A Fighters skill points....

[FrankTrollman]

One class is definitionally weaker than all other classes in one of the two main modes of the game.

It is not stronger than the other classes in the other primary mode of the game.

On what planet would we have to be living for that to not be broken?

-Frank

 

[Crothian]

Everybody I know plays this game to simulate fantasy books and movies they have read, and occasionally historical archetypes as well. I don't think it would be a stretch to say the player base is comprised mostly of lovers of fantasy literature and films.

Why shouldn't the classes reflect the characters the player base reads about and desires to simulate in this game? Why shouldn't they be epic?

Giving the fighter more skill points and a more well-rounded skill selection makes the class more fun to play. I don't see how it would break the game.

And any epic fighter can do all of those things greatly. They don't need max ranks in any skill. Most book characters are not first level characters. Books are written from the imagination, characters are built using specific rules. Would altering the fighter unbalance it? Probably not, but it's not needed. I don't think the rules should be altered when multi classing can easily solve the problem.

 

[Crothian]

One class is definitionally weaker than all other classes in one of the two main modes of the game.

It is not stronger than the other classes in the other primary mode of the game.

On what planet would we have to be living for that to not be broken?

-Frank

Fighters are the best fighters. They get all those feats that make them better fighters then any other class. If you want the fighter to be more well rounded, then you must move away from the speciality. All classes have to do that, so it is balanced.

 

[LuYangShih]

Except the uber Ranger of 3.5E. By the way, Little John was quite Intelligent. If you want one of the Merry Men who had a low Intelligence, look at Much.

 

[The_DarkAngel]

The fighter class is not balanced. Break it down in a point for point basis vs other classes, then tell me how its balanced. Saying go ahead and mulit-class does not mean the class is balanced. Also, The Fighter is not just a fighter. He can be a archer, a cavalier, ect, ect, am I the only one reading the PH? Another reason why the class has strictly feats as its sole benefit is so you can make into all different types of characters and not have to be troubled creating all new classes for every single little thing. In the end to each thier own. Everyone has thier own side rules. Im just trying to point out the obvious. Agree, disagree I just want to see how many peeps do and dont.

DA

 

[Zaruthustran]

One class is definitionally weaker than all other classes in one of the two main modes of the game.

It is not stronger than the other classes in the other primary mode of the game.

On what planet would we have to be living for that to not be broken?

-Frank

I guess a planet with a different definition of the word "broken." On this planet, broken means "doesn't work." Or even "doesn't work as intended."

I disagree with your assessment of the Fighter class. I don't think it's weak. That's fine; we're smart guys who know the rules and we can disagree about balance issues.

But even if you're right and the Fighter is underpowered, that doesn't mean it's broken. Broken doesn't mean the same thing as unbalanced.

The Fighter works as written. The Fighter works as intended. The Fighter is not broken.

So what would I consider "broken", in a game context? The shapechange/polymorph-and-Awaken trick. The "lance is a medium weapon" (and thus can be used one-handed, even while on foot) rule that was in 3E. The "any target hit with a bola is tripped" (automatically--even if it is, say, a Titan or a water elemental in a lake) rule from Sword and Fist. Those rules and combos are broken. They *don't work* in the context of the game, or break the game's intended features.

The value for "skill points" is just a value--there's nothing to break. Well, I suppose it would be broken if Fighters get -1 sp/level. Or 0. Or pi. But, no, the value for skill points is 2. Perfectly good number. It works. If doesn't break the formula for determining starting skill points, or new skill points per level. You may have the opinion that that value is low, but the value itself--and thus the Fighter, in regards to this argument--IS NOT BROKEN.

Rules can be broken. Class features can be broken. Spells can be broken. It's very hard for a class (a collection of rules and class features) to be broken. Unbalanced, sure. But not broken.

-z

PS: the Fighter is not broken.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Anyone break the classes down to a point system yet?!?!? I feel so ignored.

Lots of people have broken the classes down into some sort of point system. That's where the disagreements come in.

