Evolution of the Fighter

[Hussar]

No, it really isn't. It's simple math.

Look, here's the rules for Sleight of Hand in 3e (note, pre 3e fighters could NEVER pick pockets at all, couldn't even try.)

Sleight Of Hand (Dex; Trained Only; Armor Check Penalty)

That right there puts most fighters into negative territory for checks. The ACP for most armors is going to wipe out any ranks you can manage to get INTO that skill. But, let's ignore that for a second.

If you try to take something from another creature, you must make a DC 20 Sleight of Hand check to obtain it. The opponent makes a Spot check to detect the attempt, opposed by the same Sleight of Hand check result you achieved when you tried to grab the item. An opponent who succeeds on this check notices the attempt, regardless of whether you got the item.

Now, making the DC 20 check is possible, assuming you've spent the ranks, have a reasonable DEX and aren't wearing armor at the time (some fairly LARGE assumptions). But, it's that second part, the opponent spots you based on your SoH check.

Let's see, cross class skill, so getting 10 ranks means you need to be 20th level. Assume another +8 for a pretty amazing DEX score and you succeed most of the time (presuming you took your armor off first.) So, at 20th level, you have a +18 SoH. Any creature with spot as a class skill is TWICE as effective at seeing you. +23 for class, probably another +5 for stats and no armor check penalty to contend with.

So, I've got +10 better than the fighter (pretty much minimum) on any contested roll.

Yes, the fighter can try, but, he's going to fail an awful lot. As in most of the time. 50% of the time he automatically fails. The other 50% of the time, his chances are still pretty slim.

So, yes, you are right, the fighter can try, but, he's going to fail almost every time. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of MATH. This highlights one of the major issues with the 3e skill system. If you don't max out that skill, your chances of success go from bad to worse.

You can keep trying to pin this on bad DM'ing and bad players, but, it's really not. It's math. If your maximum chance of success is that bad, why even bother trying? Why waste the resources. Remember, my fighter above MAXED OUT his SoH chances. He had to spend HALF of his skill points to get a piss poor chance of picking someone's pockets.

 

[Runestar]

Skills, schmills - I want to be able to try it anyway and have at least a tiny chance of success...just like real life. I've never picked anyone's pocket and thus have no skill at it, but if I were to try it sometime there's always a chance I'd get away with it. Why can't the game reflect this? All it needs in 3e is a simple "20 always succeeds, 1 always fails" and abolishment of that horrid take-20 rule. In earlier editions, it'd be a d% roll modified to suit the situation.

Granted, sleight of hand is technically a trained check, so you need at least 1/2 a rank in it to be able to even be entitled to make a check with it.

However, in game terms, your scenario would be represented by the dc being extremely low for some reason, or you getting all sorts of ad-hoc bonuses to your roll (maybe the guy was that unattentive, or the circumstances just were extremely favourable), rather than you "lucking out" somehow by rolling 3 natural 20s in a row or something.

Yes because unless you are visiting Char Ops boards all the time to minmax your character, you are incompetent and can't grasp the rules or build a character. Because to play any other way is badwrongfun.

Ah, but I am not the one accusing anyone of not playing their game correctly. Rather, you are the one castigating me for not allowing the fighter with crappy ranks in sleight of hand to have a fair chance of success. Who is trying to interfere in whose game now?

Nor do I recall ever insisting that everyone patronize the char-op boards at the gleemax forum first before they are worthy of playing dnd. Carry on with your personal attacks by all means. I think the more you try to misrepresent my position, the more of your ugly side you reveal, and the more the other members (myself included) get the opportunity to see you for what you truly are.

Both of you skirt around trying to claim saying you would let fighters try to pick pockets, but in the end you would have them predetermined to fail.

Ergo, you are saying fighters are not allowed to try.

Because both just end up with the same outcome.

Lets say your fighter has a sleight of hand check of +5 (in reality, likely to be much lower because of a low dex and skill penalties from wearing heavy armour). But say the DC of a particular task is +30. You can try, but unless you can somehow end up rolling a result of 25 or greater on a 20-sided die, you are still going to fail anyways, regardless of what you roll. This isn't combat, where a natural 20 is a natural hit, and so everyone is entitled to a roll, even if the foe's AC exceeds their to-hit value by more than 20.

