept of an average for tiers, but I think the average has gone up.

I posit that you can't screw up the fighter in PF any harder than you did in 3.5. If that assumption is true, the floor of the sample range is exactly what it was before.

I would also state as a premise that you can't get the hilariously high levels of optimization in PF that you could get in 3.5, simply because of a smaller set of source material. Therefore the ceiling of the sample range is slightly lower.

It's the in-between areas where the values have gone up marginally. Characters are normally taking the same feats, and outside of high optimization, the various changes to the class and the system offset and improve the Fighter.

If the low-op to mid-op range has improved, the average should rise. Given that "Fighter is high in Tier 5" in 3.5, has it become "Fighter is low Tier 4", or has it become "Fighter is really high in Tier 5"?

The PF Fighter is actually easier to screw up because they gave you more options to pick from.

Look at how many feats the fighter can pick from. For every one, there is an opportunity to mess up and take a bad feat. Its no different from selecting spells for a Sorcerer.

Even worse, the ACFs. Thats even more chances to screw up.

The proverbial floor fell out back when Paizo made the major changes to the fighter's bonus feat list.


I will reiterate myself: Paizo does not know how to create balanced classes.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I understand the concept of an average for tiers, but I think the average has gone up.

I posit that you can't screw up the fighter in PF any harder than you did in 3.5. If that assumption is true, the floor of the sample range is exactly what it was before.

I would also state as a premise that you can't get the hilariously high levels of optimization in PF that you could get in 3.5, simply because of a smaller set of source material. Therefore the ceiling of the sample range is slightly lower.

It's the in-between areas where the values have gone up marginally. Characters are normally taking the same feats, and outside of high optimization, the various changes to the class and the system offset and improve the Fighter.

If the low-op to mid-op range has improved, the average should rise. Given that "Fighter is high in Tier 5" in 3.5, has it become "Fighter is low Tier 4", or has it become "Fighter is really high in Tier 5"?

I don't think fighter was in high tier 5 before. Now it is, but it wasn't before.

[Jornophelanthas]

I do not have (or want to have) an opinion of what tier the PF fighter should be, but I will point out an omission in the post quoted below, to the point of disagreeing.


the fact remains that the only things changed by Pathfinder's Fighter are as follows:



Damage Output.
The target numbers for special combat maneuvers.
How cross-class skills work.
How high the Fighter can get his Attack Rolls.
How high the Fighter can get his AC.
How many feats the Fighter has to take to do his job.
How fast the Fighter acquires feats.

Two things should be added to this list of changes:
1. The feats in Pathfinder are different than in D&D 3.5. Specifically, fighter bonus feats have been added that do not exist in D&D 3.5.
2. There are more varied Fighter-only feats in Pathfinder than in 3.5, which adds further versatility to fighter feat options.

I am not saying these are major points, but if you want to claim your overview is complete, you need to at least mention them.


They did not change how the class plays, nor did they change what he is capable of. Note that the Ranger is capable of doing two things reasonably well: Combat and Scouting. The Fighter has only one job: Combat. He may be a freaking house when it comes to dealing damage, but he has only one trick: DAMAGE.
I do not disagree with this.


The Fighter is not capable of mechanically contributing out of combat (Intimidate really doesn't matter that much, since he is not Party Face Material).

However, here you are wrong. The Intimidate skill has been rewritten in Pathfinder to be actually useful both inside and outside of combat. Since it is a Fighter class skill, they can max this skill relatively easily. Even though they somewhat lag behind "party face" classes who prioritize Charisma, Fighters can still boss around NPCs by barking orders or threats rather effectively.

And add to this a few Intimidate-based feats, one of which eliminates Charisma-dependency while Intimidating (and uses Strength instead), making the Fighter able to be a "bad cop" in social situations (along with the Barbarian and Ranger), on par with the Bard and Rogue (who also have more social options), and complementary to the Paladin and Cleric (who only have Diplomacy and are limited to being "good cop").

[navar100]

I would put fighter in T4.

Fighters can normally do well with Melee damage and/or one to two combat maneuvers (assuming people actually read the rules). They certainly handle that better than a monk. They don't handle social scenarios well, and are generally outshone by other classes.

It's close, but I might move Rangers into T3. They can do one thing quite well, but due to limited casting, class features, and high skill points, they can still be not-useless if their specialization is neutralized. Some spells will allow them to end encounters.

You forget the change in Skills. Anyone can be good at any skill if they choose to be so. Class skill gives +3 bonus, yes, but there's no extraneous cost if it's not a class skill. The Fighter, or anyone, can have 10 ranks in Diplomacy at level 10 if he wants. Same thing with Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate, or any skill whatsoever.

Fighter starts with 2 skill points per level. Play human. That's another skill point per level. Favored class bonus, that's another skill point per level. Some feats require Intelligence 13, so that's another skill point per level. We're now at 5 skill points per level. At level 10 that's 50 skill points the Fighter has to play around with. That is a lot. He could specialize a bit and have 5 skills at 10 ranks. He may diversify and be happy with just 6 or 7 ranks to have some 3's or 4's elsewhere, especially in class skills where the +3 bonus makes up for the lack of ranks. He has so many feats he can afford a feat on Skill Focus if a particular skill is really important. With 10 ranks, the feat gives him a +6 bonus, so that's already +16 modifier to a skill before accounting for ability score.

No Pathfinder class is below Tier 3, not just because of skills.


The thing is, the Combat Feats are their only class feature (everything else may as well be a racial trait; seriously it's all just minor numerical bonuses), and the Combat Feats SUCK.

The "damage output" you speak of is considerably weaker than what the class was capable of in 3.5, tripping is still limited by size category (can't go over one size above you), tripping now requires Combat Reflexes to even function (since it costs you AoOs now, something it never did before), any of the other combat options will eat your feats dry (even with the PF feat increase), and the class is still irrelevant outside of combat.

They fixed NOTHING about the Fighter. NOTHING!


It's like they went onto WotC, found one of the Fighter "fixes" that just added numbers, and then copy-pasta'ed it. They then took an axe to every single feat the Fighter actually used, and expected it to be balanced out.

Minotaur feces.

They don't suck for wearing heavy armor.
They aren't affected by fear as easily anymore.
They can change an obsolete feat.
More feats allow versatility in combat options or affordability into non-combat options or defenses.
They can use any skill they want to choose to invest ranks in.

No, the Fighter is not going to Gate in a Solar, wildshape into a bear, or spend an action to get +6 to hit and damage for 1 round per level. Get over it.

Edit: Anyone can track. Rangers just get a class bonus. Legacy has them be better at it than anyone else, but anyone can use Survival skill to track. Same holds true with finding traps and Rogues using Perception.

[Darcand]

I will reiterate myself: Paizo does not know how to create balanced classes.

Paizo wasn't trying to make balanced classes, they were trying to make classes without dead levels. Which they did very well. The issue with the fighter is that he cannot be balanced and Still Be A Fighter.

The only way to balance out the class would be to give him a whole list of SLAs and SAs, in which case he stops being a fighter and becomes another class entirely.

The other way to balance out the classes would be to strip all casters of every spell that didn't cause direct damage or a minor disabling effect. I think someone tried that and called it 4.0, though I can't be totally certain.

