I know this is going to sound like an odd premise for a thread, BUt do wizards really need a d6 instead of a d4 for hp?
One of my favorite things about wizards (ironically) has always been the fact that they suck in the hp dept. If I could get my wussy little mage to make it through the first few levels without dying, I always felt a sense of accomplishment. I always liked the fact that my choice to spend countless hours buried in books rather than improving my physical abilities had consequences.
I can give in on the sorcerer's increase (and had created a class much like the PFRPG class myself) since these casters are less study and more action. I have always thought sorcerers were too similar to wizards with too few advantages. I like the bloodline ideas.
But I believe the fact that wizards suck at low levels is the justification for having them rule at higher levels ... which apparently is at the core of many people's complaints with classes (I just think they're upset that they can never pull of an effective wizard themselves). I also think the 4-sided die gets far too love anyway ... like the 12-sider (keep Barbarians at d12 ... IMHO)
What does everyone else think?
Well, wizards still have "low" HP, the lowest of all the classes, its just that most of the other classes went up a HD too, like rogue, for example.
You can always play your wiz with a negative con, save your high stats for other areas.
But did those other changes need to happen too? Rogues aren't meant to be tough so much as they are wiley. Wizards and rogues should be finding their value outside of the combat arena rather than in the thick of it ... at least early in their careers.
|
This one doesn't much matter to me, whether it's d4 or d6. If the wizard needs to start relying on the extra (on average) 1 HP per level that this change provides, then the wizard is already in way too much trouble. :)
I think they just wanted to standardize things a bit, and to raise everyone's hit points who was in dire need at low levels.
I'm OK with d6 for wizards.
thats the point, the wizard SHOULD go down after one hit, he SHOULD be taken out from one crossbow bolt, if he is getting hit and going down his party is not protecting him well enough he is hiding behide objects for cover when combat starts, all of this IMO but i am sorta ok with the increase since they powered up ALL classes(again not needed but that is for another thread heh)
I suspect that they will go down anyway. 6 sided hit dice aren't that much better than 4 sided. Having said that, I agree that 4 sided for wizards and, for that matter, six sided for rogues is OK. Aside from a general power creep in later classes there seems to be more and more of a desire for non-combat classes to fight. I feel that wizards, and to a lesser extent, rogues should be fragile. Neither is meant to fight (at least *fairly*). Wizards have always played a waiting game, until they get the good spells (and a few more hp) and rogues have always played to their skills.
My 2 cp.
|
thats the point, the wizard SHOULD go down after one hit, he SHOULD be taken out from one crossbow bolt
I feel that wizards, and to a lesser extent, rogues should be fragile. Neither is meant to fight (at least *fairly*). Wizards have always played a waiting game, until they get the good spells (and a few more hp) and rogues have always played to their skills.
I have to ask - how does this make the game better and more fun to play, particularly for wizard and rogue players?
I have to ask - how does this make the game better and more fun to play, particularly for wizard and rogue players?
I didn't say it made it more "fun". Just a comment on how the classes had been played. I've played theives / rogues more than anything else btw. The fragility of my character always heightened the tension (which was part of the fun IMO) in the game for me. What makes everything more fun about making characters less fragile? There are options for players who want to fight and either cast spells or sneak. The risk of death (for your character) has always been part of the game, especially, for the early levels in these classes. Part of the fun too IMO. No risk = no challenge. Noticing the way they ramped up the hp in 4E was just another, of many, reasons I decided against it.
I'm of the opinion that wizards have always been balanced (if you can call it that) in the premise that they are incredibly easy to kill.
As it happens, this has always been a somewhat shaky premise to build a class on. A munchkined wizard probably isn't going to get hit anyway.
Eh, whichever.
Yeah, I kinda like the idea of wizards having a d4. Same with the Sorcerer. That said, it doesn't bother me inordinately.
