A Fighters skill points....

[Bauglir]

Important NPCs are not automatons manipulated entirely by random numbers. You forget the fact that, in any situation, people are predisposed to believe certain things and favor certain patterns of behavior: Trying to convince somebody of something he already believes to be true is very, very trivial, and when somebody is telling you something that you already suspect is true, while somebody else is telling you something which contradicts that, you're already innately predisposed to believe the former, even if he did. All this can matter far more than how skilled a negotiator or debater either party is. Skills CAN be made entirely irrelevant under the right circumstances: When modifiers became stacked so high that the task has become impossible, a failure can be ruled on any attempt without even rolling: If even a 20 cannot grant you success, there's no reason to roll it at all, and the situation described definitely warranted heavy modifiers: Predisposition, reliable confirming witnesses with credible evidence, the works.

Furthermore, while the diplomat DOES have many routes to go down, none of the matters if he DOES NOT USE THEM. Perhaps he could have explored those options: On the other hand, perhaps he didn't feel it was worth the risk of being labelled as a snake, and chose not to push the matter too hard. As you said yourself, a hard, but not impossible bluff: Let us not forget that a failed bluff has highly negative consequences to one's credibility. Even if success was possible, it's quite possible that success in the short run would be detrimental to the diplomat's career in the long run, and a failed attempt disastrous.

The modifiers are right there in the rules. If the king wants to believe the soldier he takes a -5 on his sense motive vs the soldier. Believing either story involves significant risk, so there's a +10 on both rolls. The diplomat needs beat the warrior by only +5. Add in say another +5 if the warrior has a reputation for truthfulness. The diplomat needs beat the warrior by only +10 to convince the king. A +10 bluff skill can be achieved right away at level 1, more reasonably from level 2 onwards. Further, the King would not see through the bluff unless his sense motive exceeded the diplomat's unmodified bluff check, rather he would simply choose not to go along with it. If you want to handle things differently then go right ahead, but this is how it's handled in D&D.

You, sir, are clearly thinking in very hide-bound, one-track ways. A combatant is NOT necessarily a slave to his attack bonus: Attack bonus only matters if you, personally, are directly attacking an opponent: Plenty of tactics can be executed without this: For instance, the lobbing of grenade-like weapons makes your attack bonus far less important: To simply strike him at all requires merely a ranged touch, and even failing that, you'll still nail him in the splash radius. What effects occur depend on the specifics of what you're throwing. Other tactics are completely unrelated to attack bonus at all: Dropping the ceiling on your opponent is highly effective, can be done at even low levels in the right conditions, and being smashed under many tons of rock hurts. A lot. A mage with a nonmagical dagger cannot bypass a dragon's DR merely by thinking of how to stab it, but there's no reason why the mage has to do this: Plenty of other options may exist that you might not even have considered, due to your preference for thinking in the box. Combat is a complex affair which is more than simply combatants trading blows until one or the other is dead.

D&D is a complex game where, as in life, the larger numbers don't necessarily always win.

I'm interested to hear how you drop the ceiling on your opponent, presumably without being able to setup the combat arena, since you can't really assume that luxury.. (man that sounds way more sarcastic than I meant it - I really am interested )
Grenadelike weapons - certainly an option at the lowest levels, when all but the most hardcore bluffer won't outstrip the unskilled fighter by all that much, and fighter BAB is only 1 point ahead of other classes. But the 1 point of splash damage these weapons do won't really cut it for long..

D&D is all about the numbers. The numbers quantify what a character can and cannot do, and how well they can do it. If this is not true then why do we even bother with character sheets at all?

 

[Ketjak]

Going back to the beginning...

The Fighter's Skill Points are a slap in the face.

The Fighter's Skill List is a slap in the face too.

This is an opinion. Frank has demonstrated he will not change his opinion, even when confronted with fact and the support for his argument is removed. Enjoy your opinions, Frank.

First of all, you notice how there are about a million semi-official "Fighter Variants" who all have slightly different skill lists? They are duelists, corsaires, and all kinds of crazy crap. And they all have different skill lists, and none of them are unbalanced.