That rant aside, I am fairly comfortable saying that the PF Bard is T2, due to the sheer number of options available to him, and the fact that he can be good at nearly all of them simultaniously.

[Curious]

Paizo wasn't trying to make balanced classes, they were trying to make classes without dead levels. Which they did very well. The issue with the fighter is that he cannot be balanced and Still Be A Fighter.

The only way to balance out the class would be to give him a whole list of SLAs and SAs, in which case he stops being a fighter and becomes another class entirely.

The other way to balance out the classes would be to strip all casters of every spell that didn't cause direct damage or a minor disabling effect. I think someone tried that and called it 4.0, though I can't be totally certain.

That rant aside, I am fairly comfortable saying that the PF Bard is T2, due to the sheer number of options available to him, and the fact that he can be good at nearly all of them simultaniously.

I basically agree with this. Paizo wasn't trying to totally re-balance the game; they were trying to make it so that taking a straight class was more fun and had less dead levels. I would say they succeeded at this, providing you aren't playing a very high-op game.

EDIT: Navar. You are wrong. Skill points do not equal tier 3, especially since most skills aren't worth much. The only class that might be able to claim a hold on tier 3 with nothing but skills would be the rogue, and that's because it has faaaaar more than 5 ranks a level.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I keep seeing this claim that the Fighter can do all these wonderful things with his skills due to amalgamation and cross class ranks (not just here), but he still only gets 2+int per level. What, exactly, is your stat priority on this skill monkey intimidating fighter? You're pumping what are normally the two lowest priority stats for a fighter*, making him more MAD than a monk.

Rangers can do more things, yes. But notice how T3 is entirely composed of 2/3 casters. Their utility is going to trump a Ranger's utility every time**. I'd say the ranger is high T4, but he doesn't go above that until he starts sniffing 6th level spells or similar abilities.

Bards are farther from T2 than they were before. Diplomancy and mass suggestion with ridiculous perform-based DCs and various out of core uber-buffer tricks are gone, replaced by a class which is essentially a wizard/rogue in a can. Replacing overpowered tricks with a touch more versatility is fine by me, of course, but it doesn't make the class T2.

*Int as Wis mayyyybe swap, but that will save is pretty low, even against fear.

**I'd have to read over the Magus' spell list again to see how much utility he really has. I could definitely see him falling to T4.

[MeeposFire]

One thing that I think PF misses with a lot of its classes are effective standard actions for warrior type classes. One big advantage ToB type classes have are effective standard actions which means they are not forced to try to make full attack actions. Effective standard actions are a big part of tier 3 or better.

[Curious]

The Magus at least is an extremely solid tier 3. 6th level spells, good combat ability, okay skill points due to being an Int-based caster. Their spell list is pretty good too, so all around, high tier 3 I'd say.

EDIT: Question; how would people rank the Inquisitor? It has 6th level spells and some combat ability, so my gut reaction is to call it a tier 3, but I'd like a second opinion. Link: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Oh, forgot to mention: I would demote the Barbarian to T5, since its charger tricks are mostly gone and using its main class feature makes it much more likely to insta-die.

[Curious]

Oh, forgot to mention: I would demote the Barbarian to T5, since its charger tricks are mostly gone and using its main class feature makes it much more likely to insta-die.

Actually, I'd say the barbarian is still a tier 4; some of it's totem rage abilities are pretty good. And where do people get this idea that raging equals instant death? The SRD says the raging hit points are temporary, and thus lost first. So if you go unconscious it isn't like you immediately die.

[Shadow Lord]

I basically agree with this. Paizo wasn't trying to totally re-balance the game; they were trying to make it so that taking a straight class was more fun and had less dead levels. I would say they succeeded at this, providing you aren't playing a very high-op game.

EDIT: Navar. You are wrong. Skill points do not equal tier 3, especially since most skills aren't worth much. The only class that might be able to claim a hold on tier 3 with nothing but skills would be the rogue, and that's because it has faaaaar more than 5 ranks a level.

Yes, but that combined with being more than decent at combat makes a Fighter qualify for T3, in my opinion; decent at a bunch of things, really good at one.

[subject42]

I keep seeing this claim that the Fighter can do all these wonderful things with his skills due to amalgamation and cross class ranks (not just here), but he still only gets 2+int per level. What, exactly, is your stat priority on this skill monkey intimidating fighter? You're pumping what are normally the two lowest priority stats for a fighter*, making him more MAD than a monk.


You're generally going to have 13 int as a fighter, and if you're human, that's 4 - 5 skill ranks per level depending on what you choose to do with your favored class bonus. There are 33 total skills in Pathfinder. You can either have 15% of all skills maxed out per level, or spread them out. Given that you couldn't go cross class in 3.5 without blowing a feat or cutting your effective skill ranks in half, it's not terrible compared to what came before.



Rangers can do more things, yes. But notice how T3 is entirely composed of 2/3 casters. Their utility is going to trump a Ranger's utility every time**. I'd say the ranger is high T4, but he doesn't go above that until he starts sniffing 6th level spells or similar abilities.


As I mentioned before, it's debatable as to which tier Rangers are in for PF. I argue that Favored Enemy and favored terrain changes, along with slightly better casting, puts them into low Tier 3 due to increased versatility. It really could go either way.



Bards are farther from T2 than they were before. Diplomancy and mass suggestion with ridiculous perform-based DCs and various out of core uber-buffer tricks are gone, replaced by a class which is essentially a wizard/rogue in a can. Replacing overpowered tricks with a touch more versatility is fine by me, of course, but it doesn't make the class T2.

Bard is definitely still T3. You can't shatter a game into fragments like you can do with a Sorcerer or Psion.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Actually, I'd say the barbarian is still a tier 4; some of it's totem rage abilities are pretty good. And where do people get this idea that raging equals instant death? The SRD says the raging hit points are temporary, and thus lost first. So if you go unconscious it isn't like you immediately die.
The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points.So yeah. To be honest, I've only skimmed the various rage powers. Which ones are nice?

[IthroZada]

The SRD says the raging hit points are temporary, and thus lost first. So if you go unconscious it isn't like you immediately die.


The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian#TOC-Rage-Ex-

Edit: Swordsage'd

[Shadow Lord]

Also; I consider all PF classes to be T3. Except Cavailer. And maybe a Monk.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Until a fighter can jump high enough to hit a flying caster by level 8 (I'm being generous here, I honestly think they should at level 5) get mettle, and get improved mettle or evasion, it's not tier 3.

Edit.
You're generally going to have 13 int as a fighter, and if you're human, that's 4 - 5 skill ranks per level depending on what you choose to do with your favored class bonus. There are 33 total skills in Pathfinder. You can either have 15% of all skills maxed out per level, or spread them out. Given that you couldn't go cross class in 3.5 without blowing a feat or cutting your effective skill ranks in half, it's not terrible compared to what came before.
Oh, so now all fighters have bonuses in at least four abilities?

[MeeposFire]

Also; I consider all PF classes to be T3. Except Cavailer. And maybe a Monk.

Monks are terrible. They somehow managed to buff them slightly and then find new ways to nerf them while also not fixing their innate problems.

[Shadow Lord]

Until a fighter can jump high enough to hit a flying caster by level 8 (I'm being generous here, I honestly think they should at level 5) get mettle, and get improved mettle or evasion, it's not tier 3.