I like the idea of standardizing Hit Dice to BAB progressions, but instead of the 6-8-10 progression, I would have preferred 4-6-8 progression (barbarians could retain their d12, though I would prefer they were brought down to d10). Yes, I would like classes to have fewer, rather than more hit points as they progress in levels than they have in 3.5E. Let's get rid of this hit point inflation already! The problem of low initial/starting hit points could instead be solved by giving characters a flat hit point bonus at level 1, such as the racial hit points variant already present in Pathfinder RPG Alpha releases.
The extra 1hp (average) won't make a big difference in the long run but the 2 extra hp at first level means that when an orc turns the corner and lobs that first javelin, the PC mage is less likely to get instant death.
This way, it takes two javelins to die :>
A D6 over a d4 isn't that big of a deal. Con score is still enough of a bonus that most mages are going to invest in it if they plan on surviving.
Lets face it folks, our happy little 1/2 CR Orc does 1d6+3 damage with the flung javelin. Assuming a 10 con for the wizard and an average 3 or 4 on the d6 for the orc, the wizard *still* collapses into a pile of dirty robes in one stab. In fact only 1/3 of the time does the wizard even stay standing.
(and getting hit by the surprise orcs isn't "bad gaming".. It's just bad luck.)
The d6 is a tiny little boost to make mages feel better. It will help a little, but overall it shouldn't make a gigantic difference in the life of the average wizard.
-S
i have to agree with Brit O, i've never heard a mage complain about low hit points, they have always understood that their spells rock and as for the whole orc around the corner hitting the mage, what group puts their mage in the front? the mage should be behind the fighter. and if the rogue had been doing his job right, ie sneaking and searching, he would have found the orc and been able to come back to warn the rest of the group. but the new rogue with higher hit points is more reckless and wasn't paying attention.
|
I know this is going to sound like an odd premise for a thread, BUt do wizards really need a d6 instead of a d4 for hp?
<snikt>
What does everyone else think?
I play in two monthly campaigns, one using the 3.x rules and the other using the Pathfinder AR3 rules. I play human conjurers in both games and am eager to share your inplay opinions on the hit point differences.
Could you upload your PCs onto the messageboards?
I ran an 8th level playtest with an 8th level sorcerer, with d4 hit dice, a 14 Constitution, +1 hp/level favored class, and Toughness, with 61 hit points. That's hardly shaky. If he had a d6 hit dice, we're talking another 8 hp, or 69 hp.
I don't think they need the D6 at all ...
I think the idea is that "all things being equal", d6 vs d4 (mean 3.5 vs 2.5) can make a small, but significant difference esp at lower levels. The wizard still has a low HP progression, as is "proper". There has also been a marked decrease in wizard spell potency over the years, as well as HP creep on the top side which makes opponents harder to kill. Especially when your most potent (esp elemental) damage spells can usually be neutralised, particularly at the levels where they would be really nasty. So I do not think this is unreasonable, given the way the character classes have evolved - in fact I'd go so far as to say that d4 for a wizard is an anachronism. I so think sorcerers are somewhat overpowered (having been on the receiving end of a sorcerer with disintegrate...aghain and again and again...ouch!)
i've heard like 4 people say the spells are getting weaker. where are they getting this from? i've never been a big fan of playing a spell caster, but i DM them and i've had friends who have been playing wizards since 2nd ed. i don;t think we've ever talked about the spells being weak in any way. i think it all comes down to how you play the spells, not the spells themselves. OMHO besides the wizard needing to hide and use his spells makes them be more creative to stay away from combat. i always thought the feats that negate spell failure were kinda counter creative. if your gonna make it easier for the wizard to wear armor, then don;t increase their HD it should be one or the other.
Several people have stated that the higher hit die doesn't make much of a difference at higher levels, but is important at lower levels, so it is a good thing. I am not at all convinced. Consider this:
Wizard with 10 constitution gets an average of 2.5 hit points per level under 3.5E rules
Wizard with 10 constitution gets an average of 3.5 hit points per level under PFRPG rules
The difference is apparently only 1 hit point per level on average, but this 1 hit point is actually a 40% increase on what a wizard would otherwise receive (100x1/2.5)! That is a vast proportional increase and it is spread out essentially equally accross all levels, not concentrated on the lower levels, where it is supposed to make the greatest difference.
