"GRASS" the worst starter and possibly type??

[AquaWarrior]

Grass type by itself is awful, but when comboed with another type, it can be handy.
Just look at Ferrothorn.

Ferrothorn still sucks.

[Excitable Boy]

Ferrothorn still sucks.

cool story bro

tell it again

[HoennDreamer]

I agree, they absolutely blow "no pun intended" i usually avoid them now.

[Ilan]

Ferrothorn still sucks.

really? give me 1 reason why you think it sucks ( a fire weakness isn't a good enough reason).

@above: why you avoid grass type? cause they have some weaknesses so? so are other pokemons you just need to play around it every type have his set of resistances useful STABs Grass type is no exception it isn't the best type but to outright avoid it? I don't think there should be a reason to do so it is the only type to resist water and e SE against water.

[ansem the wise]

are u guys kidding me!
grass is kickgrass (little pun)
my best pokemon is a venusaur.
and grass pokemon have the widest array of healing ie. giga drain, leech seed, ingrain, synthesis, various abilities
yeah other types can heal but grass has the biggest selection.

[SapphireBlueEyes7799]

Grass types are amazing, I love the move Cotton Guard. SPAM SPAM SPAAAAAM~

[your boss]

Ferrothorn still sucks

First Virizion and Breloom, now it's Ferrothorn, what's next Venasaur?

[AquaWarrior]

cool story bro

tell it again

Ferrothrom still sucks.

[Excitable Boy]

Ferrothrom still sucks.

If only Ferrothrom had anything to do with Ferrothorn, your point might be ever-so-slightly valid.

Sadly, in matters pertaining to Ferrothorn, it is simply a matter of your ill-supported opinion versus the general consensus of the competitive battling community.

[Wishing Star]

Ferrothorn still sucks.

How does it suck? It's really good at serving as a wall.

Regardless, even if Ferrothorn did suck, it doesn't really say anything about the Grass and Steel types themselves, only the selection of Pokémon that are at least one of those two types.

[Nyarlathotep]

Maybe he is trying to say that Ferrothorn's design sucks.

[your boss]

Maybe he is trying to say that Ferrothorn's design sucks.

No, as he mentioned about the person he quoted about Grass's secondary typing!

[Wishing Star]

Maybe he is trying to say that Ferrothorn's design sucks.

If that were the case, they'd probably have clarified already. :/

[55afrothunder]

cool story bro

tell it again

uuuhhhh... he never said a story,anyways ferrothorn is pretty good all except his design

[Nyarlathotep]

except his design

A very subjective aspect, I would say.
A lot of people say that the Pokémon you use as avatar has a horrible design, for example.

PS: I don't, Rhyperior looks awesome, imo.

[cascadethewarrior]

I know the status ailments themselves aren't type-exclusive and that Game Freak could just make new moves in the future that inflict poison but is a Flying-type or something like that. But such moves would have to be created later, and it's each of the types now and their moves now that are being focused on.

It doesn't matter if they have not done it yet the fact still remains that the possibility still exists

Out of every move that can inflict poison without any special modifier, only one is not Poison-type, and Twinneedle is very rarely used. Therefore, poison is pretty much the only type that can inflict poison reliably, and thus has that to back it up.

That's not a viable excuse. Twineedle is still a non-poison Type move that inflicts the poison status, how often it is used does not matter, it still exists.

I didn't say anything about a type having more things going for it strictly outclassing one that has less things going for it. Yes, Fire-type moves generally can burn and generally have high power, and Fire does have more things going for it than Poison does. But none of that means, explicitly or implicitly, that Poison is outclassed by any other type.

Because Fire has more going for it then Poison IS the reason it outclasses Poison type. Which leads back to my original argument that the Type chart is indeed broken.

[ForeverFlame]

Worst type is Poison. Bug is also awful. Bug's only redeeming trait is the fact that it beats Psychic and Dark. On the other hand, it's Not Very Effective against six different types, and it's weak to Fire, Flying, and Rock (stealth rock weakness = salt in the wound), all of which are fairly common types to run across.