Jump ( +30 ) Potion, 8 ranks, and skill focus. That good enough for you?

[Curious]

So yeah. To be honest, I've only skimmed the various rage powers. Which ones are nice?

Oh dammit. Apparently my book is a little out of date. Ah, well, that sucks.

Anyways. The beast totem line is good, since it gives you pounce. Come and Get Me seems like it could be useful, and there's one that gives you an extra attack as a swift action once a rage. There are some other good ones, but I'm not much of a barbarian aficionado, so doubtless others could give better advice.

[Curious]

Jump ( +30 ) Potion, 8 ranks, and skill focus. That good enough for you?

No. They'll just fly higher.

EDIT: Dammit, double post.

[Shadow Lord]

No. They'll just fly higher.

Then I take out a bow and shoot the dang thing!

[Curious]

Then I take out a bow and shoot the dang thing!

And since you are using a bow, the majority of the feats you spent to improve your fighting ability with a sword are now wasted. The wizard has just nullified your greatest advantage with one spell, and now he casts wind wall to destroy your ability to fight even further. Congratulations, you have just been introduced to batman.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Hm, Beast Totem. Pounce at level 1 for 10 feet of movement is better than Pounce at level 10 for significant investment in rage powers you probably won't even fully utilize (weapon probably > claws), and you still have the whole instant death problem... but Pounce is Pounce. Low T4 it is.

[Shadow Lord]

And since you are using a bow, the majority of the feats you spent to improve your fighting ability with a sword are now wasted. The wizard has just nullified your greatest advantage with one spell, and now he casts wind wall to destroy your ability to fight even further. Congratulations, you have just been introduced to batman.

Fine then. I'll just wait you out.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Jump ( +30 ) Potion, 8 ranks, and skill focus. That good enough for you?

A consumable item is not a class feature. Winged boots also don't count as a class feature.

Also, they can now get 13 feet high in the air. Remind me, how high can wizards get in the air while using Fly?

Good thing I also caught the ninjas, because bows aren't gonna do much to someone who can cast windwall, protection from arrows, etc.

Edit: more ninjas! How are you gonna wait it out when the wizard keeps throwing spells at you?

[Shadow Lord]

A consumable item is not a class feature. Winged boots also don't count as a class feature.

Also, they can now get 13 feet high in the air. Remind me, how high can wizards get in the air while using Fly?

Good thing I also caught the ninjas, because bows aren't gonna do much to someone who can cast windwall, protection from arrows, etc.

Edit: more ninjas! How are you gonna wait it out when the wizard keeps throwing spells at you?

Why, because of my lucky d20.

[Curious]

Fine then. I'll just wait you out.

In which time he dumps a solid cloud on your head and proceeds to bombard you with SoD spells until you fail a will save. Good game.

[Shadow Lord]

In which time he dumps a solid cloud on your head and proceeds to bombard you with SoD spells until you fail a will save. Good game.

We're talking eighth level here, sir. I can just wait 'til you have no spells left.

[Curious]

We're talking eighth level here, sir. I can just wait 'til you have no spells left.

A wizard never runs out of spells. Really, you should know that by now. :smallconfused:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why, because of my lucky d20.

So now you're relying on a d20 instead of your character.

Also, at 8th level, the wizard has magic missiles, fireballs, lightning bolts, etc, and what's this? That fly was a bonus spell because he was a transmuter? Good times.

[Shadow Lord]

So now you're relying on a d20 instead of your character.

Also, at 8th level, the wizard has magic missiles, fireballs, lightning bolts, etc, and what's this? That fly was a bonus spell because he was a transmuter? Good times.

Ah, but my Fighter took a feat that gives him Cake.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ah, but my Fighter took a feat that gives him Cake.

So now you have some unspecified feat that gives you what you want? That really helps your argument.

[Shadow Lord]

So now you have some unspecified feat that gives you what you want? That really helps your argument.

You do realize this entire argument has been a joke? A fighter ain't gonna beat a wizard, no way, no how. If I was taken it seriously then I would say that the Wizard wouldn't have gotten of the ground, because I didn't let him.

[MeeposFire]

Seriously you are making a case of a tactic where a 3.5 monk would be better. That is not a place you want to be.

Barbarians are still hosed if they are not getting full attacks with their primary weapon. That is too much of a weakness to exploit for tier 3. They are in tier 4 just like before.

[Curious]

I think this threads gotten a little off-topic. Here's another class that needs clarification! The Pathfinder paladin is a heck of a lot better than the 3.5 one, and along with it's combat ability and reduced MAD it has spells. So, does it count as a tier 3 now?

[Shadow Lord]

I think this threads gotten a little off-topic. Here's another class that needs clarification! The Pathfinder paladin is a heck of a lot better than the 3.5 one, and along with it's combat ability and reduced MAD it has spells. So, does it count as a tier 3 now?

Definitely. In fact, I daresay it ranks alongside the Ranger, or perhaps higher.

[subject42]

Oh, so now all fighters have bonuses in at least four abilities?

If they want to trip or use combat expertise, they'll have an int of at least 13. Given that trip is considered the bread and butter fighter build, it's not an unreasonable assumption, especially when all PF races have a net +2 to their base stats.

[SuperFerret]

A wizard never runs out of spells. Really, you should know that by now. :smallconfused:

:smallconfused:

And how exactly? Cantrips?

[Curious]

:smallconfused:

And how exactly? Cantrips?

By being high level. Really, at that point it's extremely hard to run out of useful spells. A more literal way to do it is to use echoing spell; it allows you to use the same spell once more in the day. Apply echoing spell again. Infinite spells.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Paladin got buffed significantly, but it doesn't get into T3 because it doesn't have the utility of a T3 class. It's quite good at what it does - killing evil stuff - and is better at other things than before, but you need more than 'not completely terrible at other things' to get into T3. Like the ranger, it's high T4.

Trip got nerfed, and it was only bread and butter in 3.5 if you didn't go charge or dungeoncrasher.

[SuperFerret]

By being high level. Really, at that point it's extremely hard to run out of useful spells. A more literal way to do it is to use echoing spell; it allows you to use the same spell once more in the day. Apply echoing spell again. Infinite spells.

Ah.

So glad I don't have to deal with that crap.

[Starbuck_II]

Hm, Beast Totem. Pounce at level 1 for 10 feet of movement is better than Pounce at level 10 for significant investment in rage powers you probably won't even fully utilize (weapon probably > claws), and you still have the whole instant death problem... but Pounce is Pounce. Low T4 it is.

True, the claws aren't very useful unless your using armor spikes or Bazebu Beard off hand weapons so hands are free to use claws.

But Pounce is neat (although they probably intended claws only but no limitation listed).

And Ranger is trapfinder (with right achetype) now so low Tier 3 easy.

[MeeposFire]

I wish they had not messed with many shot. It was nice being able to shoot a near full attack while on the run. Now it is just rapid shot all over again as if my archer characters needed more attacks on a full attack.

[Starbuck_II]

I wish they had not messed with many shot. It was nice being able to shoot a near full attack while on the run. Now it is just rapid shot all over again as if my archer characters needed more attacks on a full attack.

