|
Hello friends,
I feel this point is best.
Not just because it is tradition in D&D.
No, because, one of the goal of PFRPG is backward compatibility.
Remember of these posts about wizards being too powerful in years past ? Since the wizards player will still have access to his wonderful library of uber-destruction spells, PLUS the very nice IMHO new specialists rules ....
Let's not give them too much power shall we ?
That's only an opinion, of course.
I don't feel that this hurts backwards compatibility. All wizards/sorcerers can be converted to PFRG by simply giving them extra hit points equal to their wizard/sorcerer level. After all, the average goes from being 2.5 hp/level to 3.5 hp/ level. Even at level 20, its only 20 extra hit points more. And at 1st level, it puts them back on par with an ordinary D&D dude (the commoner).
And there is precedent to changing hit dies. The ranger is a good example of this. I do like Paizo's proposal of bringing them back to d10 hp/level I must say.
The only real difference is that the wizard won't keel over as often due to one bad roll, but will still keel over due to exposure to combat like a redhead gets sunburned at the pool.
I really like having these characters start out with d6 instead of d4. It was always hard for the 1st level sorcerers and wizards in my gaming groups to really get into the first couple of adventures... they had very limited abilities to do much of anything.
I agree, I like the new D6 for Wizards/Sorcs, and I'm certainly glad the D4 has gone the way of the Do-do bird. The correlation of BAB/combat effectiveness and ones ability to survive a fight (hit points) is a very welcome addition.
The condensed d6 through d12 reorganization was brilliant. I wizard is never going to be able to go toe to toe with a fighter in a melee battle, and he shouldn't, but he should be able to survive more than one hit.
I've noticed that a lot of people kind of pointed out that wizards being "weak" are a fantasy tradition, but really, wizards have been "weak" in D&D as a balancing point to fighter, rogues, and other more martial classes. As long as fighters and rogues can mop the floor with them in a straight up fight, balance (in theory) maintained.
The d4 was always such a headache to design around when I was writing adventures, too. Finding ways to make things dramatic and exciting at middling levels is rather nightmarish sometimes, because I have to contend with the fact that the wizard character only has about 25-35 hp but most others have around 50-70. A poor saving throw roll on the part of the party ranger, cleric, fighter, or barbarian won't necessarily kill them... but if that wizard botches, it's "roll up another character" time or "pause the adventure while we expend a day's worth of healing on one character" time.
d4 hit die are pretty unplayable sometimes, regardless of how powerful a wizard can potentially get.
The d6 is a long over due change.
I dont know: A year ago i would have said Hit Die equated to Class type (and Wizard should keep the d4) but now It should be Race...Halfling, Goblin, Kobold d4; And Class should provide Adjustments (penaties or bonuses).
Yeah, maybe....
but then, they could step on a d4 and die...
d4 clearly offers the most potent offense to bare feet in the game...
yes friend who among us have not injured are selves on a d4?
|
|
I don't feel that this hurts backwards compatibility. All wizards/sorcerers can be converted to PFRG by simply giving them extra hit points equal to their wizard/sorcerer level. After all, the average goes from being 2.5 hp/level to 3.5 hp/ level. Even at level 20, its only 20 extra hit points more. And at 1st level, it puts them back on par with an ordinary D&D dude (the commoner).
And there is precedent to changing hit dies. The ranger is a good example of this. I do like Paizo's proposal of bringing them back to d10 hp/level I must say.
Oh, I did not feel it hurts backwards compatibility, just the tradition.
Anyways, I am clearly in the minority here, and I maybe did not explain myself clearly enough : My point is that the wizard is the most versatile character in the game, and it can gain untold power from perusing musty tomes the DM has forgotten about ... such as the Relics&Rituals books or the Spell Compendium, or ...
Such versatily should have a price somehow, and I don't think D6 is quite enough. but that's an opinion, and if everybody goes D6, I will follow.
Upped to a d6, my level 10, soon to be level 11, Wizard was able to take, on average, 3 hits before death, from melee type monsters. (yup, tested this against a stone giant - 3 swings and I was perma-dead. Resurrection spell and my gnome wizard came back as a half-elf wizard; tested against trolls, I took 2 hits and was still standing, but a third would have dropped me to low negatives, possible perma-dead depending upon whether the GM crit. on me).
