A Fighters skill points....

[Norfleet]

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.

A Fighter currently only gets feats, and only gets a combat schtick.

If she spends her feats to get a non-combat schtick, she no longer has a combat bulge over a Warrior - and is thusly bereft of a Combat Schtick.

Well, fighters *DO* have a goodly number of feats: 18. Unfortunately, the vast majority of nonmagical feats pertain primarily to hurting people and breaking things: All of the noncombative feats are useless and provide no practical benefit.

Therein lies the problem: How many feats are there in the game which are good OUTSIDE of a combat?

Some of them give you +2 or +3 to skill. Woohoo! Now, if there was a feat, which gave a bonus to SPs/lvl, like I mentioned above, that would be a prime candidate for a fighter to pick if he didn't want to be a swordologist.

However, fighters, we've found, *ARE* potentially useful outside of combat: They excel nicely in the field of (Polish) landmine detection & disarmament, scouting of hazardous and unstable environments, and watercraft ballast.

They're also not bad as projectiles for siege weaponry, but that's sort of combat.

 

[TuDogz]

Quote:
___________________
Fighters will most likely land second and sometimes third attacks. Fighters outside of combat do have a problem in role play situations.
___________________

I think it is more likely that the players of fighters have problems outside of combat situations. Roleplay is not a function of skills and and numbers generally but a function of player imagination and excecution. Giving a fighter bluff skill and using it to bypass the interaction is not an improvement in roleplaying but instead supercedes it. As DMs we need to reward players who roleplay well and use their characters basic stats and character concept to solve problems with situational modifiers to die rolls (if you even feel the need to roll a die at all, which I often do not).

If a character wants to improve some single skill for character development reasons he can single out one for that objective, mine has. Everything else can evolve from role playing. After all, the general concensus is that the fighter skill list sucks, so why not spend a on few cross class or spend one of those 6 standard feats to add a skill to your class list.

 

[Thanee]

If you use non-3.5 sources, Cosmopolitan is a nice feat for a fighter.

A feat that grants +1 SP/level (applied retroactively) would be cool, tho.

I have never found a reason to choose Skill Focus besides PrC requirements... either you are good in a skill, then you don't need it, or you are bad, then it won't help.

Bye
Thanee

 

[FrankTrollman]

I am not talking about "roleplaying".

Non-combat utility can come in many forms:

* Being able to make the diplomacy roll necessary to save your party from being eaten by the dragon.

* Being able to make the Gather Information roll necessary to discover that the evil wizard you are hunting rides around on a Blue Dragon so you can plan accordingly in the final battle.

* Being able to make the Sneak roll necessary to listen in on the enemy general's battle plan.

* Being able to make the Use rope roll necessary to get your party wizard up the cliff.

* Being able to make the appraise roll necessary to notice that the onyxs are spell-component grade.

* Being able to make the craft roll necessary to make a copy of the king's iron key.

* Being able to make the escape artist roll to get out of your bonds so that you can rescue the other prisoners before the bandits come back down into the cells.

* Being able to make the Spot roll necessary to see the distant ankheg movements.

* Being able to make the search roll necessary to find the princess' diadem in the mire.

* Being able to make the disable device check to unravel the Symbol trap without having it kill anyone.

* Being able to make the Sense Motive check to catch the fact that the prince is possessed, and not to be trusted.

* Being able to make the Sleight of Hand check to palm the cursed coin when noone is looking.

* Being able to make the Survival check to follow the trail of ghouls past the river.

and it can mean the ability to do magical things as well:

* Being able to teleport the party to their destination.

* Being able to suppress the cursed shield's magic long enough to break it apart.

* Being able to use Divinations to determine the exact location of your goal.

* Being able to break the hold of mummy's rot on the village mayor.

* Being able to fly over the forboding wall of brambles which envelopes the sleeping castle.

----

Being non-combat doesn't mean "social", and it doesn't mean "roleplay". You can role play just as well with a 1st level Expert as you can with a 20th level wizard. But every class comes to the table with a certain degree of non-combat utility. And it's important.

And the fighter doesn't have it.

And that's ungamebalancing and anti-fun.

-Frank

 

[The_DarkAngel]

Whats with this "Fighters get 18 feats"?!?!?!? They get 11, thats it! A character, of any race or class gets an additonal 7. So the 1st thing here is to look at what the "fighter class" itself, gets. If you need to add in that the fighter overall gets 18 feats well ,the the babrabrian gets 7 feats plus class abilities, the monk gets all his hopla and 7 feats.

Outside his starting 1st level feats whcih seems to benifit multi-classing other than the "pure fighter" class itself, I still havent seen a arguemnet that supports whats so great for a high level Fighter.

Anyhow, the reason I started this topic is for a supplement e-book that I want to do. Ive been busy working on the art thus far but, now I want to start working on some game changes that I feel is needed. In case anyone hasent seen it this is a new god that I will introduce in the supplement http://www.pdidarkangel.net/pdie8.html

A Fighter with 4 skill points a level, and an extra feat at 11th level does not unbalance this class. Dont believe me? Try breaking down every class by a point system.

DA

P.S. When you do break the classes down, make sure you only account 11 feats. Again everyone, no matter what class gets 7 addtional feats.

 

[Zaruthustran]

If a character doesn't have a Combat Schtick and a Noncombat Schtick, that character is broken

Not true at all. At least, if you take the normal definition of the word "Broken". It may, as you say, be unfun *for you* to play. But it's not broken/nonfunctional.

A Fighter currently only gets feats, and only gets a combat schtick.

That's because... he's... a Fighter. He fights. That's what he does. That's *all* he does.

If you want a skilled guy that uses weapons, pick a ranger or barbarian. If you want a holy guy that uses weapons, pick a paladin. Or multiclass. But if you want a guy that fights and only fights, guess what? You should pick a Fighter.

As long as the Fighter only gets Feats, and doesn't get enough skills to be non-viable in noncombat situations (including scouting), she is a broken character.

Again with the misuse of "broken". Stop that.

Look: the Fighter's role is fighting. The class is designed to do one thing well: fight. The class does one thing well: fight. The class successfully fills the role for which it was designed. It is not broken.

Your argument is that the Fighter class--a class intended to be good at fighting and nothing else--should be good at skills as well as fighting.

Your argument is broken. The class is not.

you still haven't explained why it is somehow balanced for a Fighter to be bad at one of the two basic aspects of the game (combat or non-combat).

I covered this in my first post. D&D is a party-based game. The Fighter is a class that fulfills one role in the party: that of the person who fights. It is designed so that it needs support from other characters, characters with skills. And those skilled characters that the Fighter needs also need the Fighter, because the skilled characters can't fight as well as the Fighter.

This is balanced and good design.

What--is your next argument going to be that Wizards should get d12 hit die, armor proficiency, and +1BAB/lvl? After all, wizards suck at melee combat--a major part of the game. They've got the "Magic Schtick" and that's it. Surely wizards are broken.

Why is it a good idea for a Fighter to be bad at combat situations, non-combat situations, or both?

Because then the Fighter wouldn't need party members. Because then the Fighter is too powerful. Becuase then the Fighter would not meet it's designed role. Because then the Fighter would be broken.

Before you answer, recall that the Rogue and the Cleric and the Wizard are all good in both combat and non-combat situations.

I do recall that. And guess what? All those classes still need the Fighter. None of them fight as well as the Fighter, by design.

Before you reply to this, recall that D&D is designed to be a 5 player game (a DM player and four players of characters). If the any one class can do everything as well as a specialist, then you break the game concept because there is no need or role for the other three players.

-z

 

[FrankTrollman]

That's not a misuse of the word "broken".

Broken means: doesn't work.

Often people use it to mean "horribly over powered", as a short-cut to saying that having that thing in the game makes the entire game broken.

But the core meaning is that the item in question doesn't work. When you say "My car is broken." you mean that your car doesn't run, you generally do not mean that your car renders pallanquins obsolete.

If a character is unable to contribute to the party in a combat situation, that character is broken. The game may still function - but the character is broken.

If a character is unable to contribute to the party in non-combat situations, that character is broken. The game may still function - but the character is broken.

Fighters do not, at present, out-shine Barbarians or Wizards in combat. However, they are in turn outshined outside of combat. Therefore something is wrong.

The Barbarian is gaining non-combat functionality at the cost of no combat functionality. Which would make us say that the Barbarian is overpowered or that the Fighter is underpowered.

However, since every single other core class compares the same way (even the Bard and the Monk), the choice is either to nerf ten classes or boost the Fighter.

Which is the logical choice?

-Frank

 

[Zaruthustran]

Broken means: doesn't work.

Yes. Exactly right. The Fighter works as is. He's designed to fight well (and that's it), and he fights well (and that's it). Not broken.

If a character is unable to contribute to the party in a combat situation, that character is broken. The game may still function - but the character is broken.
If a character is unable to contribute to the party in non-combat situations, that character is broken. The game may still function - but the character is broken.

No. Wrong. A character specifically designed to be useless in a combat situation is simply useless in a combat situation. He's not broken. In fact, he's the opposite of broken--he works perfectly as designed. You may question the wisdom of that design decision, but the character works as designed.

To go with the car example:
My car doesn't fly. It can't travel through the air. It only drives along the
ground--that's all it can do.

You would say my car is broken. I say that you shouldn't expect a car to be an airplane.