Yeah, but you can now combine Many Shot with Rapid Shot so it depends on needs.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, but you can now combine Many Shot with Rapid Shot so it depends on needs.

But as I said I don't need another way of adding another extra attack on a full attack. I can already destroy on a full attack and I have so many attacks it already slows things down. many shot was useful because it could be used in situations that would not allow me to full attack such as when I have to move or when I am slowed. That extra versatility is now lost and it makes archers more dependent on full attacks than before and that is not a good thing.

[Big Fau]

Paizo wasn't trying to make balanced classes, they were trying to make classes without dead levels. Which they did very well. The issue with the fighter is that he cannot be balanced and Still Be A Fighter.

BS. They claimed early on that they were "fixing" the classes, that Pathfinder would be "more balanced" than 3.5.

It is, but marginally. They didn't shake up the tiers at all (save the Paladin, which is the only thing in the PF Core book that's actually fixed by comparison, and the Soulknife, which was done by Dreamscared Press and not Paizo). Their nerfs either didn't go far enough or were aimed at the wrong class (Archery got a nice shaft through the leg, Barbarian and Bard got their core mechanics shafted on release; mechanically you were better off converting manually than using what they gave you), they ignored several issues, and they nicked the surface of the spells while turning a blind eye to the rest of it (despite having ready access to information regarding those spells).

They also didn't resolve major issues with the CR system, but that's hardly their fault (WotC ****ed that up beyond salvaging).




You want proof Paizo doesn't know jack about balance? Improved Natural Attack and Dodge are considered overpowered for players. Both have been nerfed. The +2/+2 feats are STILL inferior to Skill Focus, and Skill Focus is still useless outside of prerequisites. And the Candle of Invocation got BETTER! How the hell is that even possible?!?!

[Shadow Lord]

BS. They claimed early on that they were "fixing" the classes, that Pathfinder would be "more balanced" than 3.5.

It is, but marginally. They didn't shake up the tiers at all (save the Paladin, which is the only thing in the PF Core book that's actually fixed by comparison, and the Soulknife, which was done by Dreamscared Press and not Paizo). Their nerfs either didn't go far enough or were aimed at the wrong class (Archery got a nice shaft through the leg, Barbarian and Bard got their core mechanics shafted on release; mechanically you were better off converting manually than using what they gave you), they ignored several issues, and they nicked the surface of the spells while turning a blind eye to the rest of it (despite having ready access to information regarding those spells).

They also didn't resolve major issues with the CR system, but that's hardly their fault (WotC ****ed that up beyond salvaging).




You want proof Paizo doesn't know jack about balance? Improved Natural Attack and Dodge are considered overpowered for players. Both have been nerfed. The +2/+2 feats are STILL inferior to Skill Focus, and Skill Focus is still useless outside of prerequisites. And the Candle of Invocation got BETTER! How the hell is that even possible?!?!

Really? Because it's not like you aren't limited to class skills anymore. It's not like you can actually build an Item Creation character who isn't like five levels below everyone else. And how is Candle of Invocation better? Explain that to me. Also: Why should feats that boost two skills be superior to one that boosts only one skill. I can admit that Pathfinder isn't perfect, but it's a helluva lot more balanced and fun than D&D 3.5, what with the more customizable options. Really, you come across as a rampant fan boy who has a grudge against Paizo.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Really? Because it's not like you aren't limited to class skills anymore. It's not like you can actually build an Item Creation character who isn't like five levels below everyone else. And how is Candle of Invocation better? Explain that to me. Also: Why should feats that boost two skills be superior to one that boosts only one skill. I can admit that Pathfinder isn't perfect, but it's a helluva lot more balanced and fun than D&D 3.5, what with the more customizable options. Really, you come across as a rampant fan boy who has a grudge against Paizo.

No, Paizo hasn't fixed anything. They made it so that dodge gave you a +1 dodge bonus to AC against everybody. They then thought it was overpowered and hit it really hard with the nerfbat. And that's just one thing.

Also, you come across as a rampant fanboy who refuses to see Pathfinder's flaws. You think that's a cheap argument? You used the exact same one.

[Shadow Lord]

No, Paizo hasn't fixed anything. They made it so that dodge gave you a +1 dodge bonus to AC against everybody. They then thought it was overpowered and hit it really hard with the nerfbat. And that's just one thing.

Also, you come across as a rampant fanboy who refuses to see Pathfinder's flaws. You think that's a cheap argument? You used the exact same one.

Yes, but I can admit that I'm a rampant fanboy. And I do know Pathfinder's flaws; it's just I try to overlook them.

Anyhoo, I believe we have collectively derailed the thread enough; let us please get back on topic with this:

Witches. Theyse some weird stuff, and I'm not sure they are Tier 1.

[Big Fau]

Really? Because it's not like you aren't limited to class skills anymore. It's not like you can actually build an Item Creation character who isn't like five levels below everyone else. And how is Candle of Invocation better? Explain that to me. Also: Why should feats that boost two skills be superior to one that boosts only one skill. I can admit that Pathfinder isn't perfect, but it's a helluva lot more balanced and fun than D&D 3.5, what with the more customizable options. Really, you come across as a rampant fan boy who has a grudge against Paizo.

I do have a grudge against them: For being banned from their forums despite trying to offer Beta playtesting results. Along with 15 other people I know. They really did ignore any advice that wasn't "I'm enjoying this, and think Class X is working just fine".

I just can't understand how people can work with a company that would ban people for trying to be constructive with their criticism. And before you say it: I was as civil there as I am when giving build advice here. They banned me for agreeing with another poster (Crusader of Logic if memory serves).


As for the Candle, crafting it no longer costs XP. That's called a buff, because they can now craft them endlessly. At least prior to that a caster was limited by XP. The fact that they never removed it from the rules entirely is a huge oversight on their part.

[Curious]

Yes, but I can admit that I'm a rampant fanboy. And I do know Pathfinder's flaws; it's just I try to overlook them.

Anyhoo, I believe we have collectively derailed the thread enough; let us please get back on topic with this:

Witches. Theyse some weird stuff, and I'm not sure they are Tier 1.

Oh, they're tier 1 all right. Ninth level spells, which they can learn like wizards, and Su abilities that never run out. Solid tier 1.

[Shadow Lord]

I do have a grudge against them: For being banned from their forums despite trying to offer Beta playtesting results. Along with 15 other people I know. They really did ignore any advice that wasn't "I'm enjoying this, and think Class X is working just fine".

I just can't understand how people can work with a company that would ban people for trying to be constructive with their criticism. And before you say it: I was as civil there as I am when giving build advice here. They banned me for agreeing with another poster (Crusader of Logic if memory serves).


As for the Candle, crafting it no longer costs XP. That's called a buff, because they can now craft them endlessly. At least prior to that a caster was limited by XP. The fact that they never removed it from the rules entirely is a huge oversight on their part.

Still, a single oversight isn't that much. And banning you could've been an accident. You can always ask them about that. Though, typically Companies never answer me when I ask why I got banned :smallfrown:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Still, a single oversight isn't that much. And banning you could've been an accident. You can always ask them about that. Though, typically Companies never answer me when I ask why I got banned :smallfrown:

Could've been an accident? Riiiight. He said he and the others who got banned all gave criticism instead of just praise.

