FrankTrollman said:
I'm not especially looking for a fight, but I can't stop sniping you either.
Fine, we'll play it your way.
You see, your two "solutions" to the Fighter problem were:
1> Spend a couple of feats on Cosmopolitan.
Let's stop right there. Let me go over it again. It's really pretty simple:
The fighter doesn't need to be fixed. He has strengths and weaknesses, just like every other class. His strength is more feats and a full BAB. His weakness is less skill points than other classes.
You are arguing that that the fighter's low skill points make him unplayable outside of combat. Setting aside the absurdity of that statement, I offered you a way for fighter-players to increase their bonuses to certain skills: by investing in feats that allow just that.
I never made this argument. My argument was that fighters, like everyone else, can invest in the proper magical gear to shore up thier weaknesses. A wizard with low hp buys an
Amulet of Health, a monk with a low AC buys
Bracers of Armor. And a fighter who wants to excel at skills can buy a
Brooch of Persuasion, a
Mirror of Vanity, or a
Ring of Deft Misdirection.
Each class has inherent weaknesses, and there are ways, such as spending opportunity (by using feats) or money (by purchasing the correct gear) to compensate for them. None of the classes can or should be able to do everything all the time, as you seem to feel the fighter should.
For the first one, let's look at a 3rd level Fighter:
The only class features of the whole class so far, has been the gaining of 2 bonus feats. If I spend two feats that I otherwise would not have to get a couple of Cosmopolitans, I then have to spend those 2 bonus feats on the combat feats I otherwise would have without taking any class at all.
So the net result: I get +2 to two skills, and have the lowest possible number of skill points and no class features at all for three levels. Do I have to draw you a diagram?
No, I can see the inanity without your draw-by-numbers, thank you very much. Now that you've painted your little sob-story picture of the fighter that couldn't, let's look at the wizard and compare.
The wizard sucks at combat. The only class features of the whole class so far are 3 spells per day. If I spend three spells that I otherwise would not have to get a +8 AC bonus and +4 to strength--for one combat--then I've wasted all my class abilities and have nothing left--as if I had
not taken the class at all.
So the net result: I get +8 to AC and +4 to strength for one combat, and have the lowest possible number of hit points and no class features at all for three levels.
Sound familiar?
Instead, let's take a look at a 10th-level fighter. He has 10 feats to play with, 6 of which were granted by his class. That's enough for Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Expertise (wait, if he has Expertise that means Int 13, and one extra skill point every level, doesn't it?), Whirlwind Attack, Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack. That's a nice helping of combat abilities. On top of that, he has two more feats remaining. Say our fighter also fancies himself a diplomat. He wants to be a general in the future, so he things Diplomacy would be a good skill to have. So he's been putting skill points into it (cross-class) and has five Ranks. So he decides to use his last two feats on Skill Focus (Diplomacy) and Persuasive, netting him another +5: for an overall +10 to Diplomacy.
No, +10 to Diplomacy isn't as good as a rogue or bard's +13, but it's still plenty good to get the job done.
That's my point, Frank. That a fighter is plenty powered as is. That perceived weaknesses can be compensated for (if the player feels it necessary) just as other classes compensate for
their weaknesses.
For the second one:
[sarcasm]
Gosh, you're right! If I don't take Fighter Levels at all, my Fighter Levels won't drag me down! Why didn't I think of that?
I didn't think of it either. How strange.
Of course, I can make up for the shortcomings of the Fighter class by not taking Fighter Levels. That solves everything.
[/sarcasm]
Lots of good dialogue here. Yep. Yesiree.
Of course, that's just like saying "The Sorcerer's power and diversity problems are completely solved by just taking your first level as Wizard and taking all of your subsequent levels as Wizard."
That's an entirely different question. Why are you muddying the waters with bad analogies?
That's basically so irrelevent to the discussion that I can't even tell if it's "true" or "false". Any problems with a class can, of course, be removed by taking your levels in some other class - that's not a helpful suggestion.
You've spent so much time on this that even though it was never my intention, I will address it anyway.
Multiclassing is not a means of fixing the "problems" of the fighter class. It's a means of strengthening the weaknesses of a character, as a whole. The fighter class provides serious melee power, but that power comes at a cost in other areas. If a player wishes to recover some of that non-combat strength, they can multiclass into a class that
has that kind of strength. Of course, they would then be giving up the extra power that additional fighter levels afford, but that's the nature of the Multiclassing Game.
So yes, pendragon - your suggestions are comical to the point where you are the comic relief of this discussion. We can't take you seriously. That's why we make fun of you.
I'm not sure how to reply to this. You seem intent on portraying my discussion as farcical, in the way that you might laugh at a child attempting to talk politics with the adults. This doesn't bother me, because I can see for myself the direction this conversation has followed.
Still, if it makes you feel better to think of me as "comical" and my presence as "comic relief" that can't be taken seriously, then feel free. It's only fair. I'm certainly thinking the same of you.
