It still seems that if you don't want your wizard to die at low levels, this change isn't what you're looking for. The effects of a few HP, say 5 by the time you get to 5th level, has little bearing on the life of a wizard. What you want is a bonus at earlier levels, to survive longer at the beginning. If you're looking for more HP throughout the entire level, you need to revise your argument. The point is, the change is making 1 HP difference per level. That seems to make little difference at the beginning, and it also makes little difference through progression. If it doesn't increase survivability at low levels and make little difference overall, why change what the standard is?
It seems like we're arguing over a tiny aspect of the new system that make almost no difference. I'm going to stick with the d4, and that's how I'd like to see it in the rules. If the standard and the change are essentially equal, why stray from the standard? Personal preferences aside, in the end it'll make little difference unless wizards use wishes to max out their HP.
TwinSteel
If I may be so bold:
Wizards need d4s just as bad as Barbarians need d12s and Rogues need d6s.
This is idea of "If you're BAB is this, your HP is this" is simplistic and takes a lot of uniqueness out of classes would have desired. We could equally assume Fort saves follow BAB (it pretty much does with the exception of monk) and from that conclusion came up with Ref and Wis ones too.
A Rogue is the Fighter and Barbarian's annoying little brother who they usually complain about. A lot of threads are still yelling about Rogue TWF uber-tweakedness, which I completely disagree with because while Rogues CAN SOMETIMES deal more damage per round than the other fighters they were primarily skirmishers because of their weak HP and lower AC.
Same applies for the wizard. The low HP is lower than the BAB because the power is still high even for such a low BAB. "Oh no, my BAB progression stinks! I've never been sadder in my whol- oh I get touch attack spells which ignore the largest boost to AC a person has and area attack spells that don't need BAB? pfft give me the d6 HP."
BAB does not decide my role in combat. Saying so you may as well get the party roles out of 4e and slap them in Pathfinder too. It seems like they've stripped a lot of creativity out of the game in the name of simplicity. This being just one of them.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote: 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. Hoody Hoo!
<still chuckling, as his hit points now exceed 200...>
"That belongs in MY museum ...all mine, all mine... LIKE YOUR ASS!
LazarX wrote: 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!
hey if they bring back SoD, put the high lvl spells back they way there were(i cried when i read disjuction) then yea give me my 1d3 i take that trade anyday ;)
LazarX wrote: JDJarvis wrote: 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.
Monte Cook among others would disagree. sorry is there a point to that statment? not to be assy or anything, is your statment meant to show that we are all wrong cause Mr cook has a different view on this statement? So are you also saying that he is for the 1d6 for wizards? are you his PR guy? just trying to get to the root of this statement(and use some of your own sarcam as well)
aegrist13 wrote: This thread just tells me that people just want to complain. well one person complaining is another ones debating. If you at 90% of this board you can say that everyone here is just complaining, only 10% of posts ACTUALLY have playtested material context, which is what the PG ppl really want. i am going to be playtesting the PG beta writen as is and a 2nd group with changes like d4 wizards among others, then i will come back on here and give my results, that is what is needed. but until beta comes up i need something to fill my time at work and so i will continue to compalin or debate until beta comes out :)
I've not playtested (lacking a group since finisheing uni :S) anyway, I think its good as low level (and TBH even mid level) wizards were too fragile. they are supposed to be heroes not commoners.
Following that logic all humans should have 1d6, half orcs and dwarves 1d8 and elves, gnomes and halflings 1d4. And you never ever get any more because REALISTIACLLY people dont get 'more hitpoints' when they reach their next birthday.
however this is FANSTASY, its NOT REAL, its HEROIC (sometimes!) and finally it's a GAME. By blending these elements if 1d6 hp works for a wizard, adds to the fun and doenst make them overpowered (which I personally don't think it will/does) then what is the big problem ?
I read that and I just thought 'YES !' *does 'for spartaaa' roar* something good ALREADY.
just my 2 euro cent (technically worth a bit more than $ cents :p)
<\/\/I= Spyral Blade =I\/\/>
Spyral Blade wrote: I think its good as ... wizards were too fragile. they are supposed to be heroes not commoners. Heroics is not a result of stats; it's a result of attitude and an ability to overcome disadvantages. HP has nothing to do with heroics.
Spyral Blade wrote: By blending these elements if 1d6 hp works for a wizard, adds to the fun and doenst make them overpowered (which I personally don't think it will/does) then what is the big problem ?
