All other classes? Or just your examples?
Does this apply to Paladins, Clerics, Bards, Druids?
Or are we now narrowing the discussion to casting vs non-casting?
The difference is that the wizard can take the key skills of his class (Say Spellcraft, Linguistics, Know Arcane and another knowledge of his choice), max them, and still have points left over to cross class max Stealth, Acrobatics, and Perception
This reminds me of another point. Pathfinder combined a lot of skills. However, other than Language/Forgery - they didn't seem to combine many Int skills.
There are the same number of Knowledges in Pathfinder that there were in 3.5.
Search, which was an Int skill - is now part of Perception - a Wisdom skill.
Seems to me that skills based on Dex/Wis got the love in Pathfinder more than Int based skills...
Well, as the extra spell is, alone, better than the core familiar, the ability to craft a magical item at the appropriate level is a complete bonus. As in, buy one, get one free.
The extra spell alone is better than a familiar? Care to present evidence for that?
it is vastly easier to kill your familiar.
Yay. Your first piece of evidence presented that the free spell from bonded item is better than a familiar.
I would respond with, "the cosequences of a killed familiar, are vastly less dire."
Personally, I think that the arguments in favor of the wizard are true beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of a criminal court.
Read back, you have changed topic:
YOU (in regards to Pathfinder wizards being superior): "He can pull spells that he didn't know to prepare (Bonded item)."
Me: "If he gives up his familiar, and you haven't established it as the better option.
You: "You haven't established it as a worse option"
Me: "Burden of proof..."Your burden of proof isn't "Pathfinder wizards are better" it is "The Bonded Item is superior to a familiar"
So far, the evidence you've presented is that a familiar is easier to kill than a bonded item is to break - to which I responded that a dead familiar has far lighter consequences than a bonded item.
You also said that the benifits of Bonded Item over a familiar were self-evident. I pointed out that saying it's "self-evident" isn't very convincing.
This is why I call your claim unfalsifyable. You haven't presented evidence yet for me to argue against. If Bonded Item is so much better than a familiar, then surely you can explain why.
I understand the value of an extra spell per day. I understand the value of spontaneous casting that spell (although I didn't consider Alacritous Cogitation a "must have" feat, it was a nice to have feat).
I question if you know the value of a familiar though. Give me your best shot. Why is it self-evident that the Bonded Item is better? How is the extra spell alone so good, that being able to enchant the item considered "free" by you?
There are at least 3 separate questions here. Did PF weaken the Wizard? Did PF strengthen the wizard? Did PF strengthen the wizard more than they strengthened most other classes.
Those 3 questions may exist, but we are only debating the last one. I've already stated my opinion on the first two questions is opinion only, and accept that others may have different opinions based on their priorities.
I agree. I was not convinced that it beat it's non-core alternatives either. However, I do think it made it questionable. I also must point out that he needed to compare the value of a familiar to Abrupt Jaunt, a "get out of death free" ability usable several times per day as an immediate action.
It takes significantly less to convince me a familiar is better than a free spell once/day.
The familiar is the better option IMO, though I admit that it depends somewhat on your DM. However, for the purpose of this argument, I don't need for the familiar to be the better option.
None of the definitions of "rumor" would imply intentional disception on my part. The argument I was referring to fits all those definitions in my opinion.
So I resent the repeated accusation that I made a dishonest statement.
If you wish to refer to my statement as inaccurate, go ahead, but calling it dishonest suggests that I do not believe what I was referring to was not a rumor, which of course, would mean deliberate disception. What you believe my motive would be I can only guess.