• Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.
  • Pronoun field selections have been updated! To ensure they show up correctly, please reselect your preferred option(s) in the Account details page. Click here for more information.

The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

Is the Fairy-type OP?


  • Total voters
    59

DoctorWhy

Long Lost Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
3,189
Reaction score
2,442
I think that Grass should lose its Poison weakness and Poison should be SE against Bug and Fairy. I think those two advantages are good enough.

As far as Fairy goes, I'd like it to be SE against at least Ghost and Dragon. Dragon is confirmed and I think a SE against Ghost would be good. Ghost has two immunities and only has one single weakness (Dark) besides itself. Plus, it would give Pokemon like Sableye and Spiritomb one single weakness.

I'd like Fairy to be weak to Poison and Steel. Those two weaknesses are good enough for me I think, however, maybe Ice would be a good type to consider as well.

I think Ice should gain resistances to Water and Bug as well as Flying possibly.
 

Aves

Das wahr ist das ganzen
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
No ad autoritatem intended but, since that is exactly what I work with, I’d say the idea of removing Grass weakness to Poison is not silly at all.

If you don't intend to rely on appeal to authority, then don't do it.

In point of fact, he didn't. An appeal to authority is a claim which is supported merely on the basis of being an authority of some kind (usually, a relevant authority for the nature of the claim). However, he only mentioned his authority on the field in question in passing. The support for his claim (that poison shouldn't be super effective against grass) was given as references to evidence about plants which he used himself as a source, on account of his authority in that field. In other words, his argument was not that poison shouldn't be super effective against grass because he is some authority on plants. His argument was that plants in real life have been shown to be resilient to many poisons... and by the way, he knows this because he works with plants. That may or may not be a good argument, but it's not an appeal to authority.

But this could be either Poison or Flying. 5 weaknesses are too much at any rate. And I don’t think Poison needs to have so many SE because of its playstyle, they could be Fairy and something else, but not Bug, which far from needs another weakness.

Why? You can't derive an "ought" from an "is". That is to say, just because something has a precedent, doesn't make it right, and I don't see how it's right for Poison to be forever relegated to a defensive position. In fact, I think it's rather sad. Though I think it's fair for some types to be preferentially offensive or defensive, every type should be at least usable either way.

Some moral philosophers have argued that you can derive "ought" from "is," such as by contract. But once again, I'm sure the intention was not to argue maintaining precedence for its own sake (see: intellectual charity). Rather it's likely the precedence for poison's playstyle exists as such because of the game series' interpretation of what poison means and how this is conveyed, what role that plays in the game's overall infrastructural strategy, and how maintaining these things over this period of time is more effective than making a sudden transition with little existing material to support the switch to a more offensive playstyle by both mechanical and flavor standards. Not that I disagree with increasing its offensive potential, but being good against two types (in my opinion, fairy and water) would be a sufficient power boost.
 

Green Zubat

Have a pancake.
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
0
No ad autoritatem intended but, since that is exactly what I work with, I’d say the idea of removing Grass weakness to Poison is not silly at all.

If you don't intend to rely on appeal to authority, then don't do it.

In point of fact, he didn't. An appeal to authority is a claim which is supported merely on the basis of being an authority of some kind (usually, a relevant authority for the nature of the claim). However, he only mentioned his authority on the field in question in passing. The support for his claim (that poison shouldn't be super effective against grass) was given as references to evidence about plants which he used himself as a source, on account of his authority in that field. In other words, his argument was not that poison shouldn't be super effective against grass because he is some authority on plants. His argument was that plants in real life have been shown to be resilient to many poisons... and by the way, he knows this because he works with plants. That may or may not be a good argument, but it's not an appeal to authority.

Whilst I admit that Vilendil did go on to explain his reasoning for why Grass should no longer be weak to Poison (and I addressed that), he was still fallaciously appealing to authority with the implication that we should just accept his arguments because he apparently works with plants, and knows a lot about them. It wasn't the root of his argument, of course, but the fact that his main argument was essentially prefaced with "Not to brag, but trust me, I'm a plant expert" still bothered me a bit, hence my reply.

But this could be either Poison or Flying. 5 weaknesses are too much at any rate. And I don’t think Poison needs to have so many SE because of its playstyle, they could be Fairy and something else, but not Bug, which far from needs another weakness.

Why? You can't derive an "ought" from an "is". That is to say, just because something has a precedent, doesn't make it right, and I don't see how it's right for Poison to be forever relegated to a defensive position. In fact, I think it's rather sad. Though I think it's fair for some types to be preferentially offensive or defensive, every type should be at least usable either way.

Some moral philosophers have argued that you can derive "ought" from "is," such as by contract. But once again, I'm sure the intention was not to argue maintaining precedence for its own sake (see: intellectual charity). Rather it's likely the precedence for poison's playstyle exists as such because of the game series' interpretation of what poison means and how this is conveyed, what role that plays in the game's overall infrastructural strategy, and how maintaining these things over this period of time is more effective than making a sudden transition with little existing material to support the switch to a more offensive playstyle by both mechanical and flavor standards. Not that I disagree with increasing its offensive potential, but being good against two types (in my opinion, fairy and water) would be a sufficient power boost.

Several comments:

1.) Though I'm not exactly an expert in moral philosophy, as far as I understand it, those are fringe claims, and not widely accepted within the field, so I'm not exactly inclined to believe that assertion. At least, not without further discussion, though that would probably be more than a little off-topic.

2.) Regarding your belief that Poison is cast how it is due to the series' conceptualisation of the type: meh, perhaps. Personally, I think GF just messed up when they rejigged the types in Gen II, and haven't had an excuse to fix it until now.

3.) Regarding Poison's possible new strengths: I don't think it would be unreasonable to have Poison be strong on all four proposed types (Fairy, Water, Bug & Grass), though I wouldn't mind either Water or Bug being dropped if that's possibly too much for w/e reason. I think that's a fair number, since several types have between 4-5 weaknesses (e.g. Rock, Ice & Fighting), and I don't think any of the types involved would suffer terribly. Well, maybe Grass, but Grass's problems go far beyond Poison, its weakness to which is often nullified by the common Grass/Poison pairing anyway, I believe.
 
Last edited:

Envoy

Formerly GTT
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
702
The Grass type's problems lie in both offense and defense.

Defensively, it is naturally weak to five types (the most out of any Pokemon type, tied with Rock, I think.) This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that three of these types are virtually nonexistent in the metagame (outside of U-Turn, nobody uses Bug moves. Poison is Poison, and when it comes to Flying types, all you have to do is watch out for the occasional Hurricane.) Rain's sheer popularity also helps to check the Fire type weakness. Unfortunately, that leaves it with a weakness to Ice. ie: the Dragon killer (as of Gen V.) Since everybody and their mother's packing an Ice type move to deal with the plethora of Dragons, Grass becomes the collateral damage. Note that Ice moves=/=Ice Pokemon.

Offensively, Ice is resisted by a total of seven types. Again, the most out of any type. In particular, it is resisted by Fire, Steel, Dragon, and Flying. All of these types are common in the metagame and can put a complete stop to a Grass type sweep. Grass is further hindered by the type's general lack of coverage moves. If most Grass types had access to, say, Earth Power and [insert useful Fairy move here,] then they would be far better off.

So, why isn't Grass the absolute worst type in the game? Well, because it has several saving graces.

First, as previously stated, of their five weaknesses, three aren't very common, and one of them is checked by Rain. They do get a major defensive boost in the form of their resistances, however. Grass resists Water, Electric, and Ground. Three very common types in the metagame. This means that switching a Grass type in is not actually all that difficult (this is further compounded upon by the widespread use of rain. Of course, it is then tempered by the fact that most Water types learn Ice moves.)

Secondly, what Grass lacks in offensive support, it makes up for in sheer annoyance and utility. Grass types have access to Spore, Sleep Powder, Leech Seed, Stun Spore, and many other support moves that allow it to stay relevant in an increasingly offensive metagame.

Still, even though the Grass type has these things going for them, their shortcomings often get in the way of them being considered a top tier type. As it is, it's stuck in the bottom tier of types, along with Poison and Ice.
 

Aves

Das wahr ist das ganzen
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Whilst I admit that Vilendil did go on to explain his reasoning for why Grass should no longer be weak to Poison (and I addressed that), he was still fallaciously appealing to authority with the implication that we should just accept his arguments because he apparently works with plants, and knows a lot about them. It wasn't the root of his argument, of course, but the fact that his main argument was essentially prefaced with "Not to brag, but trust me, I'm a plant expert" still bothered me a bit, hence my reply.

Yeah, no. The fact that someone mentions being an authority in the course of making an argument does not automatically render an argument an appeal to authority. It's not as if the claim to authority is somehow isolated without consideration to the context. That is not a charitable treatment, which is itself fallacious.

