Not trying to troll here, but it might be a... touchy subject.
I was wondering, why do we even have d6 classes? It seems like they sacrifice a lot for not much gain. Arcanist, Psychic, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard all get d6 hit points per level and half BAB, but they don't get a whole lot in return. For example, a Cleric, with the same spell progression, gets better HD, BAB, armour proficiencies, and more class abilities. Sorc/Wiz get some minor bloodline/school abilities, but they hardly make up for that. The only advantage I see is a better spell list.
Sure, there's drawbacks to having access to great magic, but I think there's no real reason for d6 classes to exist. Traditionally, I think 3.5 intended arcane casters to be more frail than their divine counterpart, but they're worse in almost every single aspect other than spell list. 3.5 had the image of Clerics as battle-priests, wading into melee with the frontliners (hence the better BAB, armour, and HD), but I've rarely seen that happen in Pathfinder. Most Clerics I've seen are just as much back-row material as a Sorcerer, why still give them an advantage? I know there are people who want a d6 Cleric archetype/class, but I mean, replace "Cleric" with "Druid" and you have the same argument, other than that Druids are more built for melee.
I've always wanted to play a d6 arcane caster, but I've always felt like they're overly punished for their career choice. I get the no armour argument because of the stereotype of wizards in robes and not very battle-trained (hence the low BAB), but their HD should at least be equal to a Cleric, for example. HD size is usually reflective of how likely you're going to stand in melee, but Bards also rarely get up close and personal (maybe that's different in older editions, I don't know) and also get a d8. And then there's the complete lack of class features. Arcanist and Wizard are rectified in that respect, but Sorcerers and Wizards have absolutely nothing to look forward to. Wizards get a new power at 8 and some bonus feats, Sorcerers get bloodline powers at 3, 9, 15, and 20, most of which aren't even that impressive.
So, again, I'm not trying to imply d6 classes suck or are useless, but I'm just wondering why they're still there at all. They mostly seem like leftovers from 3.5, while current class technology has progressed beyond that.
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since generally those classes are considered the most powerful in the game, I think they can live with one less hit point a level.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just think, under earlier editions of D&D, they'd be d4 classes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They exist because at the time Pathfinder came out they were already getting rid of the d4 classes and were most likely unwilling to go further at that point. Getting rid of the d6 classes at that point would have ruined compatibility with D&D 3.5, which was a more important thing back when we did not have the enormous amount of Pathfinder material that we do today.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just think, under earlier editions of D&D, they'd be d4 classes...
This.
Prior to Pathfinder, all the current d6 classes were d4 classes.
The only advantage I see is a better spell list.
Got it in one!
3.5 had the image of Clerics as battle-priests, wading into melee with the frontliners (hence the better BAB, armour, and HD), but I've rarely seen that happen in Pathfinder. Most Clerics I've seen are just as much back-row material as a Sorcerer, why still give them an advantage? I know there are people who want a d6 Cleric archetype/class, but I mean, replace "Cleric" with "Druid" and you have the same argument, other than that Druids are more built for melee.
Battle Clerics are still common! Just because you don't run into them as much doesn't mean that they aren't out there. Personally, I haven't seen a single Cleric that was designed to stand in the back like a Sorcerer- they've all waded into the thick of things and at least tossed out touch spells. You also comment on Bards not entering melee, and I generally find that they do. They like being able to use their own Inspire Courage bonuses, for one, and they get some decent melee weapon proficiencies.
I've always wanted to play a d6 arcane caster, but I've always felt like they're overly punished for their career choice.
Only at the beginning. Once you've got some more spell levels under your belt, it's not nearly as punishing.
I get the no armour argument because of the stereotype of wizards in robes and not very battle-trained (hence the low BAB), but their HD should at least be equal to a Cleric, for example.
Wizards have other defenses. Turning invisible or creating illusory duplicates stand out. The difference in HD is worth exactly one feat: Toughness. Or, if you prefer, cast False Life (and eventually Greater False Life) to make up the difference.
That said, if they're not your thing, that's fine!