These aren't printed on a cocktail napkin - these are suggested in Sword and Fist and Dragon Magazine. If you use all of them, a Fighter could potentially spend their skills on pretty much anything they want.

Want Tumble and Diplomacy? Be a Duelist. Want Knowledge Arcana and Listen? Be a Warrior Monk. Etc.

And this is balanced. And it isn't any different from Fighters just having a whole lot of skills on their skill list.

Though Frank has never addressed his misunderstanding of these "rules," his citation of these classes proves the point that Fighters are as versatile as the rest of us claim them to be.

Therefore, since we notice that as soon as you get high enough level for your class to be more important than your starting attributes, Fighters are underpowered - that it is probably a good idea to simply give them a lot of extra skills on their class list.

Again, I have demonstrated that a Fighter is better at combat than a Ranger at equivalent levels (except 11th and against specialized foes). Frank claims this is not true. OK!

I have not demonstrated that a Fighter is better at combat than a Barbarian. However, feat choices make the Fighter more versatile than the Barbarian, and of course the damage bonuses gained by rage don't last as long as the Fighter's bonuses. Because he's winded afterward for most of his career the Barbarian has to use rage only when it's important, whereas the Fighter can have a blast swinging/thrusting/shooting without penalties. And he's doing it on the ground and mounted or at range or tripping or power attacking or...



Sounds balanced. Please keep in mind I haven't performed a mathematical analysis.

Remember: it's not any different to have a single class of "Fighter" that has access to all the class skills that a Desert Raider, a Pirate, a Duelist, a Bushi, and a Knight would want than to have a seperate class skill kit for each archetype. Except of course, that it's a lot easier to keep track of if there's only one big list than it is if everyone is trying to cherry pick from 12 small lists.

I just realized Frank says here that the Fighter should have a class skill list large enough to allow for all of those different character concepts. That's a remarkable ignorance of class balance and what makes classes distinct from one another.

Speaking of jacking the woefully underprepared Fighter up to a level of normalcy - can anyone think of a really good reason why Fighters would only have 2 skill points?

Yes; the example is either a humanoid with an INT of 12 or a Human with an INT of 8 or 9.

It's not just for stupid brutes, it's also for Generals, Cattle Raiders, Knights, and Zulu Shieldsmen. In order to make a lot of those archetypes work, you really are going to need 4 skills or more. Now, to an extent you can match that by getting an Int bonus - but if you start at 6 you can make your stupid brute character with an Int penalty.

A "stupid brute" with lots of skills? Heh heh heh heh.

Also, it has been shown that with a decent INT bonus, intelligent skill selection, and non-bonus feat choices, the Fighter can be all of those things. In fact, the very citation Frank uses illustrates that point exactly.

I shouldn't need to be more than averagly intelligent to play Pirate. In fact, I should be able to be a "stupid pirate" - and still have:

Profession Sailor
Spot
Swim
Climb

That's just the guy who hangs out on the crow's nest and shouts a lot. This should be doable as a human with an intelligence of 8.

Most sailors back in the day could not swim. Aside from that irrelevant historical fact, it is possible to do all those things well enough to survive aboardship. One does not have to max out a skill for it to be useful, and all of those skills can be used untrained, except Profession ().

And if the base skill points are 4 instead of 2 we can do that. Otherwise we can't.

Incorrect, as demonstrated and as Frank cited.

Now above and beyond that, we still need some bonuses to make Fighter an attractive option past level 2, but that's a whole different problem that can't be solved with skill points at all.

-Frank

The relative attractiveness of Fighters above level 2 is opinion-based. As demonstrated, Frank's opinions will not change. Frank's participation in the argument using all of these points is silly; Frank is not using facts to support any argument that the Fighter is either underpowered in combat or is unbalanced in skills except by showing us multiclass builds or prestige class builds. No single class's relative balance or power or combat can be compared against a multiclass build; that's silly. It's like using the name "Fighter" to describe a multiclass character.

Let someone else willing to present facts and data argue this.

I respectfully disagree. I always considered two +2 weapons better than one +3 weapon, considering that I was spending approximately the same amount of money. With 3.5's changes to DR, this is even more true. I can understand if you personally want to be armed with one +4 weapon and nothing else, but please don't assume that your strategy is the only viable one.