Personally, I feel it does not add to the fun; I feel it detracts from the fun (and at least a few other people seem to agree). Overcoming the disadvantage of poor survivability is where the fun is. To think that wizards need to be tough detracts from who they should be in comparison to the rest of the classes. I you find fun in being the person with the advantage, fine ... enjoy. I think surviving with the advantage is expected and not at all heroic. Not surviving when you have the advantage demonstrates inability to take advantage of what you have going for you. Surviving when you are the underdog demonstrates skill and able playing IMHO.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steven Hume wrote:
sorry is there a point to that statment? not to be assy or anything, is your statment meant to show that we are all wrong cause Mr cook has a different view on this statement? So are you also saying that he is for the 1d6 for wizards? are you his PR guy? just trying to get to the root of this statement(and use some of your own sarcam as well)
It's a response that of all the hit die changes that Pathfinder made to the classes there are those calling out for singling out the wizard (and I presume sorcerer) for no particular reason or than to heark back to the days of yore when all M-U's would be guaranteed to go down in one hit, hence my sarcastic suggestion of the d3 hit die.
Pathfinder was not the first to make this change. Monte Cook made it for his wizard equivalents in Arcana Unearthed, and it was also done for the arcanists in the WOW RPG. (which has no Cookiness at all :)
Are you also looking to go to the Hackmaster/1st edition AD+D standard which insisted that all 1st level Magic-Users were all greying coughing middle-aged types as well? Maybe you want your wizards to look like Gandalf but the modern wizard is also inspired by modern figures such as Dr. Druid and Dr. Strange who among other things were not "bookish" feebs. Is a change that averages 1 hit pt per die, that much of a game breaker to you?
Ixancoatl wrote: Spyral Blade wrote: I think its good as ... wizards were too fragile. they are supposed to be heroes not commoners. Heroics is not a result of stats; it's a result of attitude and an ability to overcome disadvantages. HP has nothing to do with heroics.
Spyral Blade wrote: By blending these elements if 1d6 hp works for a wizard, adds to the fun and doenst make them overpowered (which I personally don't think it will/does) then what is the big problem ?
Personally, I feel it does not add to the fun; I feel it detracts from the fun (and at least a few other people seem to agree). Overcoming the disadvantage of poor survivability is where the fun is. To think that wizards need to be tough detracts from who they should be in comparison to the rest of the classes. I you find fun in being the person with the advantage, fine ... enjoy. I think surviving with the advantage is expected and not at all heroic. Not surviving when you have the advantage demonstrates inability to take advantage of what you have going for you. Surviving when you are the underdog demonstrates skill and able playing IMHO.
we think alike but i think you will find we are outnumbered here by friend, i didnt notice they brought up the commoner hps as well(damn there goes the kingdom, now how is my blackguard going to put down all those upraisings with the commoners have more Hps, curse thee gods of good!!!))
Steven Hume wrote:
we think alike but i think you will find we are outnumbered here my friend, i didnt notice they brought up the commoner hps as well(damn there goes the kingdom, now how is my blackguard going to put down all those upraisings with the commoners have more Hps, curse thee gods of good!!!))
Yes, I believe we are out numbered. But then again, modern gamers do base their views of characters on WOW and other games (and apparently, 20th century comic wizards) rather than the 40+ years of fantasy literature upon which the game itself was developed to emulate. It seems to denote the impatience and entitlement I see in my college freshmen every year.
Unfortunately, I think they are selling themselves short by not challenging themselves with true disadvantages.
Alas, the wisdom of experience. ;-)
I think a point is being missed. I know I missed it until running a higher level playtest.
It's not about changing Hit Dice from 1d4 to 1d6. It's changing Hit Dice, changing Favored Class, and improving Toughness. Combined, they increase hit points by a further 50% to 100% at almost every point from 1st to 20th level.
Let's take a 3.5 human wizard with a 12 Con. At 1st level he will start with 6 hit points. At 10th level with average rolls he will have 39 hit points. At 20th level he will have 69 hit points.
Now with Pathfinder, the same human wizard with D6 Hit Dice and the new favored class rule has 9 hit points at 1st level. At 10th level he will have 59 hit points. At 20th level he will have 112 hit points.
Never mind that with increased numbers of feats at alternate levels, the likelyhood of a wizard or sorcerer taking Toughness are good, and he can have a further 4 hit points at 1st level, 13 at 10th level, and 23 at 20th level (for totals of 13 hit points, 72 hit points, and 135 hit points, respectively).