Several comments:

1.) Though I'm not exactly an expert in moral philosophy, as far as I understand it, those are fringe claims, and not widely accepted within the field, so I'm not exactly inclined to believe that assertion. At least, not without further discussion, though that would probably be more than a little off-topic.

Your statement was apodeictic, however, the issue is disputed. Whether or not the claims to the contrary are fringe or not are largely irrelevant. Though I'd point out that treatment is a bit dismissive to say the least.

2.) Regarding your belief that Poison is cast how it is due to the series' conceptualisation of the type: meh, perhaps. Personally, I think GF just messed up when they rejigged the types in Gen II, and haven't had an excuse to fix it until now.

Poison fills the archetypal role of the bleeding strategy. Becoming more straightforwardly offense-oriented would take away from that, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

3.) Regarding Poison's possible new strengths: I don't think it would be unreasonable to have Poison be strong on all four proposed types (Fairy, Water, Bug & Grass), though I wouldn't mind either Water or Bug being dropped if that's possibly too much for w/e reason. I think that's a fair number, since several types have between 4-5 weaknesses (e.g. Rock, Ice & Fighting), and I don't think any of the types involved would suffer terribly. Well, maybe Grass, but Grass's problems go far beyond Poison, its weakness to which is often nullified by the common Grass/Poison pairing anyway, I believe.

I think there are better, more effective alterations to the overall type chart than boosting poison in that way.
 

Almonds

Lovely
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,565
Tl;dr

We need a whole new type effectiveness renovation. That way, everybody's happy.
 

Almonds

Lovely
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,565
Tl;dr

We need a whole new type effectiveness renovation. That way, everybody's happy.

It's an impossible task for Gamefreak to make everyone happy.

IT'S THEIR DESTINY

seriously, though, at least people would be quiet while they're getting used to the new type system. Unnerf the nerfed types and distribute some good moves here and there. There's SOMETHING everyone agrees that needs some upgrading.
 

SUP3RN0VA

DR4G0N K1NG
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,214
Reaction score
1,266
Tl;dr

We need a whole new type effectiveness renovation. That way, everybody's happy.

It's an impossible task for Gamefreak to make everyone happy.

IT'S THEIR DESTINY

seriously, though, at least people would be quiet while they're getting used to the new type system. Unnerf the nerfed types and distribute some good moves here and there. There's SOMETHING everyone agrees that needs some upgrading.

No matter what GameFreak does, some will love it and others will dislike it. It's Gamefreak's destiny to create amazing games, and it's all of our destinies to suck it up and quit complaining about what we dislike about the games and focus on what we love about the games.
 

Envoy

Formerly GTT
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
702
The last time Game Freak added new types, they also took the opportunity to shuffle older types around. Yes, Dark and Steel were introduced with the purpose of nerfing Psychic types, but removing Bug and Poison's weakness to each other had nothing to do with that. The new type reshuffling also didn't come with a lot of fanfare. It just sort of happened.

I could see them pulling out a similar trick.

In Grass' instance, a loss of the Ice weakness (and ideally, the Flying weakness) would make them much more effective defensively. Offensively, if they were to deal neutral damage to, say, Flying and Steel (<--don't ask me to justify this, I can't) they would immediately have a much broader range of attacking options.

In my opinion, however, in order to fix the Grass type, you don't actually have to change the type chart around. By simply expanding their movepool (access to Ground and Fairy moves would help with that immensely,) you're already giving them a good advantage. If Game Freak can't work the backwards compatibility into the new games, it gives them the perfect excuse to retcon the whole "Water types learn Ice moves" thing. By making Water types unable to learn Ice moves, you take away the Water type's greatest defense against Grass types, giving the latter a new lease on life (it also helps to buff up the Ice type.)

With these changes, Grass has a good way to deal with the three most common types in the metagame (Dragon, Steel, and Water) without having to alter the type chart at all.
 

Stratelier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
4,590
Reaction score
982
In Grass' instance, a loss of the Ice weakness (and ideally, the Flying weakness) would make them much more effective defensively. Offensively, if they were to deal neutral damage to, say, Flying and Steel (<--don't ask me to justify this, I can't) they would immediately have a much broader range of attacking options.
As a fan of bird Pokemon I have to disagree on the aspect of Flying types. The weakness to Ice makes sense when a lot of flowers/plants can be killed by an unexpected overnight frost, though I do agree that so many every Water types having access to almost every Ice move in the book is definitely a problem for Grass.
 