A +4 weapon is, mathematically speaking, better than two +3 weapons. You will do more damage and hit more often with the +4 weapon.

My illustration of the point was based on your reply. I inferred from your post (my error) that you had performed a similar mathematical analysis. As posted, your point is incorrect. As you further clarified, your point is only partially correct.

In this particular case, two characters with an 18 STR and one attack, BAB identical, automatically hitting a target:

two +3 short swords - 23.1 damage per round
one +4 greatsword - 22.7 damage per round

The 2-handed combatant's damage starts outstripping the two-weapon warrior when that all-important second attack comes into play. The TWF needs to spend another feat to keep the damage curve the same, while the 2-handed warrior is happy with his Power Attack (which only gets better against foes that he can hit automatically).

LYS, you need to be more clear when you make points. I'll be happy to work with whatever information you present. If you complain about the taste of oranges by saying it's different from apples, though, you're doing no better than Frank.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Again, I have demonstrated that a Fighter is better at combat than a Ranger at equivalent levels (except 11th and against specialized foes). Frank claims this is not true. OK!

No. You really did nothing of the sort. You just wrote up two incomplete characters with different fighting styles and equipment and announced that the Fighter was "better" without even spending all of the ranger's advantages. What, if anything, that was supposed to prove, is completely beyond me.

Sounds balanced. Please keep in mind I haven't performed a mathematical analysis.

And I have. So when you hand wave and say that it "sounds balanced" you don't really have anything to stand on.

I've made low-level Ranger Builds that outperform the Fighter in all ways. I've made low-level Barbarian builds that outperform the Fighter in all ways. I've produced high level multiclassed characters which outperform the Fighter in all ways.

What more do you want? Blood?

All ways means everything. More feats, higher to-hit and damage bonuses, better saving throws, higher AC, more in-combat abilities and better utility outside of combat. Everything. And you still claim that your purposeful disregarding of several Ranger perks and deliberate underspending on equipment somehow make the characters "equal". It's like talking to a wall.

Of course, the worst part is that you are sort-of right. While the Fighter is underpowered compared to other Warrior classes (and even more so when compared to Rogues and Spellcasters) - in an actual game it may in fact be balanced. Treasure dispersal is the sole propriety of the DM. If the DM gives out the Axe of the Dwarven Lords, the Dwarven Fighter in the party will be incredibly powerful. In fact, the player in question could be a Warrior or other NPC class - and still be powerful.

Something has to be done to make the Fighter better in order to make it balanced - but it doesn't have to be done in the rules, it can be done seperately for each campaign. Thus, while your illustration of how an underequipped Ranger is outperformed in some ways by a superiorly outfitted Fighter was doubtless an attempt at the worst form of debating malarcky - it actually has some merit. The DM can simply equip the Fighter character with better stuff than the rest of the party and the party will be balanced.

That they have to do so is, I think, a flaw in the system. Of course, if you want all of your campaigns to be a Frodo-esque Artifact Hunt - then game balance virtually requires one of the characters to be underpowered so that they can hold the Artifact without upsetting the rest of the game. Still, if that's your argument - and I don't see what else it could be - then you should at least back off and admit that for those of us who want to disperse roughly equivalent swag to all of our player characters - the Fighter needs a boost.

-Frank

 

[FrankTrollman]

In this particular case, two characters with an 18 STR and one attack, BAB identical, automatically hitting a target:

two +3 short swords - 23.1 damage per round
one +4 greatsword - 22.7 damage per round

It's this kind of analysis that keeps us from respecting you.

One of the drawbacks of TWF is its lower chance of hitting. You get -2. If you disregard that fact you are going to scew the results.

For example, if your attack bonus is such that you hit on a 2+ with the greatsword, your average damage will be 21.565 per round. However, the short swords will only hit on a 4+, and the average damage per round will be 19.635. And that's a best case scenario. In the worst case scenario - where the -2 to-hit is proportionally larger - the Greatsworder will hit on a 18+ and be doing only 3.405 damage. The Shortsworder, will only be hitting on a natural 20 - and be doing 1.155 damage per round. And that's still glazing over the fact that the Greatsword does massively better on charges, surprise rounds, is more resistant to and better at disarming and sundering, and is more than twice as effective with attacks of opportunity.

