A Fighters skill points....

[Darklone]

Crothian is soooo right.

LuYangShi: One +4 weapon is mathematically better than two +3 weapons if you can use it all the time.

A +3 melee weapon as well as a +3 ranged weapon are always better in my games than a single +4 weapon (except if it could do ranged and melee combat as well).

I see most so called balance problems in D&D as a direct derivative of the DMs style. Many people are used to a lot of big unes to battle, other campaigns rather have hordes of small enemies, wilderness encounters contra dungeoncrawling contra political intrigue... No class can shine everyone. Since I try to do everything in my campaigns, most players tend to versatility if they don't want to sit around 2 thirds of the time (which the specialists in most D&D games should do).

A fighter can't compete in political situations just because he lacks talking? I read too many stories about knights in shining platemail to believe this. Perhaps I am too nice as a DM and allow my players to resolve situations with ROLEPLAYING instead of rolling a dice.

 

[LuYangShih]

In higher level games, acces to Flying eliminates the need for almost all of the movement skills. Unless your DM painstakingly crafts scenarios specifically to eliminate that option, said skills are worth exactly jack at higher levels.

Darklone, the skills are there for a reason. You might as well eliminate the social skills altogether if you can bypass them completely by roleplaying. I don't care how good a description of an attack may be, if you roll a 1 you still don't hit. The same goes for skills. I do agree that Fighters should be able to act like Knights in shining armor, but by the D&D rules it's not going to happen.

 

[Darklone]

Oh well... Low diplomacy might mean for the fighter that he lacks finesse of speech. That does not mean he can't do anything. It's an old problem how to use the skills, but I will never let skills trump roleplaying. A high skill value will influence my interpretation of the situation but not more.

 

[Norfleet]

Oh well... Low diplomacy might mean for the fighter that he lacks finesse of speech. That does not mean he can't do anything. It's an old problem how to use the skills, but I will never let skills trump roleplaying. A high skill value will influence my interpretation of the situation but not more.

That's personally how I see it, also: The roleplaying skills exist for the purpose of allowing a shy player to explore the concept, or to enhance the results of someone who CAN put up a convincing argument. Who would have an NPC reject a perfectly valid, highly appealing, and eloquently worded argument, merely because the fighter proposing it had no diplomacy ranks? If the player said that he said that, would you tell him that no, he didn't? Of course not. That's silly. Even non-diplomats have their moments of eloquence, particularly if they think really hard about it.

 

[takyris]

I don't care how good a description of an attack may be, if you roll a 1 you still don't hit. The same goes for skills.

Since everyone else has already countered most of your arguments, or called you on the fact that your arguments boil down to "nuh-uh", let me just note that a 1 on a skill check is not always a failure.

As for whatever point I had being rendered moot, you seem to be in the minority position there. Many other people thought that it was at least worth discussing. But hey, if it might have made you compromise or see another point of view, it wouldn't be as much fun, huh?

This is, minor note, what makes me occasionally ditch ENWorld altogether for a week or two. As somebody who attempts to compromise and see other points of view, I inevitably feel as though I'm coming out as the loser in any debate -- because people here seem to think that you don't get XP unless you win without ever ceding a point.

I say, "Let's agree that the fighter is a bit better at fighting, and that he gets shafted, relatively speaking, on skills and non-combat class abilities. Why is that? Hey, here's a reason. Maybe this is true for many campaigns. Maybe it's not for yours." Your response is, "No, the fighter isn't better at all, and no, DMing style has nothing to do with it, the fighter always sucks in every way, shape, and form, regardless of whether your DM throws different types of combats at you or not, regardless of whether your DM alternates between ranged encounters, crowd encounters, environmental-challenge encounters, and straight-up arena fights, the fighter always sucks."

Nice talking to you, LYS.

 

[Ketjak]

LuYangShih, you continue to ignore facts and base your argument on suppositions.

A +4 weapon is, mathematically speaking, better than two +3 weapons. You will do more damage and hit more often with the +4 weapon.

This is not strictly true unless one assumes the character wielding two weapons has not taken the TWF feat. I'd much rather have a two-weapon wielding character with two +3 short swords than a one-weapon wielder with a single +4 short sword.