Also, taking away XP costs for items makes wizards more powerful even without candle of invocation, and if they truly wanted to balance it, they would've looked for every trick, and it wouldn't be that hard either, seeing as how D&D 3.5 forums will be able to tell you what most of them are.

[Shadow Lord]

Stop crushing my Dreams T.T

[Big Fau]

Still, a single oversight isn't that much. And banning you could've been an accident. You can always ask them about that. Though, typically Companies never answer me when I ask why I got banned :smallfrown:

A single oversight that can end a campaign as early as 5th level. 8th if you follow that "1/4 of your WBL" guideline in the DMG.


Edit:


He said he and the others who got banned all gave criticism instead of just praise.


No, the reason was for giving critique while simultaneously agreeing with CoL. He's hated over there.

[Darcand]

BS. They claimed early on that they were "fixing" the classes, that Pathfinder would be "more balanced" than 3.5.

It is, but marginally. They didn't shake up the tiers at all (save the Paladin, which is the only thing in the PF Core book that's actually fixed by comparison, and the Soulknife, which was done by Dreamscared Press and not Paizo). Their nerfs either didn't go far enough or were aimed at the wrong class (Archery got a nice shaft through the leg, Barbarian and Bard got their core mechanics shafted on release; mechanically you were better off converting manually than using what they gave you), they ignored several issues, and they nicked the surface of the spells while turning a blind eye to the rest of it (despite having ready access to information regarding those spells).

They also didn't resolve major issues with the CR system, but that's hardly their fault (WotC ****ed that up beyond salvaging).




You want proof Paizo doesn't know jack about balance? Improved Natural Attack and Dodge are considered overpowered for players. Both have been nerfed. The +2/+2 feats are STILL inferior to Skill Focus, and Skill Focus is still useless outside of prerequisites. And the Candle of Invocation got BETTER! How the hell is that even possible?!?!

Again, you can't "fix" this game's classes without taking them completely apart and rebuilding them as the same class with nine different kinds of fluff. They didn't set out to do that, they set out to create content that was more fun to play then what was previously published, while still being recognisable for an easy transitition.

Everything else is left up to the players to balance out themselves. Yes, you can still batman out a wizard, or end a campaign at level 5 with a candle, but doing so doesn't mean you win, all it means is that you've ruined the experiance for your friends.

[Sunken Valley]

So what would you say the tiers of the non 3.5 classes are?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Again, you can't "fix" this game's classes without taking them completely apart and rebuilding them as the same class with nine different kinds of fluff. They didn't set out to do that, they set out to create content that was more fun to play then what was previously published, while still being recognisable for an easy transitition.

Everything else is left up to the players to balance out themselves. Yes, you can still batman out a wizard, or end a campaign at level 5 with a candle, but doing so doesn't mean you win, all it means is that you've ruined the experiance for your friends.The candle of invocation is like a grenade in a toolbox. Sure, if the handyman fools around with it and blows himself up it's his fault, but what the hell is it doing there in the first place!?

[Gnaeus]

Paladin got buffed significantly, but it doesn't get into T3 because it doesn't have the utility of a T3 class. It's quite good at what it does - killing evil stuff - and is better at other things than before, but you need more than 'not completely terrible at other things' to get into T3. Like the ranger, it's high T4.
.

I agree with your ultimate conclusion, but saying that paladin got buffed considerably is questionable.

Paladin got buffed considerably over 3.5 CORE, where paladin was low tier 5.

Is a PF paladin better than a 3.5 paladin who casts his spells as swift actions with Battle Blessing, who uses his turn undead attempts for Travel Devotion, who has the huge list of Spell Compendium spells available, and picks the best ones (other than the ones that he memorizes) for wand use in a wand chamber in his weapon? Its hard to prove, but I wouldn't say so.


Oh, they're tier 1 all right. Ninth level spells, which they can learn like wizards, and Su abilities that never run out. Solid tier 1.

The thing that pushed them over the top was their support in later books. When Paizo showed that their spell list would expand at a rate similar to Wizards, they clearly became T1.

[Engine]

I agree with your ultimate conclusion, but saying that paladin got buffed considerably is questionable.

Paladin got buffed considerably over 3.5 CORE, where paladin was low tier 5.

Is a PF paladin better than a 3.5 paladin who casts his spells as swift actions with Battle Blessing, who uses his turn undead attempts for Travel Devotion, who has the huge list of Spell Compendium spells available, and picks the best ones (other than the ones that he memorizes) for wand use in a wand chamber in his weapon? Its hard to prove, but I wouldn't say so.

You're right, but you have to consider that Pathfinder doesn't have the same number of splatbooks 3.5 had. It's a bit unfair IMHO to compare those classes using the sheer number of option that 3.5 had.

[Gnaeus]

You're right, but you have to consider that Pathfinder doesn't have the same number of splatbooks 3.5 had. It's a bit unfair IMHO to compare those classes using the sheer number of option that 3.5 had.

I am not saying that Paizo is wrongbad for not having all those options. Fairness isn't really a consideration in a tier discussion. I am saying that the Tiers describe capabilities, not design intentions. Maybe the PF paladin will someday beat the 3.5 paladin. But I don't think it has happened yet.

[Blisstake]

The candle of invocation is like a grenade in a toolbox. Sure, if the handyman fools around with it and blows himself up it's his fault, but what the hell is it doing there in the first place!?

Considering it can be made at level 17th at minimum, it shouldn't be available in most games, and even then, maybe it is, but not for the alignment you want. It also takes 4 hours to use the gate effect, so it's no help in the middle of combat, and requires standard bargaining with the outsider (base of paying them 1,000 gold per hit dice per hour).

Unless you have a really lax DM, you're absolutely right in the sense that it shouldn't even be there.

Anyway, for the tiers itself, is the same definition of each tier being used as the infamous 3.5 tier list? If so, I don't think much changed since Pathfinder. Many classes are much better at what they do, but don't really do much differently (except for some casters who relied on particular spells that have been edited). Of course, I'm pretty sure that was Paizo's plan from the start - putting all of the classes on the same level using the 3.5 system is pretty much impossible.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I agree with your ultimate conclusion, but saying that paladin got buffed considerably is questionable.

Paladin got buffed considerably over 3.5 CORE, where paladin was low tier 5.

Is a PF paladin better than a 3.5 paladin who casts his spells as swift actions with Battle Blessing, who uses his turn undead attempts for Travel Devotion, who has the huge list of Spell Compendium spells available, and picks the best ones (other than the ones that he memorizes) for wand use in a wand chamber in his weapon? Its hard to prove, but I wouldn't say so.I was comparing core to core, considering people can and often do mix 3.5 splats with pathfinder. The paladin you mentioned is still going to be significantly improved if he gets CHA-based casting, encounter-long smiting, and other goodies (assuming DM allows channel energy/TU equivalence, which is pretty straightforward)... now that I think of it, that's starting to creep into T3.

[Big Fau]

Considering it can be made at level 17th at minimum, it shouldn't be available in most games, and even then, maybe it is, but not for the alignment you want. It also takes 4 hours to use the gate effect, so it's no help in the middle of combat, and requires standard bargaining with the outsider (base of paying them 1,000 gold per hit dice per hour).

What?