In that case, why do you still insist on rolling? I see no need to have to coddle the fighter and arbitrarily lower the DC as a result just so he can have a chance of succeeding on a 19 or 20. The task has such a high DC exactly because I as a DM envision it to be an extremely challenging endeavor (and also because the DC has to be that high to sufficiently challenge the rogue who happened to focus on sleight of hand, in order to impress upon the party just how difficult the task really is). It is not going to mysteriously get lower just because someone in my party happens to stink at said task.

You as a fighter should know what you are getting into when you invest in a cross-class skill, do not focus on its key stat (because you will likely pump str over dex), and wear armour (further lowering it). And you still expect me as a DM to accord you a decent chance of success?

I honestly think you need an exercise in optimism, rather than optimzation.

and players how cannot usae their own imagination to TRY to do something unless it is written down in black & white for them in the book.

You want to implement some new houserule or disregard an established rule which presumably makes fighters suck less (such as allowing a fighter with crappy ranks in sleight of hand a fair chance of stealing the crown jewels, when numerous master thieves before him have failed), go ahead by all means.

It however, ultimately remains a houserule, and I seriously do not feel that it has a place in this discussion. Else, what is to stop me from saying that fighters do not suck because I can just give them the ability to use wish as an at-will SLA at 1st lv?

I am so sick and tired of people attempting to argue that fighters do not suck because they can do X, where X is some custom rule which does not exist in the 3e dnd rules framework. This is partly the reason why I fled the gleemax forums. But it is sad to see that even Enworld was not spared this malaise...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think the reason fighters got a lot of flak is because of how PrCs are viewed. I think the big thing that plagued 3.5 is the idea of a "level dip" into a certain class. Mechanically allowable, but I really, really don't think that's what the game had in mind.

With the vast number of feats, the fighter was the most capable to enter (almost any) PrC; that's why CharOps loved fighter dips so much. If you look away from the whole level dipping issue, a fighter who's multiclassed in the sense of alternating levels gains a lot; there's very, very few PrCs he can't go into. And even straight fighter has a whole lot of options. PrCs, I think, shouldn't be seen as a bonus class; they should be seen as simply the next step for the character. A PrC is what the base class is leading up to, not something you do for a level or two for a few toys.

As for 4e, I've ultimately found that it's best not to think in terms of class, but to think in terms of...uh...the word I forgot. So you wouldn't say "I want a fighter," you'd say "I want a two hander who does damage. Oh, barbarian." Or "I want a heavily armored guy, hold the magic please. Oh hey, fighter." It's the opposite of 3.5's way of going class then role; in 4e, the classes fall under the role.

 

[justanobody]

There is a big problem with trying to keyword things that are not unique to someone/thing.

You don't have to be trained to sue sleight of hand. You have a very low chance of pulling it off, but the game should not place silly arbitrations of player choice just to be able to later claim that the player wasn't given a choice to do so.

Those are the kind of rules you throw away as bad game design.

It doesn't excuse those who designed the game, not does it say that you can only do what it called "sleight of hand".

I didn't ask for a fighter to do magic tricks, just to pick someone's pocket.

Again this would be a player flaw in trying to follow silly rules.

I mean if a road had a sign saying detour to turn left off the side of a cliff, I hope no one would just follow that and think for themselves instead.

So the fighter is not asking to use the skill "sleight of hand", but to just pick someone's pocket.

So while Sleight of hand skill cannot be used untrained for some dumb reason, where does it say you must attempt to use sleight of hand in order to pick a pocket?

As for 4e, I've ultimately found that it's best not to think in terms of class, but to think in terms of...uh...the word I forgot. So you wouldn't say "I want a fighter," you'd say "I want a two hander who does damage. Oh, barbarian." Or "I want a heavily armored guy, hold the magic please. Oh hey, fighter." It's the opposite of 3.5's way of going class then role; in 4e, the classes fall under the role.

That is a big problem in trying to compare them, just like why you can't really convert them, because they have so very little in common. In order to compare them, you would need to only compare what they have in common to see which really looks better.

 

[Runestar]

I didn't ask for a fighter to do magic tricks, just to pick someone's pocket.

And as I have repeatedly said, nothing is stopping you from attempting just that.

Sleight of hand is not used to pick someone's pocket. It is used when you want to try and do so, without being spotted. A successful check means you did it without anyone spotting you. A failed check simply means you were spotted, but depending on how far into the deed you were, you may or may not have gotten your hands on his wallet.