So when you hand out mathematical analysis like that - where you flash some numbers on the screen which are purposefully deceptive - we can't take you seriously. If you can't do statistics with the big boys - don't get involved in a multipage statistical argument. While you've mastered the "condescension" portion of the argument style - your bluff disregard of easily provable mathematical facts is tiresome.

-Frank

 

[green slime]

Frank, you have yet to show that your arguments are relevant for those playing 3.5 rules, without tacking on extraneous and extravagant rules from various splatbooks. Splatbooks which are and always have been prone to power uppage, and DM-nerfing, and less likely to be accepted.

Build a better fighter than the fighter class, using prevalent 3.5 rules. Without introducing books that gave us the mecurial sword, and armour of speed, and similar brainfarts.

IMO, a campaign can only benefit from more focus, where the DM limits the number of options available, whether it be humanoid races, weapons, or prestige classes. It provides for a more flavourful game, rather than a potpurri of all in existance.

Looking at the present 3.5 ruleset, there are only 4 (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) classes with full BAB progression, one NPC class (which by its very listing amongst NPC-classes, is not proposed as a PC class...), and 6 prestige classes (arcane archer, blackguard, duelist, dwarven defender, eldritch knight, and horizon walker). The Dragon Disciple should be included in the above due to its enormous Strength gain.

Sure the plain fighter may come across as somewhat bland, but somehow, I never seem to find a PrC which enables me to create the Warrior I want to play... That arcane archer may be a better shot with the bow, and the duelist... well, that just aint my style.

Now I'm sure the Complete Warriors Splatbook for Munchkins will provide more PrC when arrives, some of which will be what I consider too powerful. If you are going to accept all and any PrC with no reservation in your game, you are going to have problems of the kind you describe, and not just with the fighter class. The same applies to the Wizard and Cleric classes. There are Cleric PrC's which provide full spellcasting, full BAB, and two good saves (IIRC). Relying on the people who produce stuff to sell, to provide you with the balance and equality between party members within your particular campaign is expecting the impossible.

 

[Ketjak]

No. You really did nothing of the sort. You just wrote up two incomplete characters with different fighting styles and equipment and announced that the Fighter was "better" without even spending all of the ranger's advantages. What, if anything, that was supposed to prove, is completely beyond me.

Incorrect. I did not include equipment; in fact, if I mentioned equipment at all it was to reference feats, but never anything specific - because it doesn't matter. With the same value of equipment, the Fighter class is superior to the Ranger class in combat. It's all about the class, not the equipment.

And I have. So when you hand wave and say that it "sounds balanced" you don't really have anything to stand on.

Excellent. Post your mathematical analysis of the Barbarian class vs. the Fighter class. I haven't been shy about my math... why should you?

I've made low-level Ranger Builds that outperform the Fighter in all ways. I've made low-level Barbarian builds that outperform the Fighter in all ways. I've produced high level multiclassed characters which outperform the Fighter in all ways.

There's that funny word again... "build." I'm not interested in builds. I'm interested in classes. Your initial statement is that the Fighter class is underpowered compared to others, including the Ranger class. Anyone can build multiclass characters that have advantages over a single class. Yay for you, Frank.

I have demonstrated how the Fighter beats the Ranger in combat - without specifying equipment builds, because each should have the same value in equipment at each level - out to 12th level. If you cannot manage beyond that, I can list exact feat choices at exact levels showing how a Fighter emulating the Ranger's combat style beats the Ranger at every step of character growth. Do you really need that level of detail, or are you just trolling?

All ways means everything. More feats, higher to-hit and damage bonuses, better saving throws, higher AC, more in-combat abilities and better utility outside of combat. Everything. And you still claim that your purposeful disregarding of several Ranger perks and deliberate underspending on equipment somehow make the characters "equal". It's like talking to a wall.

Show me where I shorted the Ranger on equipment.

