A Fighters skill points....

[FrankTrollman]

You're not making a Fighter.

The hell I'm not. Fighters only have Feats and weapon proficiencies. That's it. If I can get that many feats and the weapon proficiencies, I am a Fighter. The fact that I can also have skills and class features on top of that means that there are some "Fighter" builds which are underpowered.

One of those builds is mixing in some Warrior Levels - or some other NPC class. Another is taking only "Fighter" levels and not taking other levels which give you additional abilities, saves, and skills on top of the feats.

If you can't understand that, we have nothing to talk about.

-Frank

 

[Ketjak]

The hell I'm not. Fighters only have Feats and weapon proficiencies. That's it. If I can get that many feats and the weapon proficiencies, I am a Fighter. The fact that I can also have skills and class features on top of that means that there are some "Fighter" builds which are underpowered.

One of those builds is mixing in some Warrior Levels - or some other NPC class. Another is taking only "Fighter" levels and not taking other levels which give you additional abilities, saves, and skills on top of the feats.

If you can't understand that, we have nothing to talk about.

-Frank

I thought it was rather clear, Frank. A Fighter class-based character is not the same as a character comprised only of Fighter class levels. You are saying it is. You cannot say "my character is a Fighter" then ask "how do you like my animal companion?"

It's like saying "My character's a Fighter," then casting true strike. Obviously, he's not a Fighter... he's a magic-wielding warrior-type.

Or saying "I'm a Rogue," just before raging. He's not a rogue... he's a raging death shadow or something.

There's a difference. You can see that, surely - you argue that the Fighter class is not as good as other classes, and advise multi-classing to make the best combat specialist.

Do you see the difference or don't you? If you do, try to phrase an argument that holds water longer than one post. If you don't, let's work on illustrations until you do.

 

[FrankTrollman]

I thought it was rather clear, Frank. A Fighter class-based character is not the same as a character comprised only of Fighter class levels.

Then we obviously have nothing to talk about.

If you think that a list of classes makes your character concept - no name-calling, please -Henry. Your character concept is made or broken by the abilities granted by those classes. If you have all the abilities you want - your character concept is good to go - if you have less than that you are not.

The Fighter has a pile of abilities which is smaller and otherwise identical to a more well thought-out list of classes. Therefore, you are more likely to be able to fulfill your character concept with the more convoluted class list.

We seem to be talking past each other - you seem to be under the strange delusion that a character concept might actually be "Level 7 Fighter" - which is dumb.

And it is really hard to not just insult you over it, honestly. Please, stop wasting my time.

-Frank

 

[Ketjak]

Then we obviously have nothing to talk about.

If you think that a list of classes makes your character concept - you are an idiot. Your character concept is made or broken by the abilities granted by those classes. If you have all the abilities you want - your character concept is good to go - if you have less than that you are not.

The Fighter has a pile of abilities which is smaller and otherwise identical to a more well thought-out list of classes. Therefore, you are more likely to be able to fulfill your character concept with the more convoluted class list.

We seem to be talking past each other - you seem to be under the strange delusion that a character concept might actually be "Level 7 Fighter" - which is dumb.

Frank, you cited the Fighter versatility examples in Sword & Fist as better "Fighters" than Fighters... and yet they illustrated my point exactly: that a Fighter can be what a player wants it to be! I already saw that... I can't help it if my imagination allowed me to see how to use feats, skills, and abilities to create those characters.

And it is really hard to not just insult you over it, honestly. Please, stop wasting my time.

-Frank

Of course, Frank. Insults are the refuge of those who have no argument. It's okay; stop trying to paint a class as undesirable when it is only in the context of ignorance of fact (Fighter vs Ranger), comparisons to prestige classes (the "dragoon"), a desire to min-max with the best of the munchkins (having all the abilities you want), and a lack of imagination (no flexibility in the Fighter class for creating the character you want). Instead, try using facts (Fighter combat feats vs Ranger combat abilities), analyses (Fighter design and average damage vs Ranger design and average damage), and stick with the definitions of terms published already, rather than reinventing them to suit an otherwise dubious position (Fighter, not Fighter).