Rainbow

literal shrubbery
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
3,956
Reaction score
15
I really wish they would greatly reduce the water Pokemon that can learn Ice Beam, or remove it as a TM altogether and make it a tutor move or something. It'd help ice a tiny bit at least, it they aren't going to give it anything else.
 

Dr. Buni

Take me away from here...
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
5,612
Reaction score
84
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,859
Reaction score
2
Someone from another webiste suggested a Fairy/Bug based on the Orchid Mantis: https://www.google.ca/search?q=Orch...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=il7BUYOPKtL_rAHlioHoDg

I know we already have Scyther but have had more than one Pokemon based on the same creature so why not? I think it would be perfect! It's pink as well. lol.

Scyther and Leavanny are based on Mantises. That said, I don't mind one more Pokémon based on the said creature, Mantises are cool bugs.

Actually, Leavanny is a leaf insect, not a mantis. But yeah, not the first time we've had multiple Pokemon based off the same animal.
 

Almonds

Lovely
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
14,649
Reaction score
4,565
It's good and all with the Fairy-types, but I hope they aren't forgetting how Poison and Ice really needs a lot of help.
 

Gaga

▲ extremely gay
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Messages
3,051
Reaction score
921
I'd love a third Mantis line and the Orchid Mantis looks adorable. Especially if its palette is dominated by anything other than the color green.
It really wouldn't be that much worse than having another butterfly Pokemon.
 

Green Zubat

Have a pancake.
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
0
Whilst I admit that Vilendil did go on to explain his reasoning for why Grass should no longer be weak to Poison (and I addressed that), he was still fallaciously appealing to authority with the implication that we should just accept his arguments because he apparently works with plants, and knows a lot about them. It wasn't the root of his argument, of course, but the fact that his main argument was essentially prefaced with "Not to brag, but trust me, I'm a plant expert" still bothered me a bit, hence my reply.

Yeah, no. The fact that someone mentions being an authority in the course of making an argument does not automatically render an argument an appeal to authority. It's not as if the claim to authority is somehow isolated without consideration to the context. That is not a charitable treatment, which is itself fallacious.

You know what, forget it, I think I was just being oversensitive--my bad.


Several comments:

1.) Though I'm not exactly an expert in moral philosophy, as far as I understand it, those are fringe claims, and not widely accepted within the field, so I'm not exactly inclined to believe that assertion. At least, not without further discussion, though that would probably be more than a little off-topic.

Your statement was apodeictic, however, the issue is disputed. Whether or not the claims to the contrary are fringe or not are largely irrelevant. Though I'd point out that treatment is a bit dismissive to say the least.

OK, on reflection, I'll concede that that was probably a bad way to state my case regarding Poison current position. Again, my bad.

2.) Regarding your belief that Poison is cast how it is due to the series' conceptualisation of the type: meh, perhaps. Personally, I think GF just messed up when they rejigged the types in Gen II, and haven't had an excuse to fix it until now.

Poison fills the archetypal role of the bleeding strategy. Becoming more straightforwardly offense-oriented would take away from that, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I never suggested that Poison should lose it's defensive/supportive capabilities, only that it should also have some more offensive potential. I don't see how giving Poison more firepower, at least not in the way I suggest, would stop players from being able to utilise the "bleeding" strategy if they wanted to play Poison that way.

3.) Regarding Poison's possible new strengths: I don't think it would be unreasonable to have Poison be strong on all four proposed types (Fairy, Water, Bug & Grass), though I wouldn't mind either Water or Bug being dropped if that's possibly too much for w/e reason. I think that's a fair number, since several types have between 4-5 weaknesses (e.g. Rock, Ice & Fighting), and I don't think any of the types involved would suffer terribly. Well, maybe Grass, but Grass's problems go far beyond Poison, its weakness to which is often nullified by the common Grass/Poison pairing anyway, I believe.

I think there are better, more effective alterations to the overall type chart than boosting poison in that way.

How, exactly? Poison is weak offensively because it has only one strength, and against a type that isn't particularly strong defensively anyway, and which is often neutralised by the common Grass/Poison pairing. The simplest solution to this would be to give Poison more strengths e.g. against Fairy, and maybe other types too. That seems pretty effective to me.
 
Please note: The thread is from 7 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Top Bottom