Each of these special tapers is dedicated to one of the nine alignments. Simply burning the candle generates a favorable aura for the individual so doing if the candle’s alignment matches that of the character. Characters of the same alignment as the burning candle add a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks while within 30 feet of the flame.

A cleric whose alignment matches the candle’s operates as if two levels higher for purposes of determining spells per day if he burns the candle during or just prior to his spell preparation time. He can even cast spells normally unavailable to him, as if he were of that higher level, but only so long as the candle continues to burn. Except in special cases (see below), a candle burns for 4 hours.

In addition, burning a candle also allows the owner to cast a gate spell, the respondent being of the same alignment as the candle, but the taper is immediately consumed in the process. It is possible to extinguish the candle simply by blowing it out, so users often place it in a lantern to protect it from drafts and the like. Doing this doesn’t interfere with its magical properties.


It says nothing about taking 4 hours to use the Gate effect, just that it burns for 4 hours unless you use the Gate effect.

[Gnaeus]

I was comparing core to core, considering people can and often do mix 3.5 splats with pathfinder.

Some do, some don't. Some allow pieces. Core to core is fair for discussion, as long as it is clear that that is what you are comparing. Core + relevant splats for that system is also fair. By the time you are assuming PF +3.5 splats, you are really wandering into houserule territory. Heck, some play 3.5 + pathfinder splats.


The paladin you mentioned is still going to be significantly improved if he gets CHA-based casting, encounter-long smiting, and other goodies (assuming DM allows channel energy/TU equivalence, which is pretty straightforward)... now that I think of it, that's starting to creep into T3.

But that is no longer the Pathfinder tier. It is a combo system tier. I could just as well state that in my game, we play with 3.5 rules, but we use the PF paladin base class, which lots of people on this board have advocated as a 3.5 paladin fix (and as one of the most balanced things Paizo has done), and therefore my 3.5 paladin is tier 3. Yes, I suppose he is, but he really isn't 3.5 any more.

[Blisstake]

My mistake, I apologize. I misread it and thought it was the other way around.

Regardless, the spell Gate now requires that you either call a specific creature (which would also be limited by the alignment of the candle, and be unlikely you even know any planar entities), and bargain with them. If you don't know a specific creature and cannot bargain, they immediately are called back to their plane. I assume any being worth calling also has a way to return to to their home plane, so unless you've got a really clueless DM, it's not really that gamebreaking.

This seems a bit pointless though, since it was the same in 3.5, wasn't it? The only difference is that the candle should cost an extra 10,000 for the newly added component cost of gate when you ummon (a mistake on Paizo's part).

[NamelessNPC]

No, Paizo hasn't fixed anything. They made it so that dodge gave you a +1 dodge bonus to AC against everybody. They then thought it was overpowered and hit it really hard with the nerfbat. And that's just one thing.

Also, you come across as a rampant fanboy who refuses to see Pathfinder's flaws. You think that's a cheap argument? You used the exact same one.



Dodge (Combat)
Your training and reflexes allow you to react swiftly to avoid an opponents' attacks.
Prerequisite: Dex 13.
Benefit: You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. A condition that makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC also makes you lose the benefits of this feat.

+1 Dodge AC, against everyone. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but please try to inform yourself before argueing so vehemently, so we can have a better discussion.


Also, because I think someone asked, the inquisitor is tier 3. It has really cool combat abilities, 6th level casting, 6+int skill ranks per level (with useful class skills), 2 good saves and Stalwart (which I think is the same you call Mettle)

[Psyren]

I'll be the first to admit that Pathfinder is unbalanced. It's practically the first thing Saph says in the PF Handbook - Pathfinder is NOT "3.5 fixed."

Why is that a problem? There is a perfectly balanced way to play D&D - it's called 4e, and I'm assuming that most of the people that frequent this forum aren't interested in that level of homogeneity.

It honestly doesn't matter if a class is unbalanced if the players don't abuse its potential. What matters is - can a class cope with the challenges it's expected to at each level in the game? I think that Pathfinder classes by and large meet this objective better than 3.5 classes do. Certainly a Pathfinder Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Soulknife... even the Fighter and Monk, can account for themselves much better in the face of level-appropriate challenges than their 3.5 counterparts, and that is what matters.

3.5 had Fighters that could barely jump/swim, Soulknives and Monks that could barely fight, Rogues that were useless against many enemies without heavy splat support etc. Can the Wizard still blow them all away? Of course, but I still think Pathfinder has more for every class to do, which translates to more fun.

[SuperFerret]

No, Paizo hasn't fixed anything. They made it so that dodge gave you a +1 dodge bonus to AC against everybody. They then thought it was overpowered and hit it really hard with the nerfbat. And that's just one thing.

Errata, I'm guessing?

[Big Fau]

+1 Dodge AC, against everyone. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but please try to inform yourself before argueing so vehemently, so we can have a better discussion.

They keep changing it. This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11395089&postcount=8) was the version I had heard about most recently.



Regardless, the spell Gate now requires that you either call a specific creature (which would also be limited by the alignment of the candle, and be unlikely you even know any planar entities), and bargain with them. If you don't know a specific creature and cannot bargain, they immediately are called back to their plane. I assume any being worth calling also has a way to return to to their home plane, so unless you've got a really clueless DM, it's not really that gamebreaking.


You only have to bargain with them if you want extended services. This remains true even in the Pathfinder version.


The only thing they fixed about Gate was that you can't just call in a Titan and have them do your dirty work.

[Blisstake]

I don't see dodge listed in the official errata. I think it still gives a flat +1 to AC. Or is there errata beyond what's in the errata pdf file on Paizo's website?

As for the Candle, if it works as I now understand, I suppose it is quite broken, assuming someone can get access to one with no issues. It seems Paizo forgot to update the cost however, since Gate now has a material component for summoning creatures, which would put the candle at 18,400 gp (unavailable in most locations). Not sure if this is an oversight, or what. Perhaps it's been updated in errata?

It's a pretty stupid thing to keep, even if gate has been reduced in overall power.

Then again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the tier list, since anyone can light the candle.

[GoatBoy]

One thing that I think PF misses with a lot of its classes are effective standard actions for warrior type classes. One big advantage ToB type classes have are effective standard actions which means they are not forced to try to make full attack actions. Effective standard actions are a big part of tier 3 or better.

This is somewhat mitigated by the "Vital Strike" line of feats, the new Cleave, and the fact that tripping/disarming/etc are more likely to work since size bonuses have been reduced. But, yes, otherwise melee types are still aching for things to do when they can't full attack.

Perhaps they could have taken a cue from 4th ed and made charging a standard action?

[Doug Lampert]

Didn't Druids get wailed on with the nerfbat? Though they're probably still T1 even so.

Druid was like a gesalt of a mildly weak tier one class + a tier three or four class, with a pet tier five character as a free bonus.

You can nerf the stuff other than full casting all you want, and it's still tier one.


The "damage output" you speak of is considerably weaker than what the class was capable of in 3.5, tripping is still limited by size category (can't go over one size above you), tripping now requires Combat Reflexes to even function (since it costs you AoOs now, something it never did before), any of the other combat options will eat your feats dry (even with the PF feat increase), and the class is still irrelevant outside of combat.

Note that the extra feats are negligable to a fighter.

A 3.x fighter gets 18 feats (+1 if human).
A Pathfinder fighter gets 21 feats (+1 if human).