I don't understand the bard getting a D8, the only reasoning is that traditionally it's been considered a "rogue" class since 2nd Ed. But most bards don't do front line.
Clerics are an odd thing. D8 seems right for a mid to front line war cleric, but stealthy, magical, or face clerics definitely don't need that D8.
Late 2nd Ed. clerics had variants called "specialty priests" that came from forgotten realms. Their HD varied from d6 to D10 depending on their patron deity.
Druids have had d8 since 2nd Ed because they're a divine class. Also when wildshape became what it is in 3rd Ed, the D8 did help with combat.
Magic-Users and Mages in 1st & 2nd Ed had a d4. That persisted into 3rd. The D6 is actually an upgrade in my opinion. Wizards, Witches, and Sorcerers are NOT front line characters and trying to shoehorn them into that roll is a big mistake as far as I'm concerned. Citing Gandalf as a sword wielding wizard is a misnomer in my opinion since he was a immortal "demi-god" type being who took human form. Galadriel was obviously some sort of caster and she didn't run around slashing a sword at Ringwraiths, Goblins, and Orcs.
Commoners have d4. there's your baseline. Yes their NPCs, but commoners have hard lives of labor. If the game says the lowest class that has to endure frigid winters with declining food, till stone-filled fields, lift and carry heavy loads, etc. has a d4. then the reclusive wizard living in relative comfort shouldn't have it much better even if he is a "potential hero".
Witches, Sorcerers, and Wizards are fluffed as scholars or bookish. It makes perfect sense that they have low HP; they simply don't train for hand to hand combat where high HP are essential for lasting power.
I feel the real issue is not giving the Wizard an ability like the 3.5 warlock's eldritch blast that they can spam several times in a fight so they aren't left useless if they blow their wad of spells early, or have too few to begin with.
The precedent for a blast ability in my head comes from Legend of the Seeker (TV show) where Zed had "Wizard's Fire" he could use as a go to blast almost every fight. That kept him doing damage and not twiddling his thumbs while Richard and Kahlen were in melee.
The other option would be some sort of support feature that allows them to buff allies or debuff enemies like a bard so again they're helping instead of hiding.
Also don't forget, Rangers in 1st, 2nd and even 3rd (before 3.5 upgrades) had Rangers with d8 HD.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if you noticed, but Pathfinder also standardized which BAB goes with which Hit Die. HD6=.5BAB, HD8=.75BAB, HD10+=1BAB. In 3.5 there were official classes that broke this relationship.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait!
If I converted to Pathfinder, I'd get even more hit points!
F$+$ yeah b%++@es!!
Lhaeo! Pack up the Portable Hole!.
Not sure if you noticed, but Pathfinder also standardized which BAB goes with which Hit Die. HD6=.5BAB, HD8=.75BAB, HD10+=1BAB. In 3.5 there were official classes that broke this relationship.
By that logic, shouldn't Barbarians have a 1.25 BAB or the Commoner have a .25 BAB?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cleric spell list is highly overrated—it's fine on its own in terms of variety, but next to a wizard's, it pales.
EDIT: The barbarian and commoner are actually deliberate exceptions to the rule.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait!
If I converted to Pathfinder, I'd get even more hit points!
F~!% yeah b&%&~es!!
Lhaeo! Pack up the Portable Hole!.
no stop it not every setting needs a self-insert gary stu wizard in it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One could just as readily ponder "why are d10 classes a thing?" since a party would be generally better served with a d6, d8, or d12 class instead.
N.B. the Fighter, Paladin, Bloodrager, and Swashbuckler are some of my favorite classes.
The commoner is not. Take a look at the Commoner's BAB and HD.The cleric spell list is highly overrated—it's fine on its own in terms of variety, but next to a wizard's, it pales.
EDIT: The barbarian and commoner are actually deliberate exceptions to the rule.
OH I NEVER use commoners LOL. I guess they did make that fit. I didn't know commoners were d6 brutes now!
Just think, under earlier editions of D&D, they'd be d4 classes...This.