At a d4, I think death was in 2 hits.
As I gain in levels and the damage from the monsters outpaces the hitpoints gained, my Wizard's never going to be capable of standing on the front line long enough to make use of any of those nifty touch attack spells. Yay for worthless versatility!
I think the cost of a lot of the versatility comes in the range limits on spells. Some spell, like fireball, can be used to blow up ogres from 800 feet away (which, I gotta' say, is a lot of fun). But a number of things require shorter ranges that put you closer to the combat. Things with a range of 25' + 5'/2 levels (scorching ray)... require the Wizard to stay fairly close to the action. (Someone with a movement of 30' could charge the wizard from the distance he's casting scorching ray, most likely).
While I do think the Wizard (And most Full spellcasters) need to be toned down, keeping the D4 hit dice is a bad idea.
Hello friends,
I feel this point is best.
Not just because it is tradition in D&D.No, because, one of the goal of PFRPG is backward compatibility.
Remember of these posts about wizards being too powerful in years past ? Since the wizards player will still have access to his wonderful library of uber-destruction spells, PLUS the very nice IMHO new specialists rules ....
Let's not give them too much power shall we ?
That's only an opinion, of course.
D4 should be preserved.
They are magical, hard to read, also, they can be used as caltrop.
I just hate rolling d4's. Rolling d6's makes you feel like you're shooting craps; it's much cooler. As a guy who likes to play wizards, I can vouch for that. I play rogues sometimes, too, and I'd almost be willing to voluntarily drop the rogue's HD back to d6's so I could roll them instead of d8's.
I just hate rolling d4's. Rolling d6's makes you feel like you're shooting craps; it's much cooler. As a guy who likes to play wizards, I can vouch for that. I play rogues sometimes, too, and I'd almost be willing to voluntarily drop the rogue's HD back to d6's so I could roll them instead of d8's.
Wizard are nothing cool, they are geeks you know.
Wizard are nothing cool, they are geeks you know.
Regarding d6's vs. others: "First in my class here at MIT..."
Regarding geeks shooting craps: "Your usual table, Mr. Papageorgio?"
Personally, I like the change of d6 for wizards and the overall linking between BAB and Hit Die.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I prefer the d4 hit die, because wizards shouldn't stand up face-to-face with giants and survive (unless they've cast spells in advance to protect themselves).
The problem, I've found, is that front lines tend to move, and monsters tend to go with area attacks as much as Wizards do... and sometimes you get a stone giant who decides to throw the big rock at the guy in the back instead of the guy in the front.
In short, there are lots of ways that a wizard, doing his job of staying in the back, is going to get beat up and killed anyway. Being able to withstand one or two attacks and then die isn't a very good prospect, no matter how big the party is. Lasting 3 or maybe, maybe 4 hits means the cleric can do something else with his turn and the Wizard might venture far enough in to try using some of those shorter range spells. And, who knows, the wizard might just survive that other caster's fireball. (in my experience, wizards don't do well with fort or ref. saves).
I don't see how giving the wizard the cushion of being able to survive 1 more hit is making the class over-powered.
I don't see how giving the wizard the cushion of being able to survive 1 more hit is making the class over-powered.
Because they can cast "Phantasmal Killer".
The moment a wizard casts a spell, any adversary of even average intelligence is going to make him (followed by the cleric) target number one. That is another reason I am happy about the hit die increase for wizards in the PFRPG. Basic fantasy tactics is going to put any known spellcaster high on the kill list of the enemy and they would devote considerable resources to removing a wlaking artillery piece from the field of battle. Bumping the hit dice makes surviving such attention more likely.
And as I said in another thread, this is a heroic game at its core. And getting cut down in the first session because a goblin gets a lucky shot just is not heroic. If you want a more gritty game, bump everyone including the fighter and barbarian down a hit die type for your personal campaign. But i think the wizard should keep his new d6 in the core book.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Hello friends,
I feel this point is best.
Not just because it is tradition in D&D.No, because, one of the goal of PFRPG is backward compatibility.
Remember of these posts about wizards being too powerful in years past ? Since the wizards player will still have access to his wonderful library of uber-destruction spells, PLUS the very nice IMHO new specialists rules ....
Let's not give them too much power shall we ?
That's only an opinion, of course.