You need two feats for the full trip bonus instead of one. Same for several other tricks....

A grand total of 3 extra feats on top of the 19 you already had as a human fighter just isn't that much.

The pathfinder and 3.x fighter are dead even on feats from level 1-4, and again at level 6.



A wizard never runs out of spells. Really, you should know that by now. :smallconfused:

:smallconfused:

And how exactly? Cantrips?

That will actually do if the fighter is trying to wait out a fly spell, just reduce his mobility and cantrip him to death.

Or wand him to death.

Or echoing spell him to death.

Remember that at level 5 or so the Wizard started making his own wands at half cost. Most wizard's I've seen in play in 3.x are pretty unoptimized blasters, so they have a wand of magic missile at CL 3 or 5 so they'll always have SOMETHING to do that will do some damage.


Really? Because it's not like you aren't limited to class skills anymore. It's not like you can actually build an Item Creation character who isn't like five levels below everyone else.

Five levels? You CAN NOT manage to be even one level behind most of the time. You simply don't have enough cash to craft stuff with even if the entire party sells every ounce of loot and has one character craft with every GP.

You still can't fall significantly behind. If you seriously thought XP costs were a significant problem in 3.x then you have just failed math forever.

[McSmack]

I spent a good portion of this thread confused. Shadow Lord and Curious have the same Avatar, and I didn't even notice that the names were different. I just thought Curious was having a nervous breakdown and was arguing with himself.:smallbiggrin:

On to the topic at hand. I'd say there wasn't a whole lot of movement on the list. One or two T5 classes might move up a bit, since the skill changes give them more versatility. The addition of traits/archetypes gives more flexibility as well and this translates to characters who can do a bit more than they could before. The increased feat progression doesn't hurt either.

Imtimidate got a nice boost, and can consistently be used to given multiple enemies the shaken condition. There's a feat or two that gives you bonues to this and to your attacks vs those foes.

A agree that witches should be T1. Summoners in at a solid T3. Oracle in at T2.

[MeeposFire]

This is somewhat mitigated by the "Vital Strike" line of feats, the new Cleave, and the fact that tripping/disarming/etc are more likely to work since size bonuses have been reduced. But, yes, otherwise melee types are still aching for things to do when they can't full attack.

Perhaps they could have taken a cue from 4th ed and made charging a standard action?

3 feats to get worse than a mid level strike in ToB is a bad trade. If the vital strike line was free then I would at least give them a pass. It would be weak but it would be something. Making it 3 feats is just indefensible. Feats like cleave start well but quickly lose their thunder as you level (which is the problem with standard actions for melee in general 2 conditional attacks with a penalty attached is good at level 1 but is terrible starting near level 10). Also I recall a thread here that went deep into the math and found CMD becomes a very bad mechanic at higher levels in addition to the fact that you are still limited by your size (which as you level is a very bad thing).

EDIT: I am developing a house rule that on your turn using an attack action you deal extra damage equal to 1d6 per point of BAB over 5. So at BAB 20 you would deal +15d6 damage which is not quite as high as a strike at that level but is far better damage than before (and you don't want it to be better than the strikes). I am still working on the exact amount and getting the wording just right.

[navar100]

I am not saying that Paizo is wrongbad for not having all those options. Fairness isn't really a consideration in a tier discussion. I am saying that the Tiers describe capabilities, not design intentions. Maybe the PF paladin will someday beat the 3.5 paladin. But I don't think it has happened yet.

Smite Evil no longer a one round/trick pony. It lasts until foe is dead or after you rest. At high level you can have your allies benefit.

Spellcasting based on Charisma, lessening MAD.

Can have a Bonded Weapon instead of a Mount so you don't lose a class feature if adventures take place in mountains, swamps, or a dungeon. It stacks if your weapon is already magical.

Able to remove a variety of bad conditions with Lay On Hands, such as sicken, nausea, poison, etc.

Eventually become immune to charm compulsions and provide bonus to save for allies.

Pathfinder Paladin is far superior than 3E Paladin.

[Shadow Lord]

3 feats to get worse than a mid level strike in ToB is a bad trade. If the vital strike line was free then I would at least give them a pass. It would be weak but it would be something. Making it 3 feats is just indefensible. Feats like cleave start well but quickly lose their thunder as you level (which is the problem with standard actions for melee in general 2 conditional attacks with a penalty attached is good at level 1 but is terrible starting near level 10). Also I recall a thread here that went deep into the math and found CMD becomes a very bad mechanic at higher levels in addition to the fact that you are still limited by your size (which as you level is a very bad thing).

EDIT: I am developing a house rule that on your turn using an attack action you deal extra damage equal to 1d6 per point of BAB over 5. So at BAB 20 you would deal +15d6 damage which is not quite as high as a strike at that level but is far better damage than before (and you don't want it to be better than the strikes). I am still working on the exact amount and getting the wording just right.

o.O You do realize that that ability just made it so that attacks get +60d6 damage at 20th level, right? Seriously 3 feats ain't that much when you've got 21 of them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

o.O You do realize that that ability just made it so that attacks get +60d6 damage at 20th level, right? Seriously 3 feats ain't that much when you've got 21 of them.

That's assuming the attack at a -15 penalty hits. And 45d6 damage averages out at 157 damage. Do you know how many hit points a dragon has at that CR? Seriously, a level 20 fighter should, at full hit points, be able to take down a CR 20 dragon, solo. Just like a wizard at full, no, above half, spells could.

[Shadow Lord]

That's assuming the attack at a -15 penalty hits. And 45d6 damage averages out at 157 damage. Do you know how many hit points a dragon has at that CR? Seriously, a level 20 fighter should, at full hit points, be able to take down a CR 20 dragon, solo. Just like a wizard at full, no, above half, spells could.

So a Fighter should be better at damage than everyone else, no matter what? What about the Blaster Casters? And the Barbarian? Seriously, bro, think stuff through. :smallwink:

[MeeposFire]

Just a quick question what are we using to do this?

[KingofMadCows]

I don't understand why they didn't implement different paths or specializations for fighters. It wouldn't be difficult to have protector, vanguard, skirmisher, bounty hunter, and commander paths.

[Reverent-One]

I don't understand why they didn't implement different paths or specializations for fighters. It wouldn't be difficult to have protector, vanguard, skirmisher, bounty hunter, and commander paths.

You mean like the archetypes they've had since the advanced players guide?

[Psyren]

I don't understand why they didn't implement different paths or specializations for fighters. It wouldn't be difficult to have protector, vanguard, skirmisher, bounty hunter, and commander paths.

Because you should be able to call your fighter those things without needing a preset kit of abilities first. Just take the necessary feats and roleplay it up.

(Though Ranger is generally a better fit for "bounty hunter" I'd say.)

[Eric Tolle]

Just a quick question what are we using to do this?

The interweb?

Which would make it a flame weapon, obviously.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So a Fighter should be better at damage than everyone else, no matter what? What about the Blaster Casters? And the Barbarian? Seriously, bro, think stuff through. :smallwink:

It's based on BAB, I'm pretty sure it's not only for fighters. And blaster casters aren't optimized, but they can do the same damage with a meteor swarm, plus they get time stop+delayed blast fireball, and shapechange, and can do all their damage with extended greater invisibility and overland flight, from far away due to spell range, without ever being in danger because it's actually the caster's astral projection.