A higher hit die, therefore, seems like a very poor way to target improving character survivability at low levels for wizards. A much better approach would be to give all classes a flat hit point bonus of racial hit points at level 1, or perhaps give them a free racial hit die at level 1. That bonus is targeted at improving low-level survivability and does not increase with level. Wizards could then keep their d4 hit dice and in fact, I would prefer it if the other classes were brought down one step in hit dice from how they are currently in PFRPG to combat hit point inflation. Then there would still be standardization with BAB, but it would be 4-6-8, rather than 6-8-10, and of course a Barbarian could still have an exception and get a d10 (or if necessary even d12, though that seems a bit excessive).
i've heard like 4 people say the spells are getting weaker. where are they getting this from?
I think these people are somewhat correct that spells are getting weaker, but that doesn't mean that spells are weak - just weaker than they used to be. This comes from the decrease in durations of many spells. Many buff spells, for example, used to have durations of hours per level and now have durations of minutes per level. Another factor in this, is the decrease in save or die effects in PFRPG. Death effects are no longer save or die, but rather save or take a lot of damage. As a result, these too are weaker. That does not make a wizard weaker than other classes, however, as spellcasters were more powerful than non-spellcasters anyway (though I don't know why people thought wizards were at the top of the heap - IMO it was always the Clerics and possibly Druids that were the most powerful).
No, they don't. Bookish, scholarly types should roll the same die as a commoner. Sorcerers are a different story.
Commoners have a d6. All low BAB classes now have a d6 for hit die. All medium BAB have d8, and nearly all high BAB have d10 (except Barbarian with d12 cuz he's awesome- or rather it's a class feature... lower armor access, higher hitpoint potential).
I dunno if I totally like the BAB -> HD lock in. It feels kinda like painting yourself into a corner for class design (now there's people wanting Barbarians at d10 HD for instance, and no d4 classes, etc).
It's just not that big a deal/difference though, and can easily be houseruled for your personal campaigns.
My personal preference, if we are to keep the idea of BAB/HD matching, would be to make the difference more pronounced. Have a d4, d8, d12 progression between BABs. So Wizards/Sorcerers are the same as their 3.5 counterparts, the Rogue gets a boost to match Clerics and Druids, and Fighters, Rangers and Paladins get bumped up to Barbarian levels.
Makes it more likely that a combat class will have higher hitpoints than the medium combat classes. I'd rather have the Wizard that rolled well still being under the average Fighter (max 4 per level vs avg 6.5 per level).
|
|
Wizards could then keep their d4 hit dice and in fact, I would prefer it if the other classes were brought down one step in hit dice from how they are currently in PFRPG to combat hit point inflation. Then there would still be standardization with BAB, but it would be 4-6-8, rather than 6-8-10, and of course a Barbarian could still have an exception and get a d10 (or if necessary even d12, though that seems a bit excessive).
While that's a perfectly good stance to take, it's obviously not the stance they are taking with Pathfinder (and WotC didn't take it with 4e, either).
Honestly, I don't see it making a big difference - even at lower levels. Someone already pointed out that the orc with a javelin is still going to take out the wizard in one shot. So much of the damage at low levels is dependent only on the weapon, and most weapons potentially do enough damage to take out a wizard with 4 or 6 hitpoints. Either take him our or make him REALLY wary of coming out from behind the apple cart until after the fight is over. :)
I've played wizards under 2e, 3e and 3.5e - their damage dealing ability and versatility have been reduced with every iteration of the rules (culminating in 4e). Yet, their base HD has remained the same lowly 1d4. I accept that they should have a lower hp progression than, say, fighters, I just think that given the way the game has been "rebalanced" over the years (more enemies who are simply immune to your spells - SR, spell immunity, elemental immunity, death ward, stoneskin v admantine - which everyone now has oddly enough - short buffs etc etc) 1d4 is too low. This becomes particularly apparent at high levels, where every villain of note (and their sidekick) can shrug off most potent spells (unless they are unlucky) And you can't always hide behind your burly companions - in that case every hp counts. I think that 1d4 in conjunction with 2 poor saves, low BAB, armour/shield/weapon restrictions, etc is not justified. 1d4 belongs in the dustbin of history - time for something more current. 1d6, 1d8, 1d10 works just fine.