I like the "base dice" increase for the Wizard and Sorcerer. As someone who played a Fighter/Rogue 1/1 whose head got chopped off 10 minutes into his very first fight with an Ogre (the other 5 party members lived) I can very much see the value in more hp. 16hp meant the Ogre goes "chop, down to 1; chop, down to -15 = dead brand new character, please sit there and make another while the rest of us continue to play"!
The HD I would like to see changed is the Barbarian. Sure the d12 is good for them, but in line with the rule about keeping HD tied to BAB, you could just as easily give the Barbarian d10 and then Toughness as a Bonus Feat. This pretty much amounts to the same amount of bonus hp the d12 would give them over the course of their career. The only downside I can see to this is people would then "dip" into lvl 1 Barb for the Feat, but then this is no different to dipping into lvl 1 Ftr and taking Toughness as their Feat choice (well except for the benefits of Rage, but then maybe they will be addressed with the points system).
Hello friends,
I feel this point is best.
Not just because it is tradition in D&D.No, because, one of the goal of PFRPG is backward compatibility.
Remember of these posts about wizards being too powerful in years past ? Since the wizards player will still have access to his wonderful library of uber-destruction spells, PLUS the very nice IMHO new specialists rules ....
Let's not give them too much power shall we ?
That's only an opinion, of course.
No. A d6 adds an average of +21 HP to the wizard over the course of his career. That's not "too much power."
As someone who has played more wizards and sorcerers than any other class, I can say that I am very happy with the increase in hit die. I understand that being able to wield the powers of the cosmos would have an impact on my physical state and leave me more vulnerable to attack, but, as previously stated, a d4 is too low. We're talking about a one round difference in survivability here; it's not a huge difference. When it comes to it, the wizard/sorcerer is still going to have less hit points because their constitution is going to be lower than the front lines fighter.
For those that would argue that the wizard/sorcerer should just get a better constitution score, let me remind you that a wizard/sorcerer needs to put all his/her ability points into Dexterity (because wearing armor makes it hard to cast the spells that make a wizard/sorcerer worth playing) and the chief ability score of the class (in order to boost the power and number of times they can cast the spells).
In all the games I have ever played/run, the spellcaster ends up getting hit with a big attack at least once a session. If the cleric then has to spend the next few rounds healing the spellcaster so that he/she doesn't die with one more hit, then the cleric can't keep the rest of the party from dying from repeated strong attacks. If the wizard/sorcerer doesn't drop into the single digits immediately, then the cleric worries less and can focus on keeping the "tanks" alive long enough for the wizard/sorcerer to do their job and land a big attack on the monster/creature.
Wizards require high Dex more for the initiative boost, really.
Hello friends,
I feel this point is best.
Not just because it is tradition in D&D.No, because, one of the goal of PFRPG is backward compatibility.
Remember of these posts about wizards being too powerful in years past ? Since the wizards player will still have access to his wonderful library of uber-destruction spells, PLUS the very nice IMHO new specialists rules ....
Let's not give them too much power shall we ?
That's only an opinion, of course.
I like the "base dice" increase for the Wizard and Sorcerer. As someone who played a Fighter/Rogue 1/1 whose head got chopped off 10 minutes into his very first fight with an Ogre (the other 5 party members lived) I can very much see the value in more hp. 16hp meant the Ogre goes "chop, down to 1; chop, down to -15 = dead brand new character, please sit there and make another while the rest of us continue to play"!
The HD I would like to see changed is the Barbarian. Sure the d12 is good for them, but in line with the rule about keeping HD tied to BAB, you could just as easily give the Barbarian d10 and then Toughness as a Bonus Feat. This pretty much amounts to the same amount of bonus hp the d12 would give them over the course of their career. The only downside I can see to this is people would then "dip" into lvl 1 Barb for the Feat, but then this is no different to dipping into lvl 1 Ftr and taking Toughness as their Feat choice (well except for the benefits of Rage, but then maybe they will be addressed with the points system).
Flash, I am on board for dropping the Barbarian hit die down to d10 to keep in line with the BAB-Hit Die equivalency (which I love). If the Barbarian absolutely as to have more hit points than a Fighter (which I dont beliee it does) instead of attaching the TOughness feat to the class and dealing with players who take a level of Barbarian to ge the feat you could instead grant the barbarian a class ability every level or every X levels a hit point bonus. That way if you want full advantage of it you would have to stick with the class.
