A Fighters skill points....

[The_DarkAngel]

....is it just me or does anyone agree that fighters get shafted when it comes to skill points? To me the Fighter is suppossed to be one of the most diversified classes. Other than feats what else does he get thats so overwelming?

Speaking of feats I think this class also needs a feat at 11th level to make it more appealing at higher levels but, back to the main point. I think Fighters should retain the skills that they get but get atleast 4 skill points. Looking at the other classes and breaking them down, I think the fighter class is one of the weaker classes, especially at high levels.

DA

 

[Crothian]

Fighters are fine for skill points, they do get more then enough feats so they can afford to spend some on Alertness and those type of feats. I think fighters are fine at all levels of play.

 

[Zaruthustran]

....is it just me or does anyone agree that fighters get shafted when it comes to skill points? To me the Fighter is suppossed to be one of the most diversified classes. Other than feats what else does he get thats so overwelming?

Speaking of feats I think this class also needs a feat at 11th level to make it more appealing at higher levels but, back to the main point. I think Fighters should retain the skills that they get but get atleast 4 skill points. Looking at the other classes and breaking them down, I think the fighter class is one of the weaker classes, especially at high levels.

DA

I'll agree with the weaker class at high level assessment. But 2 sp/level is fine for them. Fighters get few skill points precisely so that they need to depend on skilled companions. D&D--a party-based game--has many such features and even mechanics that are designed to make it a good idea to form a party.

-z

 

[marshaldwm]

Speaking of feats I think this class also needs a feat at 11th level to make it more appealing at higher levels but, back to the main point. I think Fighters should retain the skills that they get but get atleast 4 skill points. Looking at the other classes and breaking them down, I think the fighter class is one of the weaker classes, especially at high levels.

DA

Well, the fighter would not look so bad, if it were not for all the insane prestige classes out there, of which there are a lot. But I agree a straight fighter of more than 8th level or so is a waste, you can do much better with multiclassing or finding a prestige class.

I would like to see fighters get some kind of special abilities like rogues, at 10th, 13th etc, but more martial. Those would make it far more interesting.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think there are some interrelated issues.

2 skill points per level for fighters is fine when we are talking core PHB classes. But a lot of PrCs have 4 and/or a better skill list. That cuts against PrCs being functionally "more focused" than the core classes.

I think it would be better to have 4 skill points per level be the minimum for PHB classes. That gives wiggle room to design PrCs classes that are not inherently more skillful and flexible than the fighter.

 

[FrankTrollman]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

 

[reapersaurus]

I'll agree with the weaker class at high level assessment. But 2 sp/level is fine for them. Fighters get few skill points precisely so that they need to depend on skilled companions. D&D--a party-based game--has many such features and even mechanics that are designed to make it a good idea to form a party.

I don't agree with that argument.

And ALL classes should get 2 more skill points per level, as many people have made that change.

 

[Crothian]

A pirate wouldn't be a fighter. But even if it is you can easily start out with 3 skill ranks in each of those four skills, and with a slightly above average Int or even playing a human one gets even more skill points. I think many people try to make the fighter into something it isn't. Also, most first level characters are not the hardened proffesions people like to think. They are the beginners, not the generals.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

FrankTrollman, are you saying that all classes should get more skill points, or that other classes are fine, but the fighter should be bumped up to four?

If the first, I can see it working. It would allow all the classes to be a little bit more skillful.

If the second, I must disagree. Fighters aren't Jacks-of-all-Trades. They are the mercenaries, the prize-fighters, the warriors. They aren't the Generals (a general would probably have levels of Expert or Aristocrat, pumping those skill points into Knowledge (Siegecraft), Knowledge (Warfare) and others). They're the soldiers, plain and simple.

To say that a fighter--who should be spending most of his time practicing his swordsmanship, axe-throwing, etc--should have more base skill points than the wizard whose focus is studying, is, IMHO, outlandish.

The fighter is fine with 2 points.

 

[hong]

I've just bumped fighters up to 4 skill points in my campaign. With all the other tweaks I've made, this means every class now gets a minimum of 4 points per level. We'll see how this plays out.