Steven, you made my point :)
the d6 isn't a problem in that it doesn't really change the course of combat any.
(and I used ranged weapons for a good reason: your relative position in the party is irrelevant when someone is shooting at you from range. I agree- a wizard in melee deserves the obituary he is about to receive).
-S
thats the point, the wizard SHOULD go down after one hit, he SHOULD be taken out from one crossbow bolt
I feel that wizards, and to a lesser extent, rogues should be fragile. Neither is meant to fight (at least *fairly*). Wizards have always played a waiting game, until they get the good spells (and a few more hp) and rogues have always played to their skills.
Too many people expect to gain power with giving up nothing, wizards are frail and should be able to be put down easily to keep them in check with the power of their spells, fun or no fun, those that live through the 1st few levels become great wizards, if every wizard lived through their "training" to become powerful(around 5th lvl IMO) the world would be overrun with them. If a player doesnt have fun playing a wizard he is playing him wrong. Not everyone can or should play wizards, and to power them up cause some dont know how to play them(like casting every spell every combat then cry cause they need to rest) is wrong. Some people should stick to fighters :)
Thank you, Steven and Chance. This is exactly my point. I brought this point up because one of the other major complaints that churns up everywhere is "at high levels, fighters get nerfed by wizard's ubermagic" (please read with nasally whine). Well guess what: at LOW LEVELS, wizards get nerfed by fighters with armor, weapons, and uberHP. That's the balance. At higher levels, fighters should be finding kingdoms and ruling ... otherwise there would just be hundreds or thousands of supermen wandering the lands.
Any mook (within the game world ... not referring to players at all here) can be taught to swing a sword and kill stuff. That's why orcs and goblins can field armies of mooks. It take a special type of survivor (one who can get past early levels with no hp) to master the *mysteries of the arcane* ... you know *the stuff man was not meant to know*.
Okay the consenus then is that we beg Paizo to change wizard/sorcerer hit die to d3 and everyone is happy. :)
And we make them ROLL those hit die, even at 1st level!
Actually I make my PCs roll their hp, even at first level. My concesion to their survuval is that the roll has to be in the upper half of the range (i.e. 3 or 4 for a d4). After that, if they roll a 1 when they level up, so be it. Of course I make them roll their stats in order too (but I allow them to roll 4d6 and take the top three). I guess I'm just old fashioned and / or sadistic. I haven't had any complaints though... honest :D
Wizards should be at 4 hit points. For the same reasons experessed above. It makes the work one went through keeping him alive so worth it. And it balances out at higher levels. I've noticed that everyone seems to complain about higher levels for differnt reasons.
After the so called sweetspot (level 13-14) its all a Wizards show with there spells.
On the other hand others say.
My 16th level wizard is too busy bumping himself up that by the time combat comes around the fights over.
I think both statments are true somewhat, and hence the game is balanced over all.
I like a lot of stuff in Pathfinder, skill systems (though I like more skills not less) and classes, but I'm keeping the the d4 for wizards, not sorceres though because they don't need the time to study.
Some have suggested in other threads that in a lot of fantasy there are strong buff wizards, yes but just not the wizards tradtion from D&D.
Keep the d4, its not a major deal breaker, any wizards stat you come across just reduce hit points by 2 for every level.
I think they should be 1d4. Commoners are d4 arent' they? I see no reason a wizard should be tougher then an oridnary man until he or she gains levels and lots of spells.
I'd have to agree with this. I work in an academic setting. The people who spend all of their time studying are definitely less tough than the "common folk" doing the groundskeeping and than the local farmers.