Personally, I dont see why the Barbarian should get d12 aside from some clinging to 2nd edition. But then in that system we also had the Cavalier who also had a d12. Yet, the Knight in Player's Handbook II does not. I like capping class hit die at d10 and bottoming out at d6 personally.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
The poor d12 will be totally useless without the barbarian. Don't hate the d12!
The poor d12 will be totally useless without the barbarian. Don't hate the d12!
There's always weapons and spells. Or you could play Cortex/Serenity/Galactica/Supernatural or Savage Worlds ;) Get to roll plenty of d12 there.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Yes, I agree that it would be nice to streamline the system, giving the barbarian a d10 and giving him an additional +1 HP/level.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Personally, I dont see why the Barbarian should get d12 aside from some clinging to 2nd edition. But then in that system we also had the Cavalier who also had a d12. Yet, the Knight in Player's Handbook II does not. I like capping class hit die at d10 and bottoming out at d6 personally.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
The Knight from PHBII does have d12 HD (unless they have errata'd it), the only other Base Class to do so. The Dragon Disiple PrC from DMG also has d12.
I don't see how giving the wizard the cushion of being able to survive 1 more hit is making the class over-powered.Because they can cast "Phantasmal Killer".
Two saves or die... that's two chances to not die. I've only gotten that spell to work once... against very very low level npcs. Hardly lives up to the hype. mostly 'cause it's impossible to get DCs high enough to really give you better than a 50% chance of the monster failing anyway. Usually it seems that the monster only fails on a natural 1. Otherwise, it's the kind of monster you wouldn't want to waste the spell on anyway.
Personally. I like standardizing the HD based on BAB.
Having said that.... the increase in power to the wizard in terms of HP is counterbalanced by the specialist powers generally not being as effective as the old spell slot per spell level (the universalist being the exception) because they are fixed while before you had choice and also the DC is charima based rather than intelligence.
However, if your going to standardize it... do so.. there shouldn't be an exception. I am sure you can come up with an alternative to the D12 to simulate the barbarians natural ability to shrug off damage.
I also like the idea of wizards having 1d6 hp per level - they can keep up at least somewhat with the other classes that way.
And I like tying the HD to the BAB. If you need, just give the barbarian a D10 and a flat +1 hp per level to simulate the d12. In AD&D1 the Barbarian got double constitution bonus points to hp, which would spell trouble in 3.x I remember having a Wild Elf barbarian with 20 hp at first level back then, due to this special rule. Just calculate this for races with a con bonus, and you get astronomical hp soon (Ogre Barbarian for starters).
Stefan
|
|
As someone who has played more wizards and sorcerers than any other class, I can say that I am very happy with the increase in hit die. I understand that being able to wield the powers of the cosmos would have an impact on my physical state and leave me more vulnerable to attack, but, as previously stated, a d4 is too low. We're talking about a one round difference in survivability here; it's not a huge difference. When it comes to it, the wizard/sorcerer is still going to have less hit points because their constitution is going to be lower than the front lines fighter.
For those that would argue that the wizard/sorcerer should just get a better constitution score, let me remind you that a wizard/sorcerer needs to put all his/her ability points into Dexterity (because wearing armor makes it hard to cast the spells that make a wizard/sorcerer worth playing) and the chief ability score of the class (in order to boost the power and number of times they can cast the spells).
In all the games I have ever played/run, the spellcaster ends up getting hit with a big attack at least once a session. If the cleric then has to spend the next few rounds healing the spellcaster so that he/she doesn't die with one more hit, then the cleric can't keep the rest of the party from dying from repeated strong attacks. If the wizard/sorcerer doesn't drop into the single digits immediately, then the cleric worries less and can focus on keeping the "tanks" alive long enough for the wizard/sorcerer to do their job and land a big attack on the monster/creature.
Just look at our new Iconic...Ezren
I don't see how he would be able to survive to make level 4 in Seven Days to the grave with his 9 Dex. AC9? and 5 hit points...wow...and at level 4 he has 15 hp and AC 11... How did he make level 4???
At least with the PRPG system the d6s would give him a FEW more HP...
