A Fighters skill points....

[Ridley's Cohort]

So is the fighter the best there is at fighting? Well, maybe by a smidge. The problem is the fighter is way more than a smidge worse than everyone else outside of a fight. Virtually every class in the game comes dang close to equalling the fighter in a fight, and considering how much the fighter sucks outside of a fight compared to these same classes that's just sucks.

I agree.

A Fighter is not significantly better at fighting than a Barbarian, at least not when it comes to in your face brawls. Maybe a smidge. Between more skill points and a half decent set of class skills, the Barbarian is vastly better outside of combat.

The Barbarian looks like a more promising class to make a Knight Errant precisely because he has the skill points to keep Ride high and get some cross class ranks in Diplomacy and Knowledge: Nobility. Give him mail armor, make him NG, call his Rage a holy fervor; he is ready to join the Round Table.

 

[takyris]

Well, with that qualifier, we could just as well say "A wizard is not as good at spellcasting as a sorcerer, at least when it comes to throwing fireball after fireball."

The sorcerer can be VERY good at a few spells. The wizard can be pretty good at a TON of spells.

The barbarian can be VERY good at ONE type of combat. The fighter can become VERY good in MANY types of combat.

 

[Brian Chalian]

On another side note: You're making a lot of good rules points on these boards, but people are responding more to your tone than to your points. If you were a little more diplomatic, you'd probably have a lot more supporters.

Avast, matey: 'twas no coincidence he be named, 'Frank'. Sore taken with plain speakin' he be, 'tis true, but no finer rules lawyer sails the seven seas. Unless me head be more muddled with grog than normal, 'twas he who first brandished the cleric artjer and the octopus druid on the Wizards boards.

 

[Norfleet]

Okay, my character concept is that my guy is the best warrior in the whole world, and he doesn't wear armor because he relies on dodging blows, and I want him to be amazingly fast and able to leap out of the way of fireballs and stuff, and a really good acrobat. I want him to be able to handle himself well in social situations -- I like the idea of women swooning over him and such, although he thinks of all that stuff as fake anyway. He can sneak really well if he has to, although he hates taking people by surprise. He'd rather win in a fair fight, because nobody's ever used a blade as well as he has.

So what class am I?

Rogue/Fighter/Duellist.

 

[Norfleet]

One aspect of this discussion that hasn't really been addressed is the notion that someone "doesn't count" as skilled in something unless they have full ranks in it. If the only time a skill is useful is when you've got full ranks, then your DM is screwing you over.

For many skills, they're only good when you have full ranks....and a large number of levels of those full ranks.

For instance, Concentration: Let's consider a very basic task: Defensive casting of a first level spell: DC16.

This means you will not be able to perform this without a +15 Concentration. Since as of 3E, mostly everyone thinks Constitution is important, let's say our wizard has a 14 Con, +2. That means he won't be able to do this until 10th level....when he'll be trying to do this with 5th level spells. In effect, concentration is useless unless maxed out, and even when maxed out, doesn't close the DC gap for many, many levels.

Spellcraft: DC16 to identify a 1st level spell under normal conditions. Say you're talking a wizard, +4 Int mod, which means he'll need 11 ranks. He won't see that until level 8, by which time he'll be trying to cast L4 spells, L1 spells being very old hat. The DC/Skills gap won't close until well into the high levels, when he's casting L6 spells(ID DC: 21) requiring a +20, has a +5 Int mod, and therefore needs 15 ranks, requiring him to be L12.

Spot/Listen: DC27 to detect a cloaked L10 Rogue with a +4 Dex mod operating under T-10. Since you can also use T-10, you'll be required to have a +17 to detect him. If we figure you are NOT a cleric, and there probably do not have much in the way of a positive Wis mod, that'll require you to be level 14....if you max it out, and it's a class skill. If you ARE a cleric, well, Spot and Listen aren't class skills for you, so you're screwed, period. With those skills cross-class, you'll be lucky to detect an oompah band at 30 yards.