Test it using short swords. Assume each character has the same STR and BAB and cancel out all character abilities that provide the same bonuses. The character class does not matter, but assume it's high enough to allow for a +2 BAB for the purposes of using Power Attack. In your first test, assume the character wielding one weapon took Iron Will (or Alertness, or some other non-combat feat) instead of Power Attack. Do that because it's better for that character; Power Attack makes it even worse for the one-weapon wielder.

You'll find the following damage curves, unless our math is different. The one-weapon character has a +4 short sword, the two-weapon character has two +3 short swords. The damage is multiplied by two for the two-weapon wielder and he is calculated as having as -2 attack roll, as per TWF feat.

AC, %success, enh 1wf att%, act 1wf dam, enh twf att%, act enh twf dam, best choice
5, 0.8, 1, 7.5, 0.85, 11.05, TWF
6, 0.75, 0.95, 7.125, 0.8, 10.4, TWF
7, 0.7, 0.9, 6.75, 0.75, 9.75, TWF
8, 0.65, 0.85, 6.375, 0.7, 9.1, TWF
9, 0.6, 0.8, 6, 0.65, 8.45, TWF
10, 0.55, 0.75, 5.625, 0.6, 7.8, TWF
11, 0.5, 0.7, 5.25, 0.55, 7.15, TWF
12, 0.45, 0.65, 4.875, 0.5, 6.5, TWF
13, 0.4, 0.6, 4.5, 0.45, 5.85, TWF
14, 0.35, 0.55, 4.125, 0.4, 5.2, TWF
15, 0.3, 0.5, 3.75, 0.35, 4.55, TWF
16, 0.25, 0.45, 3.375, 0.3, 3.9, TWF
17, 0.2, 0.4, 3, 0.25, 3.25, TWF

18, 0.15, 0.35, 2.625, 0.2, 2.6, ONE
19, 0.1, 0.3, 2.25, 0.15, 1.95, ONE
20, 0.05, 0.25, 1.875, 0.1, 1.3, ONE
21, 0.05, 0.2, 1.5, 0.05, 0.65, ONE
22, 0.05, 0.15, 1.125, 0.05, 0.65, ONE
23, 0.05, 0.1, 0.75, 0.05, 0.65, ONE

24, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
25, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
26, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
27, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
28, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
29, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
30, 0.05, 0.05, 0.375, 0.05, 0.65, TWF

Or in a formatted table:

AC	one hit%|one dam|twf hit%|twf dam|best choice	
5	1	 7.5	 0.85	  11.05	  TWF
6	0.95	 7.125	 0.8	  10.4	  TWF
7	0.9	 6.75	 0.75	  9.75	  TWF
8	0.85	 6.375	 0.7	  9.1	  TWF
9	0.8	 6	 0.65	  8.45	  TWF
10	0.75	 5.625	 0.6	  7.8	  TWF
11	0.7	 5.25	 0.55	  7.15	  TWF
12	0.65	 4.875	 0.5	  6.5	  TWF
13	0.6	 4.5	 0.45	  5.85	  TWF
14	0.55 	 4.125	 0.4	  5.2	  TWF
15	0.5	 3.75	 0.35	  4.55	  TWF
16	0.45	 3.375	 0.3	  3.9	  TWF
17	0.4	 3	 0.25	  3.25	  TWF
[b]
18	0.35	 2.625	 0.2	  2.6	  ONE
19	0.3	 2.25	 0.15	  1.95	  ONE
20	0.25	 1.875	 0.1	  1.3	  ONE
21	0.2	 1.5	 0.05	  0.65	  ONE
22	0.15	 1.125	 0.05	  0.65	  ONE
23	0.1	 0.75	 0.05	  0.65	  ONE
[/b]
24	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
25	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
26	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
27	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
28	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
29	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF
30	0.05	 0.375	 0.05	  0.65	  TWF

With Power attack it's even worse for the one-weapon wielder. Assume the character with Power Attack throws +2 attack into +2 damage:

AC, pa enh, pa 1wf dam, enh twf att%, act enh twf dam, Best choice
5, 0.9, 8.55, 0.85, 11.05, TWF
6, 0.85, 8.075, 0.8, 10.4, TWF
7, 0.8, 7.6, 0.75, 9.75, TWF
8, 0.75, 7.125, 0.7, 9.1, TWF
9, 0.7, 6.65, 0.65, 8.45, TWF
10, 0.65, 6.175, 0.6, 7.8, TWF
11, 0.6, 5.7, 0.55, 7.15, TWF
12, 0.55, 5.225, 0.5, 6.5, TWF
13, 0.5, 4.75, 0.45, 5.85, TWF
14, 0.45, 4.275, 0.4, 5.2, TWF
15, 0.4, 3.8, 0.35, 4.55, TWF
16, 0.35, 3.325, 0.3, 3.9, TWF
17, 0.3, 2.85, 0.25, 3.25, TWF
18, 0.25, 2.375, 0.2, 2.6, TWF
19, 0.2, 1.9, 0.15, 1.95, TWF

