A Fighters skill points....

[The_DarkAngel]

Thats a very good way and easy way to judge things FranktheTroll, gj dood.

Anyhow, I think some of us are also ignoring this one fact:the fighter is suppossed to be the most diversified class (saids so in DM giude and PH! (peeps love to ingnore this fact). Like I have already said 3-4 times, the Fighter can also be a archer, a cavalier, a swashbuckler, ect, ect. No were does it say that the class is suppossed to be played by stupid idiot characters with heavy armor who only hack and slash. That is what Orcs are for. Doh!

The boys a WOTC have said (especially Montecook), that not everything is balanced and to use use your best judgement. Infact its Montecook who has said a great deal of unbalancing is found with prestige classes as an example. Apperently even Dragon magazine has done some Fighter class tweaking.

Furthermore, no one can dispute that if peeps in thier campaign are avoiding the fighter class or only using it to multi-class, theres something wrong with the class.

So if we all take a min to think "outside of the box" and do some comparisons as FranktheTroll did, you can see hence forth the Fighter is lightly unbalanced. I also find the sorcerer lightly lacking too but Ill save that one for another day.

DA

P.S. I think that it was Psiblade who said Dragon magazine made an alternate Fighter, can anyone send me that info, or the info on this complete Fighter thing? Thx ahead of time!

 

[takyris]

If nobody is playing a fighter in your campaign, then:

a) everybody is happy with the pre-built character options presented by other classes (the abilities given to monks, or to rangers, or to barbarians), and therefore the customizability of the fighter class is not necessary

b) nobody has the ability to pick their fighter feats successfully

c) the campaign has a lighter focus on combat, and therefore people are quite naturally gravitating to classes that offer more out-of-combat abilities

Complaining in situation (a) is silly -- the fighter is designed to be a strong combatant in either specific or general situations, and can function quite well there. As the DM, you may not be giving them enough different types of combat and showing how a versatile combatant would really help.

Complaining in situation (b) is silly -- I can make the fighter work very well based on the feats I pick, for what I want him to do, and your inability to do so should not necessitate a power bump. If you want to play the easiest class possible, play a barbarian. The fighter can be very easy once you get going, but he requires a large amount of character-building work in order to get what you want.

Complaining in situation (c) is silly -- that's like saying, "Rogues are totally broken and useless! I'm playing in a campaign where all we do all session long is fight mindless undead in melee combat, and my character can hardly do anything! The rogue needs a better BAB!"

 

[Norfleet]

Anyone who complains that rogues are useless merely because all the opponents are unsneakattackable doesn't understand rogues at all.

If you're not able to contribute in the combat...DON'T! You're a rogue, known in previous editions as the "thief". Shouldn't you be helping yourself to the loot while everyone else is fighting?

Fighters, on the other hand, when not in a combat, should focus on annoying the party's wizard by prattling on and on about swords, swordlike objects, and fighting. People who aren't successfully annoying the rest of the group by talking about the above when not in a fight aren't understanding fighters.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Furthermore, no one can dispute that if peeps in thier campaign are avoiding the fighter class or only using it to multi-class, theres something wrong with the class.

And by the same logic, no one can dispute that if peeps in their campaign are taking nothing but the fighter class, there's nothing wrong with the class.

Well gosh darn it, that's me! So I guess there's nothing wrong with the class.

Seriously, Dark Angel, the fact that one DM's group avoids or embraces a class is proof of absolutely nothing.

Lord Pendragon: that's stupid.

If a character doesn't have a Combat Schtick and a Noncombat Schtick, that character is broken, and no fun to play.

No, stupid is your logic. You expect the fighter to perform as well as a rogue or bard outside of combat, and it shouldn't.

The fighter already does perform outside of combat. He gets 2 skill points per level, and he can make every untrained skill check just like any other class. The fact the he won't do as well is perfectly balanced by the fact that the rogue, bard, and wizard won't be doing as well as the fighter in melee combat.

I have a pure fighter in my 6th-level role-play-heavy campaign who has no trouble contributing outside of combat. He comes up with plans. He interacts with NPCs, he gets along just fine. And when combat does come up, he's a monster.

If the fighter wants to be better at skills, he can use some of his 11 bonus feats (it's true that 7 of the 18 total feats he gains are not part of the class) to gain skill point equilvalents (+3 to a skill is the equivalent is +6 skill points in a cross-class skill. Not bad at all. +2/+2 is the equivalent of +8.)

Not only that, but even if, after spending a few feats, he still feels weak, he can always choose to do the same thing every other class does when faced with a weakness in the character: buy some magic. A +10 to Diplomacy ring will make even the 10 Int fighter glib-tongued. A +10 to Bluff will make even the most simple-minded fighter a decent liar. And a Headband of Intellect +4 will give him 4 skill points per level within the core rules already, at the affordable cost of 16,000gp.

Edit: grammar

 

[cptg1481]

AEG's Mercenary

Where are these feats from?
Are they in the class books?
Are they homebrew?

If they are not core, this is what I meant. You can make the fighter class interesting up to level 20 single classing, if you add some interesting high end combat feats. Actually, more meneuvers would be nice, also, and/or continuing feat chains, as it is done partly in the class books.