I think Favored Class is a good rule change. I think Toughness is a good rule change. I'm a bit against Hit Dice changes (although we are talking about a measely 1 hit point per level here), but combined, these increase hit points a lot. I'm keeping the D4 Hit Dice in my ongoing playtest, because the characters are already tough enough with their other increases.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ixancoatl wrote:
Yes, I believe we are out numbered. But then again, modern gamers do base their views of characters on WOW and other games (and apparently, 20th century comic wizards) rather than the 40+ years of fantasy literature upon which the game itself was developed to emulate. It seems to denote the impatience and entitlement I see in my college freshmen every year.
Unfortunately, I think they are selling themselves short by not challenging themselves with true disadvantages.
Alas, the wisdom of experience. ;-)
Among those 40 years of Fantasy Literature are people other than Tolkien and worlds other than Middle-Earth. It also includes Forgotten Realms novels, the Wheel of Time series, and the Earthsea novels, which leave room for more than one paradigm of the spellslinger. Again chopping or adding one hit pt per level isn't going define a character as "heroic" or "not." Because quite frankly, the game can be adjusted appropriately no matter what hit die the wizard has. or how much the spells get nerfed.
In Ars Magica for instance, the fighter, the mage, and the expert types ALL had the same of what passed for hit points in the game system. Did it make any character less or more heroic? No it defined the rhythm and flow of Ars Magica modules which were written vastly different than a typical AD+D module of the time.
Ixancoatl wrote: Steven Hume wrote:
we think alike but i think you will find we are outnumbered here my friend, i didnt notice they brought up the commoner hps as well(damn there goes the kingdom, now how is my blackguard going to put down all those upraisings with the commoners have more Hps, curse thee gods of good!!!))
Yes, I believe we are out numbered. But then again, modern gamers do base their views of characters on WOW and other games (and apparently, 20th century comic wizards) rather than the 40+ years of fantasy literature upon which the game itself was developed to emulate. It seems to denote the impatience and entitlement I see in my college freshmen every year.
Unfortunately, I think they are selling themselves short by not challenging themselves with true disadvantages.
Alas, the wisdom of experience. ;-) well we can always just keep playing the way we do and in o 20 years maybe they will catch up and learn :)
BTW if u are interest i am running a PBP game that you might really enjoy :) its all about being the underdog heroes, using Midnight setting, if interested drop me a PM here.
LazarX wrote: Ixancoatl wrote:
Yes, I believe we are out numbered. But then again, modern gamers do base their views of characters on WOW and other games (and apparently, 20th century comic wizards) rather than the 40+ years of fantasy literature upon which the game itself was developed to emulate. It seems to denote the impatience and entitlement I see in my college freshmen every year.
Unfortunately, I think they are selling themselves short by not challenging themselves with true disadvantages.
Alas, the wisdom of experience. ;-)
Among those 40 years of Fantasy Literature are people other than Tolkien and worlds other than Middle-Earth. It also includes Forgotten Realms novels, the Wheel of Time series, and the Earthsea novels, which leave room for more than one paradigm of the spellslinger. Again chopping or adding one hit pt per level isn't going define a character as "heroic" or "not." Because quite frankly, the game can be adjusted appropriately no matter what hit die the wizard has. or how much the spells get nerfed.
In Ars Magica for instance, the fighter, the mage, and the expert types ALL had the same of what passed for hit points in the game system. Did it make any character less or more heroic? No it defined the rhythm and flow of Ars Magica modules which were written vastly different than a typical AD+D module of the time. I played ars magica(loved it BTW) but your forgot to say that though they CAN have same HPs most "fighters" took stuff to increase them and that just points out that a mage is on par with the common man(as the fighters are just trained farmers heh) there is no way for us to reach a middle ground here, some of us will play with d4 others will play with d6, but as the other poster said If it was ONLY a HD increase it might be ok, but with ALL the other increases it does add up(as he shows) so should your wizard have 135 hps? maybe he should, does it make more heroic then the one with 69? no but just remember that it works both sides of the fence so if your PC wizard can get 135 hp so can the NPC wizard and when you are dodge spells still after doing 100 dmg to the wizard, my pcs will be looting the body of the dead one :)
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steven Hume wrote:
there is no way for us to reach a middle ground here, some of us will play with d4 others will play with d6, but as the other poster said If it was ONLY a HD increase it might be ok, but with ALL the other increases it does add up(as he shows) so should your wizard have 135 hps? maybe he should, does it make more heroic then the one with 69? no but just remember that it works both ways if your PC wizard can get 135 hp so can the NPC wizard and when you are dodge spells still after doing 100 dmg to the wizard, my pcs will be looting the body of the dead one :)
That that perhaps redefines what's heroic and what's not. My NPC wizard is going to last longer and be more of a challenge. I've played in Arcanis mods where both sides have the higher hit points and I can say that the fights are more challenging. Like I said the game rhythm will adapt to either way of doing things.