20, 0.15, 1.425, 0.1, 1.3, PA1
21, 0.1, 0.95, 0.05, 0.65, PA1

22, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
23, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
24, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
25, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
26, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
27, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
28, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
29, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF
30, 0.05, 0.475, 0.05, 0.65, TWF

Or in a formatted table:

AC	pa hit%|pa dam|twf att%|twf dam|best choice
5	0.9	8.55	0.85	11.05	TWF
6	0.85	8.075	0.8	10.4	TWF
7	0.8	7.6	0.75	9.75	TWF
8	0.75	7.125	0.7	9.1	TWF
9	0.7	6.65	0.65	8.45	TWF
10	0.65	6.175	0.6	7.8	TWF
11	0.6	5.7	0.55	7.15	TWF
12	0.55	5.225	0.5	6.5	TWF
13	0.5	4.75	0.45	5.85	TWF
14	0.45	4.275	0.4	5.2	TWF
15	0.4	3.8	0.35	4.55	TWF
16	0.35	3.325	0.3	3.9	TWF
17	0.3	2.85	0.25	3.25	TWF
18	0.25	2.375	0.2	2.6	TWF
19	0.2	1.9	0.15	1.95	TWF
[b]
20	0.15	1.425	0.1	1.3	PA1
21	0.1	0.95	0.05	0.65	PA1
[/b]
22	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
23	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
24	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
25	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
26	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
27	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
28	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
29	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF
30	0.05	0.475	0.05	0.65	TWF

If you increase the damage die (for large short swords), it gets worse for the one-weapon wielder by one AC. If you decrease the damage die (for small short swords) it gets better for the Power Attacker by one AC.

You can add your STR bonus and BAB to any AC in this chart to determine which ACs you "should" be hitting to maximize your benefit with a short sword. Of course, no one-weapon wielding character should use a short sword, but I couldn't let LuYangShih's statement stand, since it is inaccurate.

As for what I admitted, I'd appreciate you not twisting my words. What I said was that a member of one of those classes who specialized in a class-favored style (hit-and-run for rogues, tanking for barbarians, archery or two-weapon fighting for rangers) would outfight a generalist fighter using that same style. A fighter specializing in one of those styles will do just as well, generally speaking, as his class-specialized counterpart.

Actually, no, he would not. Fighters do not have the hitpoints, Rage, or DR of the Barbarian. Not to mention the faster speed. Barbarians are always better tanks. Fighters do not have Sneak Attack, Hide, Move Silently, or any detection skills. The Rogue is always better at hit and run. Rangers so completely outclass Fighters in the ranged combat area it is luaghable.

It is more accurate to say Barbarians are better cannons. The Fighter will almost always have a better AC. The Barbarian probably does more damage than the Fighter over a shorter period of time. At low levels, he can exceed the Fighter by using rage once or twice per day. The Fighter uses all of his abilities all the time.

Which is better? The DMG calls for an average encounter to use 25% of a party's resources, so any campaign which sees more than 1 encounter including a BBN1-3 and a FTR 1-3 will see the BBN at a minor disadvantage for all but the encounter in which he rages. If the party includes a BBN and FTR 4, the BBN enjoys a slimmer advantage (the Fighter just got Weapon Specialization) for two encounters.

Basically, if you have one or two encounters per day at low levels, play a Barbarian. This is especially true if you're playing a non-combat focused campaign. If you have more than that or are playing in a combat-centric game, you're probably better off being a Fighter.

The Ranger is not better than a Fighter of equivalent level at ranged combat or two-weapon fighting except at 11th level or if the Ranger is facing a twice-favored enemy, thrice-favored after level 12. The Fighter keeps pace with combat feats.

By second level, both have Rapid Shot. In fact, the Fighter had it at 1st if he took it instead of Precise Shot. The Ranger can't take Precise Shot until 3rd level. Both have Weapon Focus.

