A Fighters skill points....

[Norfleet]

Ditto Crothian. I don't "need" a +15 to Defensively cast a 1st-level spell.

Defensive casting represents one the most basic elements of Concentration, the ability to concentrate and cast spells under adverse conditions: the defensive cast. A first level spell is one of the simplest, most lowly abilities there is. If something this simple, this basic, cannot be performed at a level of competence where failure is a statistically insignificant phenomenon, then you have no business calling yourself a professional in the field. It's that simple. We're not talking about an absurdly complicated task that not even an expertly trained and highly experienced professional would consider to be sane. We're talking about something mindnumbingly basic, the FIRST thing that somebody would even be able to attempt. If you can't do it every time, you just can't do it.

 

[Norfleet]

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.

That was entirely not my point: The point is that in order to have a shot at spotting ANYTHING you'd be expected to spot, like a rogue several levels below you, you'd HAVE to max out your skill. If you DIDN'T, it'd be as effective as not having the skill at all, and a hell of a lot less expensive on the points.

And yes, losing the race does mean you suck. Whether you can live with that because you were never supposed to be good at it, or whether it represents your complete and utter failure as a person, depends on what you're supposed to be doing. If you are not a marathon runner, then you were never expected to *BE* one, and the fact that you suck at it is, simply, natural. If you ARE supposed to be one, have poured every aspect of your being into mastering it, and yet you still remain utterly inferior at it, then you are a failure, and should either contemplate a change in career, or suicide.

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.

Exactly. And since you've never bothered to spend points on it, your shot at detecting him is, frankly, zero. But you know what? If you had bought 5 points of it, burning 10 CC SPs, your shot would STILL be zero. Your chances are equally bad, but at least you haven't paid something for nothing. Although, at the same time, having no ability to spot results in the amusing conclusion that the character is blind as a bat.

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.

I concur fully. The way I see it, levels of the fighter class represents focussed martial training in the field of hitting things over and over until they die. Taking only levels of that class leaves you with a character like Fighter of 8Bit. Amusing, but a complete idiot.

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.

Many skills are intentionally rigged towards only full ranks being meaningful. Similarly, there are skills where full ranks is meaningless and wasted points, for the opposite reasons: DCs are low and easily overcome by good stats and take-20, because the core usage of skill does not involve use in hostile conditions, and the skill may very well be totally useless under those conditions.

 

[Grog]

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).

Blind Fight doesn't have anything to do with swinging a greatsword better; all it does is improve your ability to fight in the dark. Doesn't matter if you're using a greatsword or a dagger. Expertise, Dodge, and Mobility don't really apply at all. Spring Attack, again, doesn't mean you're swinging the greatsword better, it just means you're good at leaping to the attack. Endurance and Diehard have nothing to do with weapons at all, Combat Reflexes and Improved Sunder also don't improve your ability to swing a greatsword. I will give you Whirlwind, GWF, and GWS, but even with those extras, you can still aquire all the feats by 10th-12th level or so.

 

[Curugul]

Frank

Your a hero. Followed your breaking of various class's for a long time. The octi-druid was priceless. How did you figure THAT one out? I like to think I powergame pretty well, but you're a league of your own. Seriously, you're a bastion of intelligence and logic in an internet sea awash in arguments and opinions so inane my eyes cross.

To this thread: How is this even up for argument? With core books used (I'd guess 15% of groups, maby less), and NO prc's allowed, a fighter is among, if not THE, weakest class post 8-12. It just gets pointless, a feat in NO WAY comes close to new abilities, skills, class features others get in levels 12-20.

Fighters PRC away at the very first opportunity. Thats fine, I guess, many class's do. Whats not fine is how weak they are if they DONT prc/multiclass. Weak. The only leg anyone's had to argue on is "Feats r good" or the priceless "In my game...". We're not talking generalities. We're not talking specific games where rules/situations balance anything based on players, gms whim, and numerous variables. We're talking about the core, written, non arguable power a fighter gets. His hitpoints aren't up for debate. Neither are his skills, his class list, any of it. Compare it, as a pure, single class character, to any other class in the game, levels 10-20. Compare its Combat Power to any other class made for fighting. You'll find they either are less, equal to, or better at fighting than a fighter of those levels. That alone should make anyone with a shred of desire for balance pause. Now compare EVERYTHING ELSE (see: Skills, spells, special powers, utility, ANYTHING to do outside of direct combat that can impact a campaign through the rolling of dice, NOT roleplaying). Fighter, dead last, by a HUGE margin.

Seriously, tell me honestly: Do you really believe the fighter is such a better combatent than Sorcerors, Barbs, Rogues, Clerics, ect, that his power outside combat should be lower than theirs by such an abysmal margin?