Anyone else care to show how the Fighter sucks or is out of balance with other classes? Someone with a sound argument, that is.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Right. So long as the argument involves no multiclassing, no prestige classing, no non-core material, and requires the use of Fighter levels exclusively, I am unable to create a build that is a better Fighter than the Fighter.

With that list of limitations, however, I am also unable to make a better arcane spellcaster than the Fighter and I am unable to build a better stealthy trickster than the Fighter. Clearly, your list of restrictions is overly broad.

We have been around this bush over and over again. I have shown that the Fighter is outperformed in all ways no matter what it is being asked to do. If the campaign involves lots of "non-standard" battlefields, the Ranger is better, if you have an elaborate fighting style the multiclassed character is better, and in a straightforward hitting fest the Barbarian is better.

There isn't anything left. We've been over this from every possible angle - the other warrior builds are able to outperform the Fighter on the battlefield and off. The only thing you have is a vague assertion that somehow people will get a warm and fuzzy feeling from writing "Fighter" on their character sheet. That's inane.

-Frank

 

[Shader]

Okay, just to add my own two copper pieces, because, well why the hell not, I agree *partly* with the original post in this thread.

I would like to see a Fighter changed by giving them a few more class skills, *and* some extra skill points. Extra skills? Yeah, I personally believe that the Fighter has too narrow a range of skills. A Fighter shouldn't be considered purely a grunt. Give them a couple of talky skills, maybe something like Bluff or Sense Motive, maybe Diplomacy (for someone who aspires to be a military leader, for example), maybe even Search. I'd just like to see the Fighter have access to a few more skills, to take them out of the "Me warrior, me hit fings" bracket and into "I'm a warrior and I know my craft well" type of trade.

Just my two copper pieces worth.

 

[poilbrun]

Having the Dragon in which the variant 3.5 fighters in it, I'd like to point that it's clearly stated that you cannot multiclass fighter with one of them, nor two of them.

As for the problem at hand, I belive the fighter is overall better in a fight than any other class. Sure, other class have nice features that mean they can outshine the fighter in other areas, sure there are some fights where they'll do better than the fighter, but over the course of a campaign ranging from 1st to 20th level, the fighter will be more effective than any other class.

I wouldn't give the fighter any extra skill point, unless I gave extra skill points to everyone (which I sometimes do when I DM smaller groups), and I wouldn't give them more class skills, even though I'd agree to other class skills, as in the variants from Dragon #310, balanced with the fact that the fighter feat list is reduced (to give an example, the fencer has Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Ride, and Tumble as class skills, but they can only use light armors and bucklers. Furthermore, their fighter feat list does not include the power attack - cleave chain. They also get special abilities which they can take in place of a bonus feat, starting at 4th level).

 

[LuYangShih]

On the Diplomacy rolls:

Sorry, you are ignoring the rules if you play it that way. By putting roleplay above the mechanics of the game, a Dwarf with 6 Charisma can be just as convincing as the Half-Elf with an 18 Charisma. I will no more give players who are shy and have trouble with words penalties in social situations than I will give players who are out of shape penalties in combat situations. Nor will I give them bonuses based on those out of game factors.


I would also say that characters with no diplomacy scores making great speeches is the antithesis of roleplaying. Roleplaying is correctly portraying the attributes and characteristics of your PC, which includes how good they are with words.


Ketjak:

I loved your little example. It was so cute and pointless. Try doing the math with a two-handed weapon, mmmkay? Thanks.

 

[Darklone]

LYS: I didn't say nothing about characters making good speeches. I went more into the direction of a halforc at court who simply states the truth with enough power behind the argument by itself to be ignored. He does not need diplomacy to convince people, his reasoning might do it. Of course, the bard will get the halforc there by bribing the guards or whatever.

I handle it like this: A player with high charisma and diplomacy has an easier time to achieve things, NPCs will respect him... but not always.

Great speeches are different from not making speeches at all, stating your point (even shy and shaking) and leaving as quickly as possible. You might rather succeed by dipping your tongue in honey and wrapping your truth in silk, but I wouldn't forbid a character who stays in character to achieve anything that way.

That's where roleplaying trumps simple skilluse in my games.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Darklone: That still sounds an awful lot like giving favored players bonuses to hit because it would be "dramatically appropriate" for them to hit at that time.

-Frank