Clearly, these are examples of skills, where the DCs are determined by formulaic rules, and NOT by DM fiat, which are useless without maxed ranks, and even then, not useful until a fairly high level.

These types of skills are clearly identified by a DC that starts with a large flat base modifier, and grows with level of user. Oftentimes, you also won't be allowed to take-10 on them, forcing you to make up that gap entirely with skill ranks....IF the skill DCs grow slower than allowed max ranks. If you're not running with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

Skills without such DC behaviors CAN be pursued at less than full ranks....but if you do, you're going to shoot yourself in the foot with regard to skills like the above. Of course, because of this, you've turned a skill like the above into a complete writeoff.....which does, helpfully, free up a lot of points for you to acquire "easy" skills with. Too bad you had to write off what was likely an important class feature to do it.

 

[Crothian]

Few skills you actually need full skill ranks for. You add it to a d20, and its not like one has to succedd all the time. That's no fun.

 

[Grog]

I think fighters are fairly well-balanced at low levels. The problem is (as many have already noted) that they suck in comparassion to other classes at high levels.

At 4th level, Weapon Specialization compares well to a barbarian's rage ability. It's not as powerful, but it's usable in every fight. Meanwhile, a barbarian can only rage twice per day, and the party will probably have more than two fights in a day. The barbarian also has fast move and uncanny dodge, but the fighter has three extra feats, which can make a very significant difference at low levels.

But at high levels, the barbarian keeps getting cool abilities, and all the fighter gets is more and more feats. And once you've grabbed all the good combat feats by 8th level or so, what more is there for you to gain?

And also, besides just looking at things from a raw power standpoint, all those extra feats probably won't help the player advance his character concept much.

For example, let's say the player makes a character - Mr. Greatsword. And his character concept is, he wants this guy to swing a greatsword better than anyone else in the world (it's not a very creative or original concept, but it's a concept nonetheless). Now, after he takes Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, WF: Greatsword, WS: Greatsword, and IC: Greatsword, and maybe another feat or two I haven't thought of, there aren't any more feats he can take that will make his character any better at swinging a greatsword.

Meanwhile, a wizard can keep up the concept of a tricky enchanter type until the highest levels, a rogue can keep up the concept of a sneaky infiltrator type until the highest levels, etc. But fighters don't really offer anything in that regard, and I think that's a problem.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

For example, let's say the player makes a character - Mr. Greatsword. And his character concept is, he wants this guy to swing a greatsword better than anyone else in the world (it's not a very creative or original concept, but it's a concept nonetheless). Now, after he takes Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, WF: Greatsword, WS: Greatsword, and IC: Greatsword, and maybe another feat or two I haven't thought of, there aren't any more feats he can take that will make his character any better at swinging a greatsword.

Blind Fight (how's he the best if he can't fight in the dark?), Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind (so he can cut through the densest of hordes with ease), Endurance, Diehard (how's he the best if he can't keep on swinging after everyone else's gone down?), Combat Reflexes (so you can hit any who draw near), GWF, GWS (can't be the best without the best damage/attack), and Improved Sunder (surely you can use the blade for something other than carving through meat shields). Lessee... 6 from your analysis, 12 from mine... That pretty well accounts for the fighter's 18 or so feats. That leaves him (asuming only an average STR: say 14 or so): +24 attack, +7 damage, 2+ AoO a round, can attack everything within 5', and is good against stealthed characters (invisible, blurred, etc), and you've got 1 or 2 feats left over for other things.
Yes, I've been playing a fighter long enough to do that sort of thing off the top of my head. I know the fighter class, and I think that he needs some sort of boost outside of combat. Plus, I still haven't heard a good reason why the fighter doesn't get proffession as a class skill.
Magius out.

 

[Norfleet]

Few skills you actually need full skill ranks for. You add it to a d20, and its not like one has to succedd all the time. That's no fun.

The d20 represents "noise". Your skill ranks are your signal. When the amount of signal is drowned out by the amount of noise, the skill is meaningless. If something doesn't work in a reliable manner, it may as well not work at all, for all the good it is. At least then it's reliably nonfunctional, and can be treated as such. And keep in mind that the tasks I quoted DCs and ranks for aren't exceptional things: They're simple, basic, DEFINING tasks for the abilities. These aren't exceptional, outlandish tasks that are being performed: These are basics, things that form the core of the skill. If you couldn't identify a common plant every time, would you call yourself a botanist? Hell, no.

 

[takyris]

Ditto Crothian. I don't "need" a +15 to Defensively cast a 1st-level spell. I "need" it if I never want to fail EVER in that attempt. There's a pretty sizeable difference. If you only have fun when your character never misses, always succeeds in his skill checks, and has effectively no random elements in his life, perhaps you should consider writing stories rather than playing games with dice.

(No offense intended. I'm a writer as well as a roleplayer, and there are strengths to each style of storytelling. As a writer, I have complete control of my concept -- if I want him to be the best swordsman who ever lived, he IS. As a roleplayer, I have to be prepared to accept limitations or work the system to get what I want.)

If you max out your ranks in something, you should be considered to be a specialist in that area, sacrificing breadth for depth with respect to your abilities by level.

When I played a rogue, I would almost always spread out my skills. Sure, there were times when I missed a check by 2 or 3 and thought "Dang, if only I'd maxed out my ranks," but there were also times when the skill I might've maxed out was utterly useless for one or more full sessions, and then I had points elsewhere to do cool stuff with. Breadth versus depth.

And with respect, I think that some of your examples were a tad skewed. Your sneaky rogue example has us up against a master of his trade -- he maxed out his ranks and he either is a naturally catlike fellow (Dex+4) or he is using magical items that enhance his Dex. Yet you give our hypothetical listener neither the same uncanny natural ability OR any magical items to enhance his abilities. This is somewhat like pitting me against a world-class marathon runner and then saying that I suck because I lost the race. (Um, bad example. I DO suck at running, but the point is that comparing an average person of that level to the minmaxed specialized paragon of that level is sort of not so good.)

Let's say that I'm a level 10 fighter. I don't have ranks in Spot. I probably am not going to see him -- at least, provided that he's got half-concealment and can USE that Hide ability. If he doesn't, hey, wasted skill ranks. And then he gets close. He can sneak attack me. It will probably hit for quite a bit of damage, at least, provided he hits me. Then I can turn to him and clobber him with my superior fighting ability. I will take some damage, yes. The rogue's superior skills, when combined with his special combat abilities, probably mean that we're about evenly matched, percentage-wise. If he rolled well and gets good rolls right away, he might take me out of the fight. Otherwise, my nonflashy but very effective whackology system whittles him down right quick. 50/50 chance or thereabouts -- or in other words, about right for two characters of the same level.

If the fighter was in a disadvantageous condition (eg, the dark, a room full of veils where the rogue could always hide, a room where fireballs exploded every round and forced reflex saves), the rogue would win. If the fighter was in an advantageous position (eg, a well-lit featureless gladiatoral ring, using a magical item that negated invisibility), the fighter would win. I've seen both types of combats.

The longer I play, the more I believe that multiclassing is not only permissable but expected and even necessary for most character concepts. Most people are describing their character concept, and the problem with the fighter not being able to handle it does not lie with the fighter. I don't even think it lies with the player for not wanting to multiclass. I think it lies in with the designers, who didn't make it clear that multiclassing was the way it was supposed to be -- that single-classed fighters should be rare and that most "fighting adventurers" had a level of rogue or barbarian or ranger in there somewhere.

Dunno. Could be wrong. But I'm seeing some underlying accusations that speak to a radically different philosophy in gaming -- ie, having to have full ranks for a skill to be anything other than "shaft-getting", multiclassing being the scourge of the system, etc.