Curugul

 

[Norfleet]

To this thread: How is this even up for argument? With core books used (I'd guess 15% of groups, maby less), and NO prc's allowed, a fighter is among, if not THE, weakest class post 8-12. It just gets pointless, a feat in NO WAY comes close to new abilities, skills, class features others get in levels 12-20.

Fighters PRC away at the very first opportunity. Thats fine, I guess, many class's do. Whats not fine is how weak they are if they DONT prc/multiclass. Weak.

I think it's well-accepted that fighters, as a core class, have an extremely narrow focus that they don't even truly excel at. What, exactly, that focus *IS* is somewhat unknown. Unfortunately, the clearest anyone can come to a readily defined focus for the fighter is "somebody who hits things with weapons". It's a little too general.

This would be far easier if we simply accepted that barring house ruling, fighters are a class with very little redeeming value after about 10 levels, and most people will PrC or multiclass off. The fact that the fighter gets the same thing every 2 levels, combined with the law of diminishing marginal utility, makes it obvious that more and more levels of fighter hold less and less value, until the marginal value of another level of fighter becomes equal to or less than the value of some other class. Is this a problem? Only if you hold to the notion that characters should preferrentially be single-classed, despite the fact that greater strength typically comes through diversity in options: Humans should be able to do many things well. Specialization is for insects.

 

[Cyraneth]

I'm siding with Pendragon et al. If you think a fighter's weak 'cause he's lacking in some abilities, you're not looking at the big picture. Fighters excel in fighting (thus the name), not at acrobatics, social graces, or wizardry. If you want that, go for another class. If you do that, however, you won't get the combat prowess of the fighter class. "If you're chasing two hares at the same time, you'll catch neither."

The cleric's a bit overpowered in this area, however, as he's almost got the spellcasting abilities of a wizard (focusing more on buffs and restorative magic, but still) and definitely packs more fighting power. But then again, it seems to work just fine, right?

- Cyraneth

 

[LuYangShih]

The problem I have with the Fighter is it is nearly impossible to use the class to attain a character concept more complicated than footsoldier. I recently designed a character for a Midnight campaign, a Dornish Warrior steeped in the culture of his ancestors, who strives to unite his people once again in the face of the Shadow. I even did what so many here claim is neccessary for proper development of a Fighter, taking two feats allowing me access to skills that are normally cross-class. It still wasn't enough, as the low skill points reduced me to either a random hodge podge of skills too low to be of any use, or a narrow selection that did not really represent the concept well.

I ended up multiclassing him as a Rogue, which he will probably take the majority of his levels in. The character concept was simply unattainable when taking just Fighter levels. The truly pitiful side of this is the fact that he is better off not only from a roleplaying standpoint, but a combat standpoint as well. He will be only slightly less powerful than a straight Fighter in face to face combat, and far better in an ambush situation, when flanking, or when being surprised in combat himself. Given this, I have to agree that the Fighter class needs to be adjusted.

 

[The_DarkAngel]

Even the Thief needs to be adjusted by a smidge. Anyhow, I love that fact that Ive been ignored about Montecook's fighter.

90% of arguements for those who disagree that the fighter isnt under powered, are based on the following: role-play them better, or multi-class, or something silly like that.

If you think that the Fighter class is fine, then prove it to me. The rest is just an excuse or you favor other classes.

What does "proof" mean? It means: if you were going to tell me that aliens built the Stone Hendge, then show me proof (like an alien skull or something). Dont give me excuses like.....my friend Bob said they disguised themselves as humans.

For all of you who think the "fighter" class doesnt need adjustment, tell me how. Lets pretend "you cant multi-class" (so u cant use it as an excuse). Lets also pretend, that you cant go into a prestige class either, (the reason for this is so, we can compare classes 1st thru 20th level) as if there was a point system designed (which would have ended this arguement a long time ago) that compares all abilities. Lets just compare class for class for class.

DA

 

[Humanophile]

Let me tackle the "Fighter is too weak" position, point by point:

• Vs. a Prestige class: No comparison. Sadly, this is because core classes tend to be so focused that they have little to give up to get a PrC's powers. Ask any mage type what's worth giving up for PrC powers. Add to this the fact that "official" PrC's tend to be on the powerful side, and unofficial ones even more so. So that's a complete side issue.
  
• Skill points per level: Not truly weak, for the reasons many other people have given. However, I do agree with many people who think that 2/level isn't enough skill points to give a character interest and versatility. So while this is fairly balanced powerwise, it leads to boring characters. More skill points/hobby rules are in order, but across the board fro all character types (or at least all core classes).
  