:-D
|
|
Thank you, Steven and Chance. This is exactly my point. I brought this point up because one of the other major complaints that churns up everywhere is "at high levels, fighters get nerfed by wizard's ubermagic" (please read with nasally whine). Well guess what: at LOW LEVELS, wizards get nerfed by fighters with armor, weapons, and uberHP. That's the balance. At higher levels, fighters should be finding kingdoms and ruling ... otherwise there would just be hundreds or thousands of supermen wandering the lands.
In general, I am agreeing with you in this thread. I think that wizards are supposed to be glass cannons. They can blast folks to bits with their spells, but to balance that out, they can be taken down when they get too close to the action. To a lesser extent, rogues are similar. Lots of sneaky damage and skills are traded for a slightly lower HP and attack bonus... It's all been said before, and I'm agreeing with it.
Where I don't agree with you is that the fact that high level combat classes such as fighters and barbarians deserve to fall in waves at the feet of equally leveled mages. While that does give some sort of overall balance to the game, it would be preferable to me (and to continually calculated game balance as opposed to average or overall balance), to smooth things out at all stages of character progression. Give the wizard a d4 and tell them to stay away from combat, but to level things out, an early addition of some defense or HP would be fine. This should not carry through their whole career like a d6 HD. On the other side, higher level character power should be equalibrated somehow. That is a discussion for a different forum.
I've been curious to ask how people feel about the long lasting armor spells such as Mage Armor and Shield. These seem to be part of the answer to improving the mage's survivability. Could there not just be some new spells made that the mage could cast at lower levels to compensate somewhat for his fragility. These could be useless later, but early on, they could be the cure to this dilemma. Even though I'm suggesting it, I still liking the HP bonus to early levels as much or more.
Also, I was interested in LazarX's comment about Monte Cook.
Monte Cook among others would disagree.
Could you please expand on what you meant? I'm not sure I understand.
TwinSteel
Monte Cook among others would disagree.I think they should be 1d4. Commoners are d4 arent' they? I see no reason a wizard should be tougher then an oridnary man until he or she gains levels and lots of spells.
So? Other than you're appealing to "authority" in a discussion? Gygax seemed to think they should have d4. So there, I've upped your authority with another :D
Wizards could then keep their d4 hit dice and in fact, I would prefer it if the other classes were brought down one step in hit dice from how they are currently in PFRPG to combat hit point inflation. Then there would still be standardization with BAB, but it would be 4-6-8, rather than 6-8-10, and of course a Barbarian could still have an exception and get a d10 (or if necessary even d12, though that seems a bit excessive).While that's a perfectly good stance to take, it's obviously not the stance they are taking with Pathfinder (and WotC didn't take it with 4e, either).
Honestly, I don't see it making a big difference - even at lower levels. Someone already pointed out that the orc with a javelin is still going to take out the wizard in one shot. So much of the damage at low levels is dependent only on the weapon, and most weapons potentially do enough damage to take out a wizard with 4 or 6 hitpoints. Either take him our or make him REALLY wary of coming out from behind the apple cart until after the fight is over. :)
Right, so the higher HD for wizards does not actually solve the problem of character longevity at low levels, yet all these high HD for all characters increase hit-point inflation and lead to slightly higher hit point numbers in the late game. As such, the change is poorly targeted at the low-level hit point issue at best.
A much more appropriately targeted change would be to give all characters a flat hit point bonus at first level, say +8 hit points. This would lead to really improved character survivability at low levels instead of the 1 or 2 extra hit points the higher hit die gives a wizard at first level, yet with the lower hit dice, at high levels all characters would actually have slightly fewer hit points - hence a reduction in hit point inflation and thus a slight lowering of the ridiculous hit point numbers at higher levels.
Like I said in my post earlier in this thread, Commoners have d6 because ALL classes with low BAB got upped to d6. Check the NPC section of the Alpha 3 rules.