So yes, anyone can slip his hand into the merchant's pocket readily enough. But it takes a trained personnel to be able to do this, grab his wallet, take it out, and walk away without being detected. And I assume that when you say "pickpocketing", you do not want the world to be knowing what you are trying to do (hence, I use sleight of hand a little interchangeably with pickpocketing, but note that they are not really synonymous with each other).

Your fighter is going to have his cover blown every time. Sure, he can likely just scare the authorities with that +10 sword of his, but this would be extortion, not pickpocketing.

 

[justanobody]

Then the point exists that options for a fighter in the past versus now were not really limited to the rules system, but the players ability to do/try what they wanted to.

Which is odd that it would require making the system looka s though it allows for more, when it is always the players that decide how much is allowed for anyone to try to do, by just doing it.

Ergo, not making the newest system look better just because it has some extra things spelled. out.

It may be more uniform for people to have these things spelled out, but the ideas came from soneone in the past versiosn of the fighter that made these things become spelled, out, not that they were leacking from previous fighters, just that there was nothing hard-coded to some universal rule for doing it.

You will never get a universal set of rules to handle everything, so adding them doesn't really prove that a new version of a class/race is better, nor the system itself is better.

The options have been there since the beginning if you wanted to take those options and "try" to do it.

 

[Fifth Element]

Ergo, not making the newest system look better just because it has some extra things spelled. out.

The sleight of hand discussion was with respect to 3E (since 4E has no skill called that, and has no concept of trained-only skill checks). So this is not about the "newest system".

4E mechanics are actually better for you in this regard, since they allow untrained skill checks (essentially a Dexterity check in this case if you're not trained in Thievery), and the fighter's chance of success goes up automatically as he levels (using a static DC).

 

[Imp]

You know, when do ~18th level characters try to pick other ~18th level characters' pockets, anyway?

It seems wrong. Like, once you get that high level, stuff like getting your wallet lifted, your chariot keyed, or your horse or horse analogue stolen, this kind of stuff shouldn't be happening to you unless you've got a mischievous demigod on your hands.

You could be nicking a lock of hair or the like for scrying, but even that's pretty perilous.

 

[Runestar]

4E mechanics are actually better for you in this regard, since they allow untrained skill checks (essentially a Dexterity check in this case if you're not trained in Thievery), and the fighter's chance of success goes up automatically as he levels (using a static DC).

Except that there is no such thing as a static DC in 4e - the DMG table on page42 even hints as much. You are expected to pit a "fair" DC against your party. And there is still the issue of the party rogue who can and will auto-succeed at it. So there is still no reason for your fighter to even try.

To give an example - lets look at a 1st lv party, where the elven cleric has managed a +15 perception check (+4wis, +5 trained, +3 skill focus, +2 race, +1 background). There is no way you can meaningfully challenge any other PC in the party. Use a moderate DC, and the cleric auto-succeeds every time (simply by taking 10, considering the pitiful DCs in the PHB). Use a high DC to challenge the cleric, the fighter has no chance of succeeding!

 

[Hussar]

Then the point exists that options for a fighter in the past versus now were not really limited to the rules system, but the players ability to do/try what they wanted to.

This is just wrong.

Basic-2e a fighter could NOT pick pockets. Period. EVER. That's a thief skill and fighters can't do it. Full stop, end of story. Now, if you want to house rule that he can try and give him a chance to do so, that's your prerogative, but, according to the rules, NO, he cannot pick someone's pocket EVER.

Which is odd that it would require making the system looka s though it allows for more, when it is always the players that decide how much is allowed for anyone to try to do, by just doing it.

Ergo, not making the newest system look better just because it has some extra things spelled. out.

It may be more uniform for people to have these things spelled out, but the ideas came from soneone in the past versiosn of the fighter that made these things become spelled, out, not that they were leacking from previous fighters, just that there was nothing hard-coded to some universal rule for doing it.

Again, you are mistaken. Pick Pockets was a Thief skill before 3e. NO ONE other than a thief could do it. There was absolutely no rule that allowed your Elf to pick a pocket.

You will never get a universal set of rules to handle everything, so adding them doesn't really prove that a new version of a class/race is better, nor the system itself is better.

The options have been there since the beginning if you wanted to take those options and "try" to do it.

No, these options have not been there. The only way you had the option of trying was if your DM allowed it and decided to break the rules in doing so since specifically, only thieves could pick pockets. In 3e, you still cannot do it untrained. Full stop. Even trained, you would have great difficulties doing it.

We can discuss the rules, but, since you're insisting that the rules don't exist, that makes discussion pretty difficult.