Prior to Pathfinder, all the current d6 classes were d4 classes.
and usually they only got 1 spell a day.
Thanks for the insight, all! So I guess it's mostly a legacy thing, then.
One could just as readily ponder "why are d10 classes a thing?" since a party would be generally better served with a d6, d8, or d12 class instead.
N.B. the Fighter, Paladin, Bloodrager, and Swashbuckler are some of my favorite classes.
I guess the baseline is a d8 class, and people with explicit martial training being a d10 (and extra BAB), and everyone with specific magic training/talent being a d6. This is something I should've added in my original post. I just think balance-wise, d6 classes get remarkably little class features in return for their losses. Especially when they're firing that many rays. I've seen lots of Disintegrates and other rays miss because of that miserable BAB.
Forgive me if your second sentence does not inspire confidence in the first.Not trying to troll here, but it might be a... touchy subject.
I was wondering, why do we even have d6 classes? It seems like they sacrifice a lot for not much gain.
I realised it's sort of the "I'm not a racist, but..." argument, but I couldn't find a better way to phrase it. >_>
My Self, thanks for that reply. I sort of understood most of that already, but I never really thought of it actively. Thanks for making the classes click.
Just think, under earlier editions of D&D, they'd be d4 classes...
And they kept all those powerful low level spells which were supposed to raise defense when needed:
+4 AC from Mage Armor
+4 AC from Shield
Turn invisible with Vanish
Negate several hits with Mirror Image
Temporary HP from False Life
etc. etc.
Those goodies are usually not available to the cleric - who relies on their d8 and some armor. If you still feel d6 is not enough, a sorc / wiz can usually afford Toughness and the favored class bonus to boost HP.
To speak to the concept of why D8 or Why D10 at all, there are in all fairness plenty of gritty games out there that use health levels or a smaller pool of health than D&D or it's derivatives.
There's nothing stopping a clever GM from using Vigor and Wounds or adopting those health level or health pool mechanics. In the name of balance you could have all players have the same formula for HP and their equivalent, the only difference being how much a player devotes to their characters Con or Health score.
It's a serious change to the rules with major consequences but it's possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I learned to play in a version of the game where thieves got a d4...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just think, under earlier editions of D&D, they'd be d4 classes...
They probably still should be.
d6 vs d8 is only an average of 1 HP/level, a single feat. They're not giving up that much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just think balance-wise, d6 classes get remarkably little class features in return for their losses.
This is true - these guys have basically the worst class features in the game, except for the spell list.
If you have system mastery, you can disable groups of opponents by targeting their weak saves. With invisibility, flight and teleportation you can take control of most situations. Defensive Personal spells can compensate for your slightly lower hit points. False Life, Mirror Image, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a Witch from 1st to 17th level, with only a +1 to CON, not picking additional HP as my favored class bonus, and I can tell that the more levels I had and the more HP difference I had with the other PCs (not counting the Wizard) the less important it seemed.
And we are talking about a class that often has to be at a distance of 30' to be effective. In a Wizard/Sorcerer it becomes even more irrelevant. I've played with many Wizards and, even though HP is always welcome, they don't need such a high ammount of it when playing right.
In my S&S game we have a Sorc who is somewhat specialized on touch attacks, so she has to stay close to the enemy (even if she has Reach Spells). Even though she is sometimes attacked a good positioning and a slight overuse of False Life and Vampiric Touch makes her often be the member of the group who never needs to be healed.
The cleric on the other hand has great spells, but some of the better offensive spells encourage them to go into melee. Again, our S&S cleric becomes a melee beast when using Righteous Might+ Divine Power.
I see the difference of HP dice as a clue of what your class is supposed to be doing in combat:
D6: Try to avoid getting into melee, you are squishy. If you do, use your magic to be heavily protected.
D8: You can go into melee, but you have to have a way to avoid being hit too often, you are not that great at taking hits.
D10: You can go into melee and be the one who takes the hits if you want.
D12: You are going to take a lot of hits and your main defense is a high HP pool.
Of course that doesn't mean that there are some characters who don't fit what I said (even if you have a D10 HP, you don't want your archer to be at melee) but as a general thing I think it gives some hints.
