A Fighters skill points....

[Cyraneth]

I've noticed several messages about the lack of "cultural and thematic flavor" you can squeeze out of the fighter class. As for flavor, a fighter's all about fighting. His choices in weapons, armor, fighting style, and feats IS his flavor. If you want something cultural, pick a bard. If you want something "thematic," pick a sorcerer, barbarian, or a cleric with some exotic deity. A fighter's "flavor" lies elsewhere.

Yet, if you do want unusual skills for a fighter, just pick 'em. You might not be able to get as many ranks in those skills as you'd like, but you got 'em. If you want lots of ranks and skills, go rogue instead. You can't have everything.

And as for the "noble warrior" concept, have you considered the paladin class?

- Cyraneth

 

[The_DarkAngel]

Thats a good retort Humanophile, thank u. Also, on another note sense so many peeps want to talk baout the "role-playing" side of the fighter. Were the hell are the "kits". I thought they were aweseome (old 2e). Prestige classes are ok, and in rare instances they may be a place for a few of them but, kits make more sense to me, and are more usable at low levels as well.

Problem is the ol' Wotc boys arent fond of giving characters any disadvantage anymore. Which in roleplaying value wise, it sucks.

By the way, when peeps consider saying "oh the fighter is only good at fighting and he dont need skill points because its unbalancing" to other classes, I'd also like to know which classes. The Ranger and Bard are more threating to the Thief in regaurds to "skill points". Some classes are very good at a few things. Rangers are great at skills, great at Fighting, and can dable in spells. Wizards are excellent at fighting but they can pick and choose spells for almost any enviorment. Fighters are excellent in fighting (thats it). A skill boost to 4 and no additional core classes is hardly unfair (unless u can prove otherwise).

DA

 

[Ketjak]

Thats a good retort Humanophile, thank u. Also, on another note sense so many peeps want to talk baout the "role-playing" side of the fighter. Were the hell are the "kits". I thought they were aweseome (old 2e). Prestige classes are ok, and in rare instances they may be a place for a few of them but, kits make more sense to me, and are more usable at low levels as well.

Problem is the ol' Wotc boys arent fond of giving characters any disadvantage anymore. Which in roleplaying value wise, it sucks.

<blink> This entire thread is about the disadvantage given to a class by the "WotC boys." (I'm sure Gwendolyn might object to that...) Each class has disadvantages, as has been mentioned throughout this thread.

By the way, when peeps consider saying "oh the fighter is only good at fighting and he dont need skill points because its unbalancing" to other classes, I'd also like to know which classes. The Ranger and Bard are more threating to the Thief in regaurds to "skill points". Some classes are very good at a few things. Rangers are great at skills, great at Fighting, and can dable in spells. Wizards are excellent at fighting but they can pick and choose spells for almost any enviorment. Fighters are excellent in fighting (thats it). A skill boost to 4 and no additional core classes is hardly unfair (unless u can prove otherwise).

DA

What's a "thief?" Is that a prestige class?

This is not an insult: if one doesn't see that each class has strengths and weaknesses, there is no way to "prove" to that person's satisfaction that an increase in skill points per level will disrupt the balance of the classes. The ranger is the "skilled warrior;" if you give the fighter ("combat specialist") more skills, what does the skilled warrior get to keep his edge in skill use? More skills? What do the "skill specialists" - the bard and to a lesser extent, rogue - get to keep their edge over the skilled warrior?

My point is: while the combat specialist is demonstrating knowledge of practical weapon and armor use across the board that makes him shine in combat, the skilled warrior led them there and now either gets to shoot arrows or engage with two light weapons - while wearing less armor.

Part of the problem with understanding the balance - as quoted again and again - is the "fluff" describing the class in the beginning of the listing. Ignore that. Look at the mechanics of the class. They speak more clearly than what amounts to advertising copy, and deal mor ewith game mechanics.

Multi-classing support character concept building. Pick the classes that support your concept. Don't expect to have everything, as this is a game that's relatively well-balanced and no one person or character should dominate game play.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Yeah, the Octopus Druid was me.

Still, it's less an issue of pure feat-to-feat loss (not all feats are created equal, as anyone with Toughness will tell you), but rather a lack of good high-end feats to chose from. Give them a little more skill wiggle room and some better feats, and I'd like to see power comparisons then.

There's several problems with the solution "just add more good high end feats":

1> Diversity. If you put things into chains, then the Fighter is being forced to put his feats into these chains. After all, we are attempting to make these high-end feats justify the class at high levels. Therefore, if the Fighter is not spending all his feats into one of these high-powered chains, he's still underpowered. The versatility of each Fighter character is gone - he's just as one-dimensional in combat style as the Barbarian - but he still has no non-combat schtick and is screwed.

2> Multiclassing. If the high end feats are instead regulated by BAB or something that anyone can get - then you are better off waiting until you get to those levels to take Fighter levels at all. The first two levels of Fighter give you two feats, the next two levels of Fighter give you only one. Therefore, if taking feats becomes a better proposition later in your character's life - you are manifestly getting more out of each of your Fighter levels if you take them later than if you take them earlier. Since Barbarian and Paladin levels give you a static bonus when taken early or late (and Ranger levels give you more bonuses when taken early than late), it would be obviously better to take levels other than Fighter until these "super feats" became available than to take Fighter levels straight off.

3> Class Concept. If you get access to a superior feat as a class feature, and a bonus feat - you aren't really getting a customizable class feature at all! You are in fact, getting whatever ability that class feature feat gives you as a class feature - and then getting the "option" of trading it for another ability that is explicitly inferior to it (a non-upgraded feat). So you have a class with no custization at all, except that it can trade its mandatory abilities for worse abilities when it goes up in level. That's kind of like how a Rogue has the option of spending all of his skill ranks into cross-classed Knowledge: Poodles - except that to make the metaphor exact the other choice would have to be to have the DM spend all of your skill points for you.

So no. Better high-end feats doesn't solve anything and is not a solution in any way shape or form. More feats is a start, but better feats is not.

-Frank

 

[Crothian]

Fighters have enough feats to take many changes though. Sure a darn good high level feat might require five feats to get it, but the fighter has enough ferats and many of those lesser feats are still very useful. Requiring a high BAB as well as many feat prequites is usually the way to go. This give fighters an advantage since they get lots of feats and other classes would have to spend all their feats to acheive one of this high level feats.

 

[The_DarkAngel]

Multi-classing support character concept building. Pick the classes that support your concept. Don't expect to have everything, as this is a game that's relatively well-balanced and no one person or character should dominate game play.

Multi-classing is not a solution to balancing classes. Balanced classes and "then" multi-classing is a solution. And how is it, you know the boys made such balanced classes. Did they personally give you a formula that shows you they are? By all means share with it us. Please prove me in my opinion is wrong because I cant follow peeps with out challenging thier reasoning.

And lastly, yes classes have thier weakness in the general sesne of no class is "perfect" nor should it. The Fighter cant use armor in all enviorments, he isnt good at willfull magic, or vs traps, or skills. Hes good at one thing by a smidge compared to the Barbarian directly. Tell me "how" 2 other skill points per level off sets this class, becuase I dont see it.

DA

 

[Magius del Cotto]

<snip>
This is not an insult: if one doesn't see that each class has strengths and weaknesses, there is no way to "prove" to that person's satisfaction that an increase in skill points per level will disrupt the balance of the classes. The ranger is the "skilled warrior;" if you give the fighter ("combat specialist") more skills, what does the skilled warrior get to keep his edge in skill use? More skills? What do the "skill specialists" - the bard and to a lesser extent, rogue - get to keep their edge over the skilled warrior?

My point is: while the combat specialist is demonstrating knowledge of practical weapon and armor use across the board that makes him shine in combat, the skilled warrior led them there and now either gets to shoot arrows or engage with two light weapons - while wearing less armor.
<snip>

This is all well and good, except for the fact that in this case, the skilled warrior is just as good as the combat specialist in most combat situations (and if you're going ranger, you'll probably be going with either the two-weapon tree or the ranged tree anyways), and he excels in stealth, detection, and survival, as well as a few other things.
IMO, this isn't a balanced state of affairs. Yes, the fighter gets an ungodly number of feats to play with, but you need to know how to place them, and most feats are combat oriented; those the fighter gets are almost exclusively so. In the end, we have two characters that are good in most combat situations; one that can do well with several different attacks, the other that can do well with dual wielding/ranged combat. Is this difference worth 4 SP a level?
Let's have a look at what each starts with:
Fighter: +1 attack, +2 save, one bonus feat, 2/N weapon feats, 5 armor feats (light, medium, heavy, shields, and tower shields), 2 SP/level, and d10 HP.
Ranger: +1 attack, +4 save, 3 feats/abilities, 2/N weapon feats, 3 armor feats (light, medium, shields), 6 SP/level, d8 HP.
So what does the fighter have in this?
Up: +2 HP and 2 more armor feats.
Down: 2 on saves, 4 SP/Level, and 2 feats/abilities, one of which is exclusively ranger, the other of which is ranger/druid.
Tied: BAB

This doesn't look too good, does it? What about Paladin and Barbarian? Well, the Paladin comes out a bit ahead, but not too much, and the barbarian starts off about equal, I'd say. But what happens as you go up levels? Well, Rangers and Paladins get spells, Rangers get an ability every level until 11th level, and barbarians get something every level. Oh yeah; the Ranger and the Barbarian both have more skill points than the fighter does, and they all have a much more sensible skill list.
Hm... Think the fact the fighter can chose his feats every time he gets them makes up for all that? I don't.
Magius out.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And as for the "noble warrior" concept, have you considered the paladin class?

In a campaign with a very strong Good vs. Evil theme, it could work. Otherwise it is too big a step down in combat power IMO.

 

[LuYangShih]

I've noticed several messages about the lack of "cultural and thematic flavor" you can squeeze out of the fighter class. As for flavor, a fighter's all about fighting. His choices in weapons, armor, fighting style, and feats IS his flavor. If you want something cultural, pick a bard. If you want something "thematic," pick a sorcerer, barbarian, or a cleric with some exotic deity. A fighter's "flavor" lies elsewhere.

So basically, outside of combat, a Fighter has no flavor. Right. I agree with Humanophile about the skill selection Fighters should be granted. My character is a noble Knight Commander type, and as such he needed to have Knowledge: Nobility and Knowledge: History. Why are these skills not on the Fighters list? They are almost perfect fits, and in no way unbalancing.

Yet, if you do want unusual skills for a fighter, just pick 'em. You might not be able to get as many ranks in those skills as you'd like, but you got 'em. If you want lots of ranks and skills, go rogue instead. You can't have everything.

Actually, I can, which is the problem. My character is better in a fight than he would have been if he had stayed pure Fighter, and has a great deal more roleplaying ability as well. Oh, and it is true what was said earlier in this thread, that is, you might as well not have certain skills unless you can maximize them.

And as for the "noble warrior" concept, have you considered the paladin class?

- Cyraneth

Paladins do not exist in Midnight, and even if they did it does not fit the character concept. I should not be forced to become a divine warrior if I want to create a Knight Commander.

 

[Norfleet]

So basically, outside of combat, a Fighter has no flavor. Right. I agree with Humanophile about the skill selection Fighters should be granted. My character is a noble Knight Commander type, and as such he needed to have Knowledge: Nobility and Knowledge: History. Why are these skills not on the Fighters list? They are almost perfect fits, and in no way unbalancing.

Picking "fighter" as your main class is basically the same as shooting yourself in the foot, if you care to have skills in things other than swinging weapons around. By itself, the fact that you get 2 SPs/lvl, base, isn't nearly as injurious as the fact that your skill choices, by core rules, suck. If you're interested in a more erudite fighter, someone with skills in something other than swinging a weapon around wildly, jumping, and climbing, well, you're SOL. It's ironic that the barbarian happens to be a more sophisticated warrior than the fighter is. Normally, the fighter is the one who is perceived as the "thinking" warrior, and the barbarian is the big dumb lug who swings an axe around, but in D&D, it's the other way around.