[KingofMadCows]

You mean like the archetypes they've had since the advanced players guide?

I mean something more in-depth and includes benefits beyond combat.

For example, a protector would get disguise, heal, perception, and sense motive as class skills. They would get +X to their disguise skill when disguising as the person they're protecting. They share buffs with the person they protect. They can choose to be affected by negative effects targeted towards their ward to reduce the effect's duration. A vanguard would get bluff, diplomacy, stealth, and tumble as class skills. They would get +X to their social skills when interacting with someone for the first time. They would give a bonus to characters that follow behind when going through obstacles. And so on and so forth.

Also, considering how all the other classes got a bunch of different character options in the core rulebook, the fighter should have more options too.

[Curious]

Also, considering how all the other classes got a bunch of different character options in the core rulebook, the fighter should have more options too.

But the fighter does get options; his feats!

[/troll]

[MeeposFire]

o.O You do realize that that ability just made it so that attacks get +60d6 damage at 20th level, right? Seriously 3 feats ain't that much when you've got 21 of them.

What ability in PF gets you +60d6 damage. Unless you mean taking my houserule with the vital strike line. If thats what you meant I was using that instead of the vital strike line (it is a generic 3.5 houserule not a PF specific one) though combining them would make single attacks fairly nice and it would be nice to not have to full attack all the time (and that would certainly make vital strike worth it even if it isn't really now)...

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You could also just rule that anyone with BaB 6 or higher treats full attacks as standard actions. Nullifies the Vital Strike line, but it had basically nullified itself.

[MeeposFire]

You could also just rule that anyone with BaB 6 or higher treats full attacks as standard actions. Nullifies the Vital Strike line, but it had basically nullified itself.

Really at that point you might as well eliminate full attack actions and just make what used to be a full attack an attack action.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Really at that point you might as well eliminate full attack actions and just make what used to be a full attack an attack action.I don't see the reason for me to do more work calibrating the effects of bonus damage on various classes' new "standard action attacks" when I could just make that house rule in one second. Sure, full attacks slow the game down a little bit, but force the slow math people to use calculators and that's not a big issue. Also, it gives the full attacker a little more versatility as far as targets go.

[MeeposFire]

I don't see the reason for me to do more work calibrating the effects of bonus damage on various classes' new "standard action attacks" when I could just make that house rule in one second. Sure, full attacks slow the game down a little bit, but force the slow math people to use calculators and that's not a big issue. Also, it gives the full attacker a little more versatility as far as targets go.

I am not saying you shouldn't do what you said, I am saying you might as well eliminate the "full attack action" from the game and make the attack action act like a full attack action rather than saying it kicks in after level 5 which is a stranger way of doing it. By going this way you then make options like spring attack better since in 3.5 spring attack involves an attack action. Of course doing this has a ripple effect on the game since now everybody can full attack and move. This is probably deadliest in the middle levels as low levels have few attacks and high levels involve more spell casting creatures (or larger creatures that were probably going to get full attacks anyway).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I am not saying you shouldn't do what you said, I am saying you might as well eliminate the "full attack action" from the game and make the attack action act like a full attack action rather than saying it kicks in after level 5 which is a stranger way of doing it. By going this way you then make options like spring attack better since in 3.5 spring attack involves an attack action. Of course doing this has a ripple effect on the game since now everybody can full attack and move. This is probably deadliest in the middle levels as low levels have few attacks and high levels involve more spell casting creatures (or larger creatures that were probably going to get full attacks anyway).The reason I did it like so was to prevent some lowish level monster encounters such as a pair of dire wolverines (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/musteloids/wolverine/dire-wolverine) from being too deadly for low op groups to handle.

[Big Fau]

o.O You do realize that that ability just made it so that attacks get +60d6 damage at 20th level, right? Seriously 3 feats ain't that much when you've got 21 of them.


That +60d6 damage averages out to two Disentigrate spells cast at CL 15th, plus whatever the Fighter's extra damage is. That isn't impressive unless you put it on the World Record for attacks/round.
The Devs thought the exact same thing. Here's a hint: Most optimizers do not stay singled-classed Fighters for 20 levels, specifically because those 21 feats are "not enough" (in that actual class features are better than them). Ever wonder why people were told that 2nd level was the cutoff for Fighter levels (6th for Dungeoncrasher, 10th for Intimidate builds)? Its because those bonus feats do not hold a candle to actual class features.

[MeeposFire]

That +60d6 damage averages out to two Disentigrate spells cast at CL 15th, plus whatever the Fighter's extra damage is. That isn't impressive unless you put it on the World Record for attacks/round.
The Devs thought the exact same thing. Here's a hint: Most optimizers do not stay singled-classed Fighters for 20 levels, specifically because those 21 feats are "not enough" (in that actual class features are better than them). Ever wonder why people were told that 2nd level was the cutoff for Fighter levels (6th for Dungeoncrasher, 10th for Intimidate builds)? Its because those bonus feats do not hold a candle to actual class features.


It wouldn't be +60d6 anyway as vital strike doesn't multiply bonus damage. So it is really 4W+15d6 damage.

[stainboy]

You still can't fall significantly behind. If you seriously thought XP costs were a significant problem in 3.x then you have just failed math forever.

They were a problem, just not for the reason you're thinking. People in Living Greyhawk used to deliberately dump XP just so they could be a level 8 character with level 10 treasure or whatever. (Living Greyhawk removed crafting costs before Paizo did.)

[Gnaeus]

Smite Evil no longer a one round/trick pony. It lasts until foe is dead or after you rest. At high level you can have your allies benefit.

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.


Spellcasting based on Charisma, lessening MAD.

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.


Can have a Bonded Weapon instead of a Mount so you don't lose a class feature if adventures take place in mountains, swamps, or a dungeon. It stacks if your weapon is already magical.

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.


Able to remove a variety of bad conditions with Lay On Hands, such as sicken, nausea, poison, etc.

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).



Eventually become immune to charm compulsions and provide bonus to save for allies.

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.



Pathfinder Paladin is far superior than 3E Paladin.

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)

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

*snip*All of these things are wonderful applications of practical optimization. If I wanted to play a 3.5 Paladin that was actually the Paladin class (off chance), I would do as much of this as my hypothetical DM would allow. That said... all of these build choices are at a decent optimization level. At that bar, basically every class in 3.5 is going to be more powerful and versatile than its PF counterpart simply due to the large pool of material to draw from. Even monks have Tashalatora.

The point is while the 3.5 Paladin has a higher ceiling, the PF Paladin has a higher floor. Which is more important depends on the group.

[Gnaeus]

All of these things are wonderful applications of practical optimization. If I wanted to play a 3.5 Paladin that was actually the Paladin class (off chance), I would do as much of this as my hypothetical DM would allow. That said... all of these build choices are at a decent optimization level. At that bar, basically every class in 3.5 is going to be more powerful and versatile than its PF counterpart simply due to the large pool of material to draw from. Even monks have Tashalatora.

The point is while the 3.5 Paladin has a higher ceiling, the PF Paladin has a higher floor. Which is more important depends on the group.

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.

[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 (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG) 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 (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG) 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? :smallconfused:


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.

[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.