Ixancoatl wrote:
What does everyone else think?
I started the same thread back in alpha 1, and at the time, I was the only one for D4.
I say I rather the D4, but if it's D6, this is okay for me too.
It seems that everyone that is against the idea of maybe 1 to 2 extra hp a level is concerned about the weakness of their mage leaving the gameplay. One thing that should cross your minds though is that, whether or not your mage is up front and center or not won't make much of a difference with the strategies or traps of the enemy dungeon. Most likely "if" (yes I know that it at times can be a big if) the enemy knows which person in the party is the wizard, then they will try to take out him first. This is usually the case in the games that I played in. All you have to do is make sure that the enemy does a little recon. work before the first encounter, then your wiz. is boned.
jay jackson wrote: It seems that everyone that is against the idea of maybe 1 to 2 extra hp a level is concerned about the weakness of their mage leaving the gameplay. One thing that should cross your minds though is that, whether or not your mage is up front and center or not won't make much of a difference with the strategies or traps of the enemy dungeon. Most likely "if" (yes I know that it at times can be a big if) the enemy knows which person in the party is the wizard, then they will try to take out him first. This is usually the case in the games that I played in. All you have to do is make sure that the enemy does a little recon. work before the first encounter, then your wiz. is boned. And we all know how hard it is to figure out who that unarmored character hiding in the middle of the party is...
The whole the wizard is "Indy" thing is interesting. I should note that by the time the wizard is mid level, that statement's true. He just starts out as a bookish little nerd just out of "graduate school" :) In short Indiana Jones probably didn't step out of grad school with a whip in one hand and a pistol in the other. Neither does a first level wizard.
What it comes down to is some of us like the fragility of the wizard at low levels to counterbalance his overwhelming power at higher levels. In PF they have nerfed some of the more powerful spells while increasing hit dice a bit and giving unlimited cantrips. Does it balance out? Hard to say. You can play test all you want, but until it's been stress tested by a lot of people for quite a while it's hard to say how it'll turn out. We'll see.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
I have to say I agree with Ixancoatl, I remember being in his game as a 1st level sorcerer with a a d4 of HP, being terrified of a guy with a heavy crossbow or heaven help me a guy with a longsword got close to me. I had a good CON bonus so that gave me 6 HPs to work with, and there were a lot of close calls before making it to second level. It was a lot of fun, looking back, makes you really appreciate making it to 10th level.
Archade wrote: I think a point is being missed. It's not about changing Hit Dice from 1d4 to 1d6. It's changing Hit Dice, changing Favored Class, and improving Toughness. Combined, they increase hit points by a further 50% to 100% at almost every point from 1st to 20th level. Thanks! I was about to remark on that as well. I'm glad you pointed it out.
Still, wizards with more or less hp either way, even up to 200% normal, doesn't really affect my personal enjoyment of the game. Cross-class skills at double price and 4x points at 1st level, on the other hand, always irked the hell out of me, and Pathfinder fixed that -- so I count myself better off, no matter how many HD wizards have.
Wizards aren't really safe with an extra hit point or two, especially if they're active. Once an intelligent enemy knows that the main threat is not the guy in the armor who keeps hitting him, but the wizard that keeps firebombing the area, things usually go south for the wizard. I've seen parties that are built around the "protect the wizard" premise, and that tends to be safer for the wizard, less fun for the other players who find themselves pawns in the wizard's combat strategies. There's nothing wrong with a weaker wizard, nor a group that likes playing it safe and guarding their wizard during combat.
There's a delicate balance, I think, where you have to weigh the challenge against the fun. Right now I'm running a Pathfinder-amped version of the Savage Tide, and I found that by giving the players Pathfinder characters and not tweaking the monsters and NPCs, the players have been trouncing every encounter. Now I'm going through and upgrading the monsters, some according to Pathfinder, some according to my own design. I have to be careful that I don't turn it into a slaughter, though, which is what the rule changes were meant to do in the first place--make it harder to slaughter the PCs.
Christopher Carrig wrote: I have to be careful that I don't turn it into a slaughter, though, which is what the rule changes were meant to do in the first place--make it harder to slaughter the PCs.
I disagree, the rules changes were not so it was harder to do TPK but to FIX some of the problems in 3.5. this is why i am bit upset that they changed things that they didnt have to and were not broken in 3.5. I hope they have seen the error of their ways and in the beta they go back to trying to FIX the problems not create a new system to play in(that is what 4e is for)
Recent threads in Races & Classes
|
