A Fighters skill points....

[takyris]

Yo Doctor,

Let me alter your argument slightly.

"Dear Arcane Spellcaster,

Thank you for your interest in developing new areas of magical talent. You requested more information about options in the divine spellcasting arena, and we are pleased to tell you that divine spellcasting currently has many openings. We understand that you are currently 9th level. For your 10th character level, why not try cleric? With spells like Cure Light Wounds and Bless at your fingertips, you'll be adding new depth to your arsenal when fighting demons, devils, and young dragons of all colors!

Sincerely,

Board of Classes"

"Dear Board of Classes,

I received your letter, in which you advised me to consider a level in Cleric. However, this results in me diversifying and being really really weak. I mean, a Cure Light Wounds doesn't help me much as a 10th level character. Is there anything else we can do?

Yrs,

Ninth-level Arcane Spellcaster."

"Dear Spellcaster,

We understand the difficulty of your position. However, the rules are in place for a reason, and you were well aware of the consequences of trying to be as versatile as you wish to become. This kind of choice is really something you should have considered before. You do have options as a Mystic Theurge, of course.

Best of luck,

Board of Clases"

"Dear Board of Classes,

This is completely unfair. If I were a Fighter who wanted to make himself more versatile by adding levels of Paladin, Ranger, or Barbarian, I would have no disadvantages whatsoever. Please explain!"

"Dear Caster,

Well, the combat classes have always been overpowered."

There's nothing like roaming around on ENWorld and realizing that all the spellcasting classes are unfairly underpowered because they can't multiclass and stack their caster levels, while all the combat classes are underpowered because they don't get big incremental bumps like the casting classes get -- they just get that nice steady +1/level that just keeps stacking no matter which combat class they pick.

Man, all the classes are underpowered! These WotC folks botched it big!

 

[DrSpunj]

Yo Doctor,

Let me alter your argument slightly.

<snip>

Man, all the classes are underpowered! These WotC folks botched it big!

Nice!

The only thing I can add is that I see the analogy you've described slightly differently. A Fighter taking 2+ different feat trees to me is like a Wizard who was somehow allowed to Specialize in multiple schools. The first time through they focus on Evocation magic. After getting access to 4th level spells they are forced to go back and pick up something else, Abjuration maybe, instead of getting more powerful magic.

Are they more diversified with their magic? Absolutely, they'll likely have a appropriate spell for more situations, but they aren't gaining more powerful spells. Taking more Wizard levels to pick up Transmutation or any of the other schools gives you more options when you go to cast a spell, but none of them are more powerful.

That's what a Fighter feels like to me after about 6th level (assuming I specialized so far). I can diversify myself into another tree , but my next feat choice/tree isn't more powerful than where I'm starting from, instead I'm essentially starting over, essentially *forced* to multiclass as a BowFtr6/TwfFtr1 as silly as that sounds, and that's not an attractive choice to me most of the time.

A Wiz6 doesn't face that same automatic loss in power if he continues as a Wiz7, but it's a choice he *can* opt to make for versatility if he wants to multiclass with a level of some other class.

 

[Crothian]

Okay simple build. I’m not worrying too much about stats and skills. The feats are the Fighter’s bread and butter. I’m also not assuming human, so there will be no bonus feat. For simplicities sake we are going to build someone damn good at the Bastard Sword. I am also only using two books, PHB and Feats by AEG. So, there very well may be better feats out there.

1 EWP Bastard Sword
1 Weapon Focus Bastard Sword
2 Combat Expertise
3 Power Attack
4 Weapon Specialization Bastard Sword
6 Frenzied Attack
6 Quick Draw
8 Greater Weapon Focus
9 Improved Critical
10 Weapon Mastery Bastard Sword
12 Greater Weapon Specialization
12 Elite Weapon Master Bastard Sword
14 Improved Weapon Focus
15 Shield Focus
16 Shield Mastery
18 Shield Specialization
18 Cleave
20 Great Cleave

Okay, with a Bastard word this guy gets and additional +4 to attack, base damage is d12 instead of d10, gets +4 damage, his crit range is 17-20/x3, can increase damage or AC (or both), gets +6 AC when using a shield, has the cleave thing going, quickdraw to get all attacks any round (I never liked the idea of people always holding their weapons out in all circumstances), and can gain an additional attack a round at his best bonus if he takes a -4 penalty to all attacks that round.

That is without magic, with out prestige classes, using only two books, not taking in consideration of races or attributes.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Takyris: Whether you meant it or not, I think you cut right to the heart of the matter. The reason we're having this discussion is that we feel that there's not a good enough reason not to multiclass as a fighter, skill points aside. Some of us (like Frank the Troll) are saying that this is far higher than it should be (more something and more skills/SP), while others (like myself) are saying that it'd be nice if we got more for being a fighter, but the real issue is that the fighter doesn't have the skill list/points to build many of the fighter archetypes.
Just so we all know what we're actually arguing about.

edit: Crothian: Good example of one of the generalist builds I was talking about. I agree that the fighter has no problem filling up the feat slots he gets. The thing is, what if you have a tighter concept then you run out of feats faster. Try the same thing with the "Highest AC" character, without adding anything outside of the concept, and you'll see what I mean.
BTB, I don't have the AEG Feats book yet, so I don't know what's in it. It worth the buy?

Magius out.

PS: Excellent posts, by the way.

 

[takyris]

Hey Magius,

Yup, that was what I was getting at. We've got a lot of threads floating around about how spellcasters are totally shafted because if they multiclass, it doