A Fighters skill points....

[The_DarkAngel]

Drama. The Rogue is the "skill specialist." The Ranger is the "skilled warrior." The Fighter is the "combat specialist." These classes work - and are balanced - as designed. The Fighter may not be flashy - but it's a well-balanced class. Humanophile's changes improve it without hurting balance.
Can we wrap this one now?

No, because you haven’t proved that its not unbalanced. All you've proven is your allegiance to follow what’s written based on some writers perception of the original D&D game and not all of them agree....aka....arcana unearthed or read montes view on the 3.5 PH book.

DA

 

[Unseelie]

No, because you haven’t proved that its not unbalanced. All you've proven is your allegiance to follow what’s written based on some writers perception of the original D&D game and not all of them agree....aka....arcana unearthed or read montes view on the 3.5 PH book.

DA

Okay, that seems to prove that people will never agree. Now can we let it go?

 

[Ketjak]

No, because you haven’t proved that its not unbalanced. All you've proven is your allegiance to follow what’s written based on some writers perception of the original D&D game and not all of them agree....aka....arcana unearthed or read montes view on the 3.5 PH book.

DA

DA, I have shown that the Fighter beats the Ranger in combat, while the Ranger beats the Fighter when not in combat. If the Fighter has an edge in combat, adding non-combat features will make the class better than the Ranger. Right now, given its advantage in combat, the class is the same overall balance as the Ranger.

If you can refute my illustration from earlier in the thread using an argument other than "because I think the Fighter sucks," please do so. Use facts and analysis. You otherwise have no sound argument that the Fighter needs to be made equal to the Ranger - it already is.

That has nothing to do with "allegiance." I have no idea what that is, let alone why or how you think that's relevant to the argument.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

DA, I have shown that the Fighter beats the Ranger in combat, while the Ranger beats the Fighter when not in combat. If the Fighter has an edge in combat, adding non-combat features will make the class better than the Ranger. Right now, given its advantage in combat, the class is the same overall balance as the Ranger.

If you can refute my illustration from earlier in the thread using an argument other than "because I think the Fighter sucks," please do so. Use facts and analysis. You otherwise have no sound argument that the Fighter needs to be made equal to the Ranger - it already is.

That has nothing to do with "allegiance." I have no idea what that is, let alone why or how you think that's relevant to the argument.

The argument from most here isn't that the fighter is tied with the ranger in a fight and worse out of a fight hence an imbalance. The argument is the fighter barely is better in a fight and gets absolutley spanked outside of a fight, hence an imbalnce. All arguments showing the edge the fighter has, have so far only shown at best a marginal edge in a fight. Yet the fighter contiues to get spanked outside of the fight.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The argument from most here isn't that the fighter is tied with the ranger in a fight and worse out of a fight hence an imbalance. The argument is the fighter barely is better in a fight and gets absolutley spanked outside of a fight, hence an imbalnce. All arguments showing the edge the fighter has, have so far only shown at best a marginal edge in a fight. Yet the fighter contiues to get spanked outside of the fight.

It is a more straight forward comparison if we look at Barbarian.

The Fighter is not better at fighting at the lowest few levels, quite the opposite IMO. The Fighter really needs to spend feats on things like Weapon Specialization and Mobility to keep up with the Barbarian at low-middling levels.

There is also no comparison when you start matching up skill points and class skills.

The much lauded combat superiority of the Fighter doesn't really show up until ~6th level, and the class is already fading at 10th. Not much of a window of superiority.

I am not sure about the Ranger vs. Fighter. He is not quite the archer without Weapon Specialization. And TWF looks like a suboptimal style until you hit high levels.

 

[green slime]

For goodness sake.

You are never, ever going to achieve a millimeter justice all-characters-equal in any game.

Most of this complaints revolves around the availability of a multitude of PrC which add nothing to the game, and are only there to provide answers to the wet dreams of munchkins everywhere.

We have one in my game, a dex-fighter player who likes to multiclass all the time. Spends more than half his time at home trying to min-max his characters (using ranger/barbarian/fighter/rogue/psychic warrior whoring). Then comes to the game and complains that he is getting outshined by the pure dwarven fighter. Sure sucks to be dribbling on the floor after a psionic blast.

Sure, he can kick the fighter's butt in a one-on-one (mostly through Spring Attack). But he is still a liability with a Will save equivalent to that of an ant. So in a team effort, he adds next to nothing. Meanwhile the Dwarf has taken Luck of Heroes and Iron Will, and has yet to fail a Will save.

As to all these PrC which add nothing but unreasonable powerups? Not in my game. I examine each and every one when the player asks, and, I have to say, most 3.0 fighter-PrCs provide far too much general power ups and not enough "specialization" for my taste.

Swapping out skills is always an option. Several players have done so. Or just suck up the cross class cost. It isn't like Jump and Climb are necessary skills at high level play...

IMC, it is the multiclassed rabid dex-fighter which has contributed least to the game, with the paladin, rogue and fighter all contributing far more, and with more staying power. The clerics are relegated to emergency ambulance services, and the mage an efficient artillery observer, with a trick up every sleeve, and couple to spare in his trouser legs to boot.

But there is a lack of interesting feats for high level fighters to take. The dwarf fighter, with a low Int and Dex, is starting to notice that his options are now getting very restricted. I sincerely hope that the complete book of warriors will address this issue.

 

[The_DarkAngel]

DA, I have shown that the Fighter beats the Ranger in combat, while the Ranger beats the Fighter when not in combat. If the Fighter has an edge in combat, adding non-combat features will make the class better than the Ranger. Right now, given its advantage in combat, the class is the same overall balance as the Ranger.

If you can refute my illustration from earlier in the thread using an argument other than "because I think the Fighter sucks," please do so. Use facts and analysis. You otherwise have no sound argument that the Fighter needs to be made equal to the Ranger - it already is.

That has nothing to do with "allegiance." I have no idea what that is, let alone why or how you think that's relevant to the argument.

Heres a base Point system for you: (feats equaling 5 points a pop):

BAB is the same, as well as weapons.

Fighter gets: 11 feats plus 5 for his armor equals: 80 points. He his resticted to Fighter Feat only list (and has to meat the presequites to get the feats he wants which is alot easier said then done) but, he can choose WS & GWS & GWF if he takes WF. Note this all counts on ypou not losing your chosen weapon, otherwise your no better than the ol' Ranger in combat if ya lose your stupid sword. Perhaps, and in most cases, your worse then a Ranger if you use loose your chosen weapon.

Ranger gets: Combat style (worth 3 feats), Track, Wild Empathy, Endurance, Woodland Stride, Endurance, Hide in plain Sight, Light armor, Shields, Favored enemy (worth 3 feats atleast), Spells (worth 3 atleast), swift tracker, animal companion equals: 95 points.

So there we have it (and Im being way, way generous here to the Ranger) The ranger leads by 3 feats minimum and this doesnt even include the following:

Granted the Ranger only has 1D8 hit points, he also has 4 skill points per level, and 1 good save bonus over the fighter vs the fighters 1D10 hitpoints. 1D10 hit points does not equal this out or do I really need to break this down in points for you too.

Now you can argue that "edurance" isnt a big deal but I can argue yes it is, especially to a Fighter who wants to sleep in his armor because his class depends so much upon it. You can also argue that the "ranger" is a skilled warrior and needs those extra stuff. I agree the Ranger does but, I also think the Fighter shouldnt be so limited, and his class has more than enough room for skill point ajustment and a feat or two and not unbalancing the class.

By the way, the accual count to a Ranger vs a fighter in a point system is Fighter 235, Ranger 285 and the average is suppossed to be 250. Now not ever class is going to match up or be 100% equal. However my point is, that the Fighter could use at minumum a skill point boost, and I 100% believe that there is room to do that without unblancing the classes. Infact, there plenty of room.

So in the end Ketjak, I have more than done my homework. The fighter is getting shafted to say the least.

DA

 

[green slime]

The_DarkAngel, it is only an opinion that the fighter is worth 80 points and the Ranger worth 95 points. Point systems are subjective, not objective ways of measuring capabilities. They can be manipulated to prove what ever.

And if the average is 250, some character class is likely going to be worth less than the average, and another above the average. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about averages, we would be using 2e "skills and powers" or GURPS...

I really can't say that I feel that balance is a goal in and of itself. It is a game. You play a fighter because you want to, not because some nasty DM told you you had to fulfil a certain role in the party, inspite of you wanting to be a rogue/barbarian/ranger, or whatever.

Is it fun? Are you kicking monster-butt? Is that what you want to do? Good!

 

[The_DarkAngel]

Yes I know everything is basically how you "see" it. Thats my major point. I dont "see" it. alsmost every DM has his or her own house rules because they dont see, eye to eye with the creators. However, that point system I just made, is very simple and it was a direct comparison to Ketjak's ideas.

Were as you may not see the value to balanced class, I do, atleast to some degree.

DA

 

[green slime]

Were as you may not see the value to balanced class, I do, atleast to some degree.
DA

Well, yes, I too see that some semblance of balance is desirable but we differ as to what degree. I fear that the degree for which you seek is too extreme. I do agree with many good points that have been put forth, but I feel they are far less important than what actually occurs in the game, to make a certain PC feel useful in different areas of play.

So in all honesty, this debate should perhaps be in house rules. Or perhaps not. Whatever. I enjoy playing fighters, even with only two skill points. I also feel that the new 3.5 Ranger is somewhat over the top. I don't need a point system to tell me this. Still, I'd rather play a fighter.