Fighters do not, at present, out-shine Barbarians or Wizards in combat. However, they are in turn outshined outside of combat. Therefore something is wrong.

Also incorrect. Fighters outshine Wizards in melee combat. Wizards outshine fighters in magical combat. One class depends on the other in different situations. This is a good feature for a multiplayer game. Nothing is wrong.
Fighters and Barbarians is trickier since they're both primary melee fighters. Fighters get more armor, shield proficiency, and feats. Barbarians get more skills, special abilities, and a slightly bigger hit die. Which is better? It's a very tough call. A barbarian can never Great Cleave *and* Spring Attack *and* have greater weapon specialization. A fighter can never rage, have 4 skill points/level, or the other class abilities of the Barbarian. Tough call. Balanced. Nothing is wrong.

Or, if you disagree and say that something is wrong, that's your opinion and I bet you could make a good argument that you would have made a different design decision. But that's very different from "broken".

The Barbarian is gaining non-combat functionality at the cost of no combat functionality. Which would make us say that the Barbarian is overpowered or that the Fighter is underpowered.

It's a tough comparison, and outside of the question of whether or nto the fighter is broken.

Does the Fighter perform the role for which it was designed? Yes.

One question: Is the Fighter broken? No. Clearly no. It performs as it is designed, and thus is not broken.

Very different question: Is the Fighter unbalanced, when compared to the Barbarian? Maybe. It's arguable either way.

However, since every single other core class compares the same way (even the Bard and the Monk), the choice is either to nerf ten classes or boost the Fighter.

Again, now you're talking about tweaking for perceived balance issues. Not fixing something that is fundamentally broken.

Let me ask you: if you were designing a class that was good at one thing: fighting, how would you design that class?

Your goal is to make a class that kicks butt in hand-to-hand and ranged combat, has built-in dependence on other classes in just about every non-combat situation, and is a desired party member by players of characters that are not primarily combat focused.

Your restrictions are that it cannot overshadow or negate the usefulness of any other class, and it cannot inherently possess abilities that are the domain of established combat classes such as Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian.

When determining skills for the class, make sure the class does not challenge the utility of the Rogue or Bard (the Skill classes), so it can't have criminal or social skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Wizard and Bard (the Information classes), so no knowledge skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Druid, Barbarian, and Ranger (the Wild classes), so no survival skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Cleric and Paladin (the Holy classes), so no religion or diplomacy skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Rogue, Ranger, or Monk (the scout classes), so no Spot, Listen, Hide, and Move skills. It can't overshadow the utility of the Monk, Druid, Ranger, Barbarian, Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric (the special ability classes) so every class feature must be utterly mundane. And it can't be a general jack of all trades class. That's the Bard.

Your goal is to make an extremely generic, customizable, non-magical fighting class that is good at one thing only: fighting. And it must (*MUST*) depend on others for success in non-combat situations.

Go.

-z

 

[FrankTrollman]

To go with the car example:
My car doesn't fly. It can't travel through the air. It only drives along the
ground--that's all it can do.

You would say my car is broken. I say that you shouldn't expect a car to be an airplane.

If the game was "air warz" - I would be right.

The Fighter is designed to fight as well as the Barbarian and do nothing else. The Barbarian is designed to fight as well as the Fighter and be able to contribute to the success of the party in a wilderness survival and scouting role.

That's the baseline. The baseline is that all the other characters can fight just as well as the Fighter and do something else. It's like you had an airplane that can't fly. It had better be able to do something that the other airplanes can't or you have a lemon.

Let me ask you: if you were designing a class that was good at one thing: fighting, how would you design that class?

That's an inherently broken concept, but if I were to do something like that, I would make a class that was better at Fighting than the Barbarian, the Rogue, the Cleric, or the Wizard. The PHB Fighter is not "better" - he's not even "as good" at high levels.

The PHB Fighter is weak in combat, and designed to be weak out of combat. That's absurd.

Your goal is to make an extremely generic, customizable, non-magical fighting class that is good at one thing only: fighting. And it must (*MUST*) depend on others for success in non-combat situations.

That's hogswallop, and I can't believe you expect people to swallow it.

Of course you can have a character who is good in combat and still able to hold his own in some aspect of non-combat situations.

Even if you gave the character 4 skill points and access to every single skill in class, he'd still end up relying upon the Rogue, because the Rogue has more skill points and can do more things.

The concept that we need a class whose player may as well go to sleep in between combats is inane. And the concept that it would somehow break the game for all of the players to want to stay awake through the entire game is laughable.

-Frank

 

[Zaruthustran]

The concept that we need a class whose player may as well go to sleep in between combats is inane. And the concept that it would somehow break the game for all of the players to want to stay awake through the entire game is laughable.

-Frank

Whatever you want to call it, it's anything but "broken."

-z