Of course, the worst part is that you are sort-of right. While the Fighter is underpowered compared to other Warrior classes (and even more so when compared to Rogues and Spellcasters) - in an actual game it may in fact be balanced. Treasure dispersal is the sole propriety of the DM. If the DM gives out the Axe of the Dwarven Lords, the Dwarven Fighter in the party will be incredibly powerful. In fact, the player in question could be a Warrior or other NPC class - and still be powerful.

Just because you perceived a weakness in one of your group's characters and compensated for it with an artifact does not mean every DM does, or needs to. That's silly, because it directly contradicts several board members' experiences as posted here. You'd think a universal weakness like you claim the Fighter class has would be noticed - and yet, of all the changes from 3.0 to 3.5, the Fighter class changed the least... why is that, Frank? Did no one see this so-called "inherent weakness" in the class before? Did no one complain? Or is it that the vast majority of players and DMs find the Fighter class to be a valuable part of the adventuring group?

Something has to be done to make the Fighter better in order to make it balanced - but it doesn't have to be done in the rules, it can be done seperately for each campaign.

So now the Fighter class isn't imbalanced according to the rules?

Thus, while your illustration of how an underequipped Ranger is outperformed in some ways by a superiorly outfitted Fighter was doubtless an attempt at the worst form of debating malarcky - it actually has some merit. The DM can simply equip the Fighter character with better stuff than the rest of the party and the party will be balanced.

Again with the "underequipped" straw man. Show it.

That they have to do so is, I think, a flaw in the system.

"They" do not. You gave your Fighter an artifact. Other DMs do not. Most of them do not.

Of course, if you want all of your campaigns to be a Frodo-esque Artifact Hunt - then game balance virtually requires one of the characters to be underpowered so that they can hold the Artifact without upsetting the rest of the game. Still, if that's your argument - and I don't see what else it could be - then you should at least back off and admit that for those of us who want to disperse roughly equivalent swag to all of our player characters - the Fighter needs a boost.

-Frank

The Fighter needs no boost. When are you going to acknowledge that you misread Sword & Fist and that your "variant" Fighter classes are actually the Fighters we've been saying can be built using the core Fighter class with no variations? I pointed that out at least three of your posts ago, as did Crothian, and you've replied to my posts containing that information. I've been illustrating my points; you've been ducking and shifting when yours are eliminated. That behavior was expected, though.

 

[Darklone]

FrankyTrog, go ahead and build us some Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins at level 1, 5, 10 and 15 with normal money. We'll build fighters of the same levels and you can proudly demonstrate us how much your Whateverbuilds are worth.

Edit: and please... you said they will be better at the fighters schtick than the fighter... so don't bore us with high hide and move silently or bluff skills as long as you don't need them for battle.

 

[Norfleet]

I'm interested to hear how you drop the ceiling on your opponent, presumably without being able to setup the combat arena, since you can't really assume that luxury.. (man that sounds way more sarcastic than I meant it - I really am interested )
Grenadelike weapons - certainly an option at the lowest levels, when all but the most hardcore bluffer won't outstrip the unskilled fighter by all that much, and fighter BAB is only 1 point ahead of other classes. But the 1 point of splash damage these weapons do won't really cut it for long..

D&D is all about the numbers. The numbers quantify what a character can and cannot do, and how well they can do it. If this is not true then why do we even bother with character sheets at all?

Don't have to be able to setup the arena: That was simply an example of one thing that you COULD do, given a specific arena: Different arenas grant you different arena-based tactics. And while the listed grenade-like weapons do relatively poor damage, there are ways one can improvise more effective devices which may not be listed by name due to their inherently situational and improvised nature.

Ceilings can be dropped on opponents generally through the method of demolishing load-bearing structures which are responsible for the ceiling remaining as the ceiling. In more extreme cases, ceilings can be artificially created through magic. Knowledge skills like Architecture and Engineering, and Professions like Siege Engineer, Miner, and Lumberjack can provide characters with great opportunities to drop large pieces of the terrain on opponents.