So yes, wizards are at least the same level of HD as commoners. Everyone has had a small boost if they were in the lower range.
At this point, it's really just a matter of taste.
But that's not what wizards are doing. In reality they're the Indiana Jones of the academic types they're going outdoors sleeping on the ground and being very active in fighting all those nasty monsters. I'd say they're a lot more active than your average commoner.Why do I get the feeling that this is coming out of some DM who's finding that it takes one more swipe than usual to smear the party wizard?
Actually, wizards usually are academic types. If you are running them like Indy, you've missed the whole "studies books" thing. An Indy type would have ranger and/or fighter levels.
And WTH with the ad hom? This whole thread I've been writing from a player's point of view. Somewhere in there you get the idea that I'm some sort of killer GM??? I just don't believe that D&D should ever be "kill it and steal its stuff". That's an extremely adolescent mode of playing. Wizards are not meant to be fighting ... or they'd be sorcerers or warlocks.
Oh, and just as a point, pretty much anyone travelling in a medieval setting was sleeping on the ground.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
But that's not what wizards are doing. In reality they're the Indiana Jones of the academic types they're going outdoors sleeping on the ground and being very active in fighting all those nasty monsters. I'd say they're a lot more active than your average commoner.Why do I get the feeling that this is coming out of some DM who's finding that it takes one more swipe than usual to smear the party wizard?
Actually, wizards usually are academic types. If you are running them like Indy, you've missed the whole "studies books" thing. An Indy type would have ranger and/or fighter levels.
And WTH with the ad hom? This whole thread I've been writing from a player's point of view. Somewhere in there you get the idea that I'm some sort of killer GM??? I just don't believe that D&D should ever be "kill it and steal its stuff". That's an extremely adolescent mode of playing. Wizards are not meant to be fighting ... or they'd be sorcerers or warlocks.
Oh, and just as a point, pretty much anyone travelling in a medieval setting was sleeping on the ground.
There's just something about meeting a random group of people in a bar and deciding to follow them down into some dank, dark dungeon to fight all manner of horrifying monsters that doesn't strike me as being entirely "Academic".
That's what they mean about Wizards being like Indy. They've read the books, they've spent the time studying, and now they want to go out there and get their hands Dirty. What they lack in physicality, they make up for with gumption.
|
|
This thread just tells me that people just want to complain. The biggest problem my group and I've had with the improved hit dice is... wait for it... Nothing. In fact, we were excited as can be about it. People actually wanted to play Pathfinder wizards! I was amazed, to be honest. The wizard class has one of the best overhauls in the game and btw, my wizard has made it to 2nd level in our campaign and has taken a beating to get there. I'm usually hiding behind our brute types, but this time I've been throwing spells and mixing it up. Not in melee mind you, but kobolds with javelins and darkmantles can ruin your day.
There's just something about meeting a random group of people in a bar and deciding to follow them down into some dank, dark dungeon to fight all manner of horrifying monsters that doesn't strike me as being entirely "Academic".That's what they mean about Wizards being like Indy. They've read the books, they've spent the time studying, and now they want to go out there and get their hands Dirty. What they lack in physicality, they make up for with gumption.
I'm sorry, but if the best way to get a group together is still a cliche that became outdated and tired thirty years ago, there's a bigger problem than how tough the wizard is. The group should be seeking out the wizard because the wizard brings knowledge of the mysterious and arcane type things they will encounter, not because "I wanna go beat up stuff". A wizard goes into dank, dark dungeons because that's where the ancient knowledge they seek is hidden, not because they want to kill something and take its stuff. If that's how you see a wizard, you and I will never be able to agree on a wizard's purpose.
Also, the fact that they spent the time reading the books and studying means they have not spent the time understanding the intricacies of combat ... thus crappy BAB and crappier HP. Wanting the wizard to have higher HP is just a way to min/max rather than to understand what a wizard is and to play the accordingly.
This thread just tells me that people just want to complain. The biggest problem my group and I've had with the improved hit dice is... wait for it... Nothing. In fact, we were excited as can be about it. People actually wanted to play Pathfinder wizards! I was amazed, to be honest. The wizard class has one of the best overhauls in the game and btw, my wizard has made it to 2nd level in our campaign and has taken a beating to get there. I'm usually hiding behind our brute types, but this time I've been throwing spells and mixing it up. Not in melee mind you, but kobolds with javelins and darkmantles can ruin your day.
Hopefully it was more than just the 1 hp or so per level that made people suddenly want to play them. The "complaints", I'd say observations really, are more from the DMs PoV. Anything that boosts the power of a class is probably just peachy with any player...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
There's just something about meeting a random group of people in a bar and deciding to follow them down into some dank, dark dungeon to fight all manner of horrifying monsters that doesn't strike me as being entirely "Academic".That's what they mean about Wizards being like Indy. They've read the books, they've spent the time studying, and now they want to go out there and get their hands Dirty. What they lack in physicality, they make up for with gumption.
I'm sorry, but if the best way to get a group together is still a cliche that became outdated and tired thirty years ago, there's a bigger problem than how tough the wizard is. The group should be seeking out the wizard because the wizard brings knowledge of the mysterious and arcane type things they will encounter, not because "I wanna go beat up stuff". A wizard goes into dank, dark dungeons because that's where the ancient knowledge they seek is hidden, not because they want to kill something and take its stuff. If that's how you see a wizard, you and I will never be able to agree on a wizard's purpose.
Also, the fact that they spent the time reading the books and studying means they have not spent the time understanding the intricacies of combat ... thus crappy BAB and crappier HP. Wanting the wizard to have higher HP is just a way to min/max rather than to understand what a wizard is and to play the accordingly.
Gah! Board ate my first attempt at a reply, I shall restate things a little more succinctly.
I never said that it was the best way to get a group together, or the only way, or the way I use. I was using it as a way for a stereotypical wizard (which is what you're talking about) to join a stereotypical adventuring group. The actual circumstances of how the party gets together has no bearing on my point.
Nor did I say anything about wanting to kill things and take their stuff. What I said was "get their hands dirty", which I assure you will happen when delving for ancient knowledge. Ancient things tend to gather dust.
My point was, that the very fact that this Wizard is even Willing to go into the dungeon, for whatever reason they're down there, places them a step above the average bookworm at the wizarding college, or the average commoner in the field, or the local adept at the temple. I don't think its unreasonable to throw an extra hitpoint their way to represent this.
And upgrading the wizard to a d6 certainly isn't min/maxing (for starters, what exactly are you minimizing to maximize the hp?), its a way to keep the wizard from dying in one hit. If you want to play the archetypal frail wizard, you're welcome to, and that's fine. I prefer a wizard who, rather than die the first time a kobold ambushes the parties rear, Almost dies after getting hit. That way they're not out of the combat, they're still engaged with the game, but they've also been made acutely aware of their own mortality. In this case More playtime = More tension, not less.
Not to say your play style is invalid, or that there should only be one kind of wizard and that you have to play them one way and one way only. If you're having fun, then you're playing the wizard properly. I just think the d6 HD makes for a more balanced, robust system, that should accomadate us both.
|
|
This thread just tells me that people just want to complain. The biggest problem my group and I've had with the improved hit dice is... wait for it... Nothing. In fact, we were excited as can be about it. People actually wanted to play Pathfinder wizards! I was amazed, to be honest. The wizard class has one of the best overhauls in the game and btw, my wizard has made it to 2nd level in our campaign and has taken a beating to get there. I'm usually hiding behind our brute types, but this time I've been throwing spells and mixing it up. Not in melee mind you, but kobolds with javelins and darkmantles can ruin your day.Hopefully it was more than just the 1 hp or so per level that made people suddenly want to play them. The "complaints", I'd say observations really, are more from the DMs PoV. Anything that boosts the power of a class is probably just peachy with any player...
I GM a Pathfinder game as well and have no problem with any of the changes.