You see, combat utility is not the same as non-combat utility. No amount of one can justify a bulge or dirth of the other. Bards are weak in combat, and thus despite their significant breadth of non-combat utility they suck. Fighters are useless out of combat, so whatever else they do, they suck.

Furthermore, spells are not of equal value. A first level attack spell (such as Sleep or Color Spray) is a very big deal at levels 1 or 2, but is in fact of no value whatsoever at levels 16 or 17.

The most common system of breaking down character classes is one based on the idea of "feat equivalents" - idea being that you are judging how many feats it would take a Commoner to turn into that character. Now there's no feat that gives a Base Attack Bonus, and there are limits to how many bonuses to saves you can get - but if we lift those restrictions we see a fairly good approximation.

For example, a 6th level Fighter has 3 BAB, 3 Fort Save, 21 hit points, 3 Armor Proficiency Feats, 2 Shield Proficiency Feats, and 2 Martial Weapon Proficiency Feats over the Commoner (whatever melee and ranged weapon you happen to use). Further, he just plain has 4 bonus feats on top of that which are more valuable because they are selected instead of arbitrarily assigned.

Alternately, a 6th level Rogue has 1 BAB, 3 Reflex Save, 7 hit points, 1 Armor Proficiency Feat, 2 Martial Weapon Proficiency Feats, and 54 skill points. Further the Rogue has the Traps ability, the Evasion ability, the Uncanny Dodge ability, and 3 dice of sneak attack.

The Fighter could be roughly simulated by a 6th level Commoner with 17 feats and 4 "bonus" feats. The Rogue could be roughly simulated by a 6th level Commoner with 26 feats (of which 13 are limitedly customizable).

Now, this is a very limited system, as it implies that people care as much about Medium Armor Proficiency as they do about Light Armor Proficiency (which is patently false). Furthermore, it requires that people spend their feats into Toughness (for 3 hit points a pop) or Skill Synnergy (for 4 skill points a pop) - which is patently absurd. Also, it doesn't really address the Rogue's much larger skill list - which is probably worth a feat or three.

Nevertheless, this kind of analysis has been done and the Fighter universally comes out very very poorly in it.

The fact is that a bonus feat is not better than +10' of movement. It is not better than the ability to Rage. And the Barbarian gets both at first level and has more hit points and more skill points.

If you jack up the Fighter's Skill points to 4/level, and you give the Fighter a bonus feat every level from first level through twentieth, they still don't do all that well in that kind of analysis.

-Frank

 

[Crothian]

The fighter class is not balanced. Break it down in a point for point basis vs other classes, then tell me how its balanced.

Give me an accurate list of the point value of class abilities and we can do this. However, to date no one has been quite able to do this. There are many out there, but they all live on assumptions that are not accurate. Unless the makers of the PHB do one, and frankly even theirs would be aargued, there is no way to compaire the classes by a point system.

 

[Celtavian]

re

A big indicator to me of a badly designed class is when no one wants to play it. The fighter falls into that category in my campaign world.

I have people willing to play every other class. 3.5 made Bards and Rangers a whole lot more desirable. Yet, the fighter is still the red-headed step-child for a variety of reasons.

The fighter's bonus feats just do not compete with the other classes special abilities. It makes them a boring class. I really feel that giving them additional skills would make them more fun to play because you could make a variety of fighter archetypes rather than just one.

The fighter is a generalist class. It has no flavor and skills would go along way in giving the fighter flavor while not hurting the game. Maybe give them 3 or 5 bonus skills chosen at first level that are class skills, kind of like the Expert. That would make them more well-rounded and give them some personality.

 

[Thanee]

I tend to agree with Frank, that the fighter - while not broken - is just badly designed.

Maybe just give them 4 skill points per level and a few more reasonable class skills (i.e. Heal, Knowledge (local), Profession, Spot). But then give the Paladin 4 skill points per level as well. And the Rogue 12!

Bye
Thanee