Really, the 9/9 divine spellcasters should have been d6, 1/2 BAB like the arcane casters, but getting more class features like the later 9/9 arcane spellcasters (Witch and Arcanist). On the arcane side, Witch and Arcanist are very good examples of blending spellcasting prowess with other class features (although unfortunately the Greater Arcane Exploits are mostly disappointing, with the major exception being Greater Metamagic Knowledge). Wizard is powerful from the spellcasting, but lacks class features other than those gained at 1st and 8th levels, plus a sparse smattering of bonus feats. Sorcerer is in between, although unfortunately the Bloodlines are really uneven in quality (some are super-good and some are terrible, and the quality of powers within each Bloodline is most often similarly uneven). On the divine side, Druid, Oracle, and Shaman fall into the in between category, although the Shaman is much harder to figure out how to use; and I wish Oracle Mysteries were used as the model for designing Domains. Cleric is like the Wizard: powerful, but even more sparse on class features. I'd like to see a d6, 1/2 BAB divine caster that gets Arcanist-style 9/9 spellcasting from the Cleric/Oracle list(*) and Domains redesigned as mini-Mysteries, with Domain Powers (Revelation equivalents) acquired at a density like that of the Arcanist's Exploits.
(*)Or better yet, reorganize both arcane and divine spell lists into Core Arcane and Core Divine lists, to which Arcane Schools, Bloodlines, Domains, Mysteries, Patrons, and Spirits add more than 1 spell per level (in some cases more than 0 spells per level) to make specialization more prominent; when they add a spell that you already have (especially if late entry like in many of today's Domains), they give you additional specialist benefits.
@My Self
Yes, I know you can make that. My post was meant to be a generalization but most of what I said can often be bypassed by picking the right options while building a character.
The main thing is that Barbs have impressive HP because they need to have impressive HP.
Wizs/Sorcs etc. don't.
Also, most Wizard and Sorcerer deaths I've seen in my games wouldn't have been avoided even with a D12 die.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing about Wizards is that they really don't need good Wisdom or Charisma or Strength. But they want (and can afford to have) decent Constitution to shore up their Fortitude save.
A Cleric who wants to fight in melee and doesn't want to sacrifice Channel Energy or skill points has no good dump stats. So they will typically have lower Constitution than a Wizard. This means the Wizard will often have HP as high as, or higher than, the front-line Cleric who needs it more.
Wizards have it easy in PF.... they are one of the very few classes that actually got a bump up from 3.5!
Just going from D4 to D6 is a big boost....
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having a vision of 2024... there is Pathfinder 2.0... they make wizards a d8 class... clerics go to d10... and so forth... almost instantly, the messageboards light up... "Why are wizards d8 classes? What's the even the point in having that low a HD?"
The vision fades... what can it portend?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, but you ARE trolling here. And it's not even funny.
I could see this as an honest opinion. The "spells" section in any given hardcover with a sufficient girth of magic is invariably the most opaque and hard-to-read part of that book, at least in my experience.
So if someone read the classes really closely, read the feats really closely, and skimmed the spells might be grossly underestimating how much mystic power one can bring to bear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I learned to play in a version of the game where thieves got a d4...
And clerics were a d6. And we liked it! We liked it just fine! ;)
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I learned to play in a version of the game where thieves got a d4...And clerics were a d6. And we liked it! We liked it just fine! ;)
And fighters d8. And you rolled that thing at 1st level, and ability scores were rolled in order on 3d6 so you might easily have a Con penalty. Behold the level 1 fighter with his mighty 2 hp! Oh, and you died at 0, none of this "unconscious and bleeding" stuff.
Of course, if such a character actually survived the stories were usually pretty epic.
Player characters have access to healing all the time. What you really have to think about is do you want to face a D10 HD wizard? Do you think your level ten party can throw down enough damage to take on 5 level 7 D10 wizards? they could each have a greater flaming spheres. It's essentially an extra swing to defeat each. With greater false life it's more like an extra round.