I have the Mercenary book by AEG and all of these feats are in it. I usually allow all AEG's stuff its pretty ballanced IMO.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Adding good feats to possible feat choices in no way balances the Fighter.

The Fighter gains 11 feats over the course of the Class.

All +1 BAB/Level classes give at least one feat (or feat equivalent) for the first two levels.

The Prestige Class Creation Guidelines include providing a Bonus Feat (or equivalent) or more at each level from 1st through 3rd.

There is no limit to the number of Combat Classes and Prestige Classes you can have.

You can take 20 levels of Combat Classes and Prestige Classes without taking more than 2 levels of any class. With no more than 2 levels in any class you take no XP penalty regardless of what your favored class is, and regardless of whether you use the stupid 3.r typo that PrCs can cause XP penalties.

Without stretching yourself, you can get at least 20 Bonus Feats by 20th level.

So the "Fighter" class is, in fact, NINE FEATS IN THE HOLE at 20th level.

And the Fighter is also supposed to get worse skills to pay for having only slightly more than half the minimum bonus outlay of a multiclassed character with the same BAB and combat role?

How does that work?

The Fighter is nine levels worth of class features short of the minimums the official guidelines allow a multiclassed character of his level to have. And they have the worst skills.

They get kicked in the teeth, and then they get kicked in the teeth again.

You want to talk about how this can all be solved "with multiclassing"? Sure it can. Once you introduce multiclassing, there's no reason for the Fighter class to exist past level 2.

If you don't think that's a problem - I don't believe you can be reasoned with.

Fighters are not the best at Fighting. A 20th level multiclassed fighting character has, according to the guidelines, nine more levels worth of "fighting" abilities, and is therefore definitionally superior.

-Frank

 

[Crothian]

WEll, taking that many different classes is more like abusing the system. Plus, prestige classes are better then the core classes, no one is argueing that. The fighter is the best class for fighting among the core classes.

The fighter is not behind in feats. Sure, prestige classes gain abilities that may be the equal to a feat, but rarely are they selected. The abilites are predesigned were a feat I can choose from a list of hundreds.

 

[FrankTrollman]

WEll, taking that many different classes is more like abusing the system

No. It's using the system. That's what the rules mean when they say that you can choose a different class every level.

They mean... you can multiclass every level.

Every single level you choose which class to take a level in, and those choices are supposed to be balanced.

I can make an argument for massively multiclassing being balanced against taking 20 levels of Rogue or Wizard or Cleric. The fact that I cannot do the same for Fighter should tell you something.

The fighter is not behind in feats. Sure, prestige classes gain abilities that may be the equal to a feat, but rarely are they selected. The abilites are predesigned were a feat I can choose from a list of hundreds.

Thousands. It's a list of thousands of feats now.

But you select Prestige Classes from a list of thousands too.

Unless you are prepared to tell me that the list of abilities available from feats are better than the list of abilities available from the first level of prestige classes (which I'll remind you: include "Bonus Feat of your choice"), then selecting a new PrC every level is automatically at least as good as taking a level of Fighter that happens to give a bonus feat.

And half the Fighter levels don't even do that. And every level could be the first level of a Full BAB PrC.

Therefore the Fighter class is definitionally underpowered.

Do the math.

-Frank

 

[Crothian]

How many prestige classes give bonus feats at first level? And howe can you not say that taking a different class ever level is not better then any core class? I can create a wizard that has 20th level spell ability, but way more special abilities, better saves, better hit points. I can do the same for Cleric minus the hit points. I actually might be able to get the hit points better if I really tried. I can do this for rogue and actually create a character with sneak attack the puts a 20th level rogues to shame.

Prestige classes are better then core classes. Min maxing them to "use" the sytem will only make that worse. Using third party products that may be balanced with the core rules but not to each other will make this worse.

I can see your points in theory, but I don't see them in practice. I'd like to see your example character that is 20th level with no more then a single level in any class.

 

[Steverooo]

Fighters (and anyone else) don't need Knowledge (Siegecraft/Warfare). Indeed, those skills don't even need to be introduced to the game, exacerbating the skill points problem!

Warfare is already covered by Knowledge (History), and fortifications by Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering). Unfortunately, Fighters don't get either of those, nor Profession (Bodyguard) nor (Siege Artillialist).

IMHO, Crafts, Perform, and Professions need a different system, and then they need to be sorted through by class... The Fighter class isn't especially conducive to Craft (Glassblower) - things tend to get broken. It is conducive to Profession (Bodyguard). The Wizard class is the opposite. The Ranger class isn't particularly conducive to Profession (Brewer) - it requires staying in one place too long - but is more conducive to Profession (Sailor).

I don't see too many adventurers, outside of Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers, taking Craft (Basketweaving), and not many of those. Craft (Blacksmithing) would be common to more classes.

Then there's the whole Racial Skills thing...

What I think needs doing is a whole new, additional system, or a total revamp of the skills system. YMMV.

I favor more skill points, and a choice of class abilities (or Feats) available only to that class, at EVERY level, along with a list of Crafts, Knowledge, Perform styles, and Professions available to each class, which uses a separate system. Again, YMMV.