Personally, I dont see why the Barbarian should get d12 aside from some clinging to 2nd edition. But then in that system we also had the Cavalier who also had a d12.
As a historical aside, those both go back to 1.5 edition (Gygax's Unearthed Arcana); 2e had neither class except as splatbook "kits."
I'm for the d6, nobody should deserve the d4 in the same way nobody should deserve 2 skill points per level (thought it's different in Pathfinder's case).
I understand the need to "balance" roles and stuff, but really... Creating too much difference in basic stats that everyone uses (BAB and HP, for example) makes for silly "I always succeed and everyone else always fails" situations that I'd rather avoid.
Plus, the HP gain from switching from d4 to d6 are minimal and added to a class that didn't really have many anyways in the first place.
Some of the complaints about wizard vulnerability can be avoided with effective use of the tools available. The following 1st-3rd level spells are great for keeping wizards and sorcerers out of harm's way and in the battle:
expeditious retreat
color spray
invisibility
grease
blur
displacement
false life
mirror image
levitate
fly
web
protection from evil/etc.
spider climb
shield
mage armor
This is not an exhaustive list, just off the top of my head. Combine these with effective use of cover and doing the best you can to keep the tanks between you and the bad guys, and wizards and sorcerers are reasonably playable with a d4. At higher levels:
lesser and greater globe of invulnerability
polymorph
dimension door
stoneskin
stone shape
wall of fire
the various wall spells
Otto's indestructible sphere
teleport
foresight
mislead
greater invisibility
prismatic sphere
Evard's black tentacles
solid fog
Tenser's transformation
Wizards/sorcerers can also summon monsters to serve as a bodyguard in case an enemy gets through or around the front line.
Wizards aren't indestructible, but they are incredibly versatile and powerful--they're just tactically more challenging to play than a fighter. If all you want to prepare is damage-dealing offensive spells, then you <i>will</i> be a glass cannon, but if you select a balanced set of spells, you can protect yourself quite well in most circumstances. This is even true of sorcerers--you'll have a more limited range of tricks, but you're less likely to run out of the ones you do have, and you should strongly consider balancing your complement of offensive spells with the defensive/battlefield control spells listed above, as well as force multipliers (haste, bull's strength, enlarge, etc.)
The unlimited cantrips rule addresses the other problem mentioned above--which is running out of things to do at low levels besides shooting your crossbow.
In short, the wizard is at a disadvantage standing alone, but then every class has some vulnerabilities in that situation, and the wizard is potent enough that I don't think they need a bigger hit die. I don't think a d6 would break the game, but it would make the most powerful class in the game more powerful. YMMV.
Considering the addition of feats that can double a melee specialists strength modifier or improving the ability to deliver critical hits, a few more hit points are not going to even come close to contributing to overpowering the wizard as a class. As was pointed out it amounts only to a +21 hit points over the wizard's career. And any martial combat worth their salt can deliver that sort of damage in a round at higher levels. That round or two of extra survivability can and should make all the difference though.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
Oh, I did not feel it hurts backwards compatibility, just the tradition.
Anyways, I am clearly in the minority here, and I maybe did not explain myself clearly enough : My point is that the wizard is the most versatile character in the game, and it can gain untold power from perusing musty tomes the DM has forgotten about ... such as the Relics&Rituals books or the Spell Compendium, or ...
Such versatily should have a price somehow, and I don't think D6 is quite enough. but that's an opinion, and if everybody goes D6, I will follow.
When the designers were talking about the playtests for 3.0e, they said that they had initially bumped the wizard & sorcerer up to a d6 and the only reason it stayed at d4 is because the playtesters didn't like that it broke with tradition. It was never a balance thing (just like the monk/paladin multiclass restriction was never a balance thing).
It's time to fry this particular sacred cow up for hamburgers and call it good.
|
|
I entirely agree with wizards going up to d6 hit dice. Arcana Evolved did that for their spellcasters, and I thought it was just as brilliant then. My home game has had wizards at d6s for about three years now, and it's not unbalanced. The only reason to chain wizards to the pathetic d4 is tradition, not balance, and while I despise 4E for breaking with the traditions of D&D, it's the themes and ideals that I miss, not HD progressions.
Keep up the good work Paizo! My hope lies with you!
Jeremy Puckett