By sixth level, the RGR and FTR have Manyshot. The RGR just got Dodge. The FTR also has Mobility and Weapon Specialization.

By 11th level, the RGR has Improved Precise Shot and Mobility. The FTR has Greater Weapon Focus, Spring Attack, and Combat Expertise.

By 12th level, the RGR has Spring Attack. The FTR has Whirlwind Attack and Greater Weapon Specialization. To keep pace with damage output against anyone the Ranger must have chosen the same favored enemy twice. To exceed the damage output of the Fighter at all, the Ranger must have chosen the same favored enemy three times.

While the Fighter is mastering ranged combat, he's also mastering melee combat. While personally I think it's better to put his Weapon Focus, GWF, Weapon Specialization and GWS into melee combat, he could put them into ranged combat, thereby owning the ranged combat space.

*cough*

Which character is better at ranged combat again?

Finally, Rogues do not have staying power. The Rogue is not going to be able to deal with mobs rushing the spellcasters, and to use his special combat ability he must have a partner. The type of partner doesn't really matter. If the party faces undead, or constructs, or anything else with an immunity to criticals, the rogue's ability is reduced.

In the meantime, look at that Fighter go!

Except the Fighter isn't any better in combat than any of the other classes. Your example proves nothing, by the way. The Fighter gains no special combat abilities that are not matched or bettered by the other classes, rendering whatever point you had moot.

That's a baseless statement unless you're using a different definition of "better" than, say, Merriam-Webster does.

1. Having good qualities in a greater degree than another; as, a better man; a better physician; a better house; a better air.

The Fighter is all over combat. He has good qualities (combat abilities) in greater degree than anyone else.

However there's a much bigger problem. The Desert Raider, the Pirate, the Crusader, and all the other "Fighter Variants" - are in fact different Core Classes. You can multiclass between them freely.

Frank, yesterday I asked for you to point these core classes out in the 3.5 core rulebooks. I looked again and didn't see them. Can you please help me find them?

 

[Crothian]

Frank, yesterday I asked for you to point these core classes out in the 3.5 core rulebooks. I looked again and didn't see them. Can you please help me find them?

I think they are from one of the Dragon Magazines.

 

[Ketjak]

I think they are from one of the Dragon Magazines.

Thanks, Crothian. I don't have that (those) issue(s). I cannot compare them and they're not OGC, I imagine.

My guess is they're better in particular environments (kudos to them) or they were made by different designers. At best they're optional, not core (since they appear in a supplement and not a core rule book).

 

[Crothian]

I don't know if they are OGL, but they very well could be. Dragon has been making some things OGL.

 

[Bauglir]

That's personally how I see it, also: The roleplaying skills exist for the purpose of allowing a shy player to explore the concept, or to enhance the results of someone who CAN put up a convincing argument. Who would have an NPC reject a perfectly valid, highly appealing, and eloquently worded argument, merely because the fighter proposing it had no diplomacy ranks? If the player said that he said that, would you tell him that no, he didn't? Of course not. That's silly. Even non-diplomats have their moments of eloquence, particularly if they think really hard about it.

Yes, I would. Just like I would tell the mage that no, he doesn't stab the dragon through the heart with his dagger, killing it instantly without ever picking up a die.

Just like I would tell the int 6 half-orc that no, he didn't just come up with that highly complicated plan.

I draw a very firm line between what comes from the player and what comes from the character. If player charisma & skill overrides character charisma & skill then naturally charismatic people will dominate the game, while shy people will become mere spectators (I've seen it happen). Also why stop there? Why not throw out BAB, and generate each character's attack bonus based on a game of darts?

At the same time, I'm not saying roleplaying should have zero influence: My own take on it is to apply a modifier to the roll based on circumstances. For example I'd give a bonus to a bluff check if the player came up with a particularly convincing bluff, but even with the most convincing bluff, the character may screw it up by poor delivery (ie the roll must still be made).

Just like there are situations where the player exceeds the character, there will also be situations where the character exceeds the player. If the character is very intelligent and/or skilled (for example) I might feed that player more information about what they see than others, since their character will naturally be considering all that they see. For example I might describe a scene to a rogue in terms of opportunities to move past unseen (if they have some hide skill) or areas that might be trapped (if they have Search). The fighter just sees a corridor. The rogue notes that this corridor is tiled (while others were not)