On-topicwise, the fighter happens to be totally and utterly screwed in this department, getting neither Knowledge of the above, nor Profession of anything as class skills (despite the fact that options like these are very fightery: As a field veteran, I quickly picked up on the potential for this sort of knowledge myself), and their dire shortage of skillpoints without an astronomical Int more or less prevents any kind of sane cross-classing.

The numbers do NOT quantity all of what a character can and cannot do: The numbers merely quantity how well characters can do when their skills are applied in a direct manner which is covered by the standard rules. There is, however, nothing in the rules itself which state that characters must operate in only this manner, and that non-conventional manuevers cannot be attempted: This is a PnP RPG, not a video game. The limits of what you can attempt are limited only by your imagination. If the player swings his sword an orc, his BAB is a factor. If the player starts a landslide which buries the orcs under a few thousand tons of rubble, his BAB is not a factor: Of course, there are no specific rules for starting landslides, but to argue that, as a result, characters cannot start a landslide is absurd.

Think different: It'll either delight, or annoy the hell out of, your DM. As a DM, different thinking enables one to make a handful of kobolds deadly challenges for even midlevel parties. As a player, different thinking will likely provoke screams of anguish as you demolish what was supposed to be a challenging obstacle offhandedly, or be expected, particularly if your DM is like me: Characters who think in hide-bound, rigid ways quickly go the way of the dodo.

 

[Bauglir]

Of course, there are no specific rules for starting landslides, but to argue that, as a result, characters cannot start a landslide is absurd.

I strongly agree. I feel strongly that anything should be possible, at least in theory. On the other hand, without some applicable skill (Knowledge: Geography maybe, or perhaps Profession: Demolition) the character is going to have to just try something and see if it works. In any case I would apply a dice roll and the character's abilities would come into play (chance of success would of course be higher with a sounder plan). Off the top of my head if they were to start throwing rocks I might come up with an arbitrary AC to hit the right spot to start the avalanche. To me it seems just as absurd to automatically succeed at anything non-trivial as it is to automatically fail

 

[FrankTrollman]

Frank, you have yet to show that your arguments are relevant for those playing 3.5 rules,

I've been using the 3.5 Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian in these examples - and using all of the 3.5 updates to previous books, where available. As of this time, Sword and Fist is still "official" and will continue to be the 3.5 source for everything in it which has not been reprinted.

That means that as of this time the Duelist has been nerfed to complete uselessness - but the Knight Protector and OotBI are still good to go in a 3.5 environment.

That's relevent to a 3.5 discussion, because it uses the 3.5 rules exclusively.

FrankyTrog, go ahead and build us some Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins at level 1, 5, 10 and 15 with normal money. We'll build fighters of the same levels and you can proudly demonstrate us how much your Whateverbuilds are worth.

I've got an even better idea: I've already posted some builds. Hows about you put forward your builds without equipment, then we can compare two characters fulfilling the same roll in a party with the same equipment.

Comparing characters with different equipment, especially at high level, is more a test of min/maxxing the equipment than the character. It is obviously fruitless to compare characters with different equipment. So here's the plan:

You put forth some characters with just class features, stats, hit points, saves, and skills. Then I'll do exactly the same - possibly cribbing off of one of the builds I already posted, and possibly making a new one if you decide to "mix it up" by taking a character into a radically different direction than the ones I've already posted. I can get more with a character with no more than 2 levels of Fighter than you can with a "fighter".

Guaranteed.

There's that funny word again... "build." I'm not interested in builds. I'm interested in classes.

That's inane. A single classed character is a "build". It's a build that looks like this:

Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter
Fighter

And that's a build. The fact that it is an inferior build is exactly the problem that I am addressing. That levels should be inherently equivalent is a design goal which is mandated by the concept of open multiclassing. So if a single classed character is getting less at higher character levels than a multiclassed character is getting - that's a flaw in the system. It means that either you get too much for the low levels of classes or too little for the late levels. So if you admit that a multiclassed character is "better" than a single classed one - you've already admitted that the power imbalance I am complaining of is a reality.

Anyone can build multiclass characters that have advantages over a single class.

And look... you just admitted that. Which means I'm right and we can all go home.

-Frank