Ice is another rough type. But I'm partial to it, so I'm not going to be too harsh. I just don't see the point in having an Ice-type to, let's be real here, kill dragons (it's basically Ice's only purpose), when most dragons learn Flamethrower. It will kill your *** before you're even able to hit them with an Ice Beam. Most Water types learn Ice movies, so they're much better alternatives.

[Wishing Star]

It doesn't matter if they have not done it yet the fact still remains that the possibility still exists

The possibility obviously still exists. But the question is whether or not the Poison type is bad in its current state. Bringing up future possibilities changes the question entirely to another question that can't really be answered, since nobody knows what kinds of moves the next generation will bring to each of the types.

That's not a viable excuse. Twineedle is still a non-poison Type move that inflicts the poison status, how often it is used does not matter, it still exists.

Twineedle being able to poison yet being a Bug-type isn't an excuse to back up Poison; if anything, it's a move that makes the Poison type less special.

Because Fire has more going for it then Poison IS the reason it outclasses Poison type. Which leads back to my original argument that the Type chart is indeed broken.

Type A outclasses type B if and only if type A can do everything that type B can. I emphasize again that at this current state, the Fire type cannot poison, and the Poison type cannot burn. Because of this, one strictly cannot say that Fire outclasses Poison.

[cascadethewarrior]

The possibility obviously still exists. But the question is whether or not the Poison type is bad in its current state. Bringing up future possibilities changes the question entirely to another question that can't really be answered, since nobody knows what kinds of moves the next generation will bring to each of the types.

Yes the poison Type is bad in its current state, thus me saying the Type chart is broken. Bringing up future possibilities doesn't change the question at all. Because unless they change the Poison types Super effectiveness and resistance capabilities it will still remain nerfed compared to other types regardless of what new moves they make.

Type A outclasses type B if and only if type A can do everything that type B can. I emphasize again that at this current state, the Fire type cannot poison, and the Poison type cannot burn. Because of this, one strictly cannot say that Fire outclasses Poison.

I'll just emphasize this again then, The status ailments are not exclusive to one Type. If they wanted to make a Fire Type move that can inflict the poison status they can, if they wanted a Poison Type move that can inflict the burn status, they can. It does not matter whether currently they have made it or not, it can still be made. So yes Fire type can do everything the Poison Type can except better therefore it outclasses the Poison type


It's not the moves or the ability to inflict status that makes one Type better than the other it's the offensive and defensive capabilities.

[Wishing Star]

Yes the poison Type is bad in its current state, thus me saying the Type chart is broken. Bringing up future possibilities doesn't change the question at all. Because unless they change the Poison types Super effectiveness and resistance capabilities it will still remain nerfed compared to other types regardless of what new moves they make.

Bringing up future possibilities does change the question. The current question has to do with whether or not a type is bad based on what each type has access to now. Bringing up future possibilities changes the question to having to do with whether or not a type is bad based on what each type has access to both now and in the future. Changing to such a question is bad because what each type has access to won't be known, and so people can only assume based on current trends (which is bad in practice).

I'll just emphasize this again then, The status ailments are not exclusive to one Type. If they wanted to make a Fire Type move that can inflict the poison status they can, if they wanted a Poison Type move that can inflict the burn status, they can.

But they haven't. What is being answered is whether or not a type is bad based on the current game, and the fact that they haven't added the moves that you describe means that answers cannot assume their existence.

It does not matter whether currently they have made it or not, it can still be made. So yes Fire type can do everything the Poison Type can except better therefore it outclasses the Poison type

Based on this, Game Freak could make the Poison type super effective against Grass, Water, Dragon, Normal, and Fighting, making the Poison type "outclass" the Fire type.

It's not the moves or the ability to inflict status that makes one Type better than the other it's the offensive and defensive capabilities.

Whether or not a type is good or bad isn't dependent only on offensive and defensive capabilities. There's more to determining whether a type is good than just offensive and defensive potential. By considering only offensive and defensive potential, one practically automatically assumes that types that don't rely on either are "bad", which is flawed reasoning.

The opinion that they make based on that reasoning isn't bad, but rather just made due to looking at just offense and defense.

What I'm saying is that hypothetical mechanics cannot be a factor in an answer to whether or not any particular type is bad in the current game.