• Skill selection: Yeah, this just flat out sucks, and should've been improved in 3.5. I think that stealth and sensory skills are some of the "best skills" out there, and you should think twice before handing them out, but as far as concept versatility goes, the following skills are perfect for fighter concepts without being more powerful than anything else:
  
  -Balance: You're running around in places where the floor's not maintained, and you're wearing heavy armor. Fighters should have the ability to do more than comically fall down when trying to engage enemies. Really, folks, this should be a no-brainer.
  
  -Heal: You're not a cleric, but I can see more than enough "fighting-type guy" concepts that learned how to patch up their friends on the battlefield.
  
  -Knowledge (Architecture&Engineering, History, Nobility&Royalty): All three allow for general types who know how to set up a battlefield. The latter two (especially the last) are ideal for noble night types. History is good for cranky old veteran wannabes. All of these seem like Fighter based archetypes.
  
  -Profession: Like everyone else, I see no reason why anyone except the unsocialized, likely illiterate Barbarian is missing these. They're all nice background info, and many of them fit quite well with fighting types.
  
  I fully grant that these skills should be givens. Some of the more powerful/popular ones might be included later, but for now I see no reason why these options would change the fighter's power level one bit.
  
• Feats and fighting styles: Remember what I said about Balance being a no-brainer above? The same attitude that leads to people missing that ("What? I thought all caves had flat, even floors.") also leads to the Fighter's feat advantage being overlooked. A true "master of battle" would be able to handle himself in a large number of situations and tactics. Feats like Blind Fight, Endurance, Improved (whatever), etc. would be used semi-often, but more attractive to the Fighter with his larger selection of feats. Instead, while the Weapon Focus/Specialization chain is a nice perk for Fighters, it's usually turned into their only perk, and it pales in comparison with just about any class feature anyone else has, or for that matter pretty much any buff a spellcaster could throw on you. So while an ideal DM could make the fighter stand out by letting his ability to shine in multiple combat situations be noted, including many sub-par conditions, instead fighters seem to be typed as pure bashers/archers which leads to quickly tapping out their feat options.

So to get at several ends of the arguement, the Fighter shouldn't be expanded outside of his role (read: military scouts should have levels of Rogue, sensory/stealth skills need not go to pure fighters), it seems that their only real advantage is one that's neatly overlooked in most campaigns. Still, it's less an issue of pure feat-to-feat loss (not all feats are created equal, as anyone with Toughness will tell you), but rather a lack of good high-end feats to chose from. Give them a little more skill wiggle room and some better feats, and I'd like to see power comparisons then.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Blind Fight doesn't have anything to do with swinging a greatsword better; all it does is improve your ability to fight in the dark. Doesn't matter if you're using a greatsword or a dagger. Expertise, Dodge, and Mobility don't really apply at all. Spring Attack, again, doesn't mean you're swinging the greatsword better, it just means you're good at leaping to the attack. Endurance and Diehard have nothing to do with weapons at all, Combat Reflexes and Improved Sunder also don't improve your ability to swing a greatsword. I will give you Whirlwind, GWF, and GWS, but even with those extras, you can still aquire all the feats by 10th-12th level or so.

I'd agree, if the concept wasn't being the best at wielding a greatsword. True, blindfight, expertise, combat reflexes, Die Hard, and some of the others don't directly affect how well the character wields the greatsword. However, there's more to being the best at wielding a greatsword if some of the training doesn't bleed into other combat skills?
Let's have a look at the feats I chose and why I chose them, shall we?
Blind-fight: Unless you're playing with a very kind GM, you're going to be fighting in the dark, or against invisible opponents. If you can't handle these situations with your greatsword, how can you be the best at wielding it? The fact it affects other weapons is just part of the equation.
Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, and Spring Attack: I admit I didn't list these because they help you wield a greatsword, but because they let you get Whirlwind.
Endurance I took so I could get Diehard.
Die Hard: Like blind fight, this isn't explained by it makes your swings better, but it keeps you swinging longer. Unless you're not going to be swinging the sword in combat (and, really, if you're not, how can you prove that you're the best?), then this will help you be the best.
Combat Reflexes: Being the best doesn't just mean hitting the hardest: it also means hitting the most. This basically gives you up to your Dex mod in extra attacks. The fact that they're AoO weakens this a bit, but not by much.
Improved Sunder: If you're a smart fighter, you won't always be going for just your opponent. Often, it'll be better to take out your opponent's weapon(s) and force them to go hand-2-hand with you (letting you use those nice AoOs that you got from Combat Reflexes).

Again, this isn't saying that the fighter is just fine, I'm just saying that with most simple concepts, you can use almost all of the feats. Some concepts don't use all the feats this effectively (take the AC God concept - only so many feats that up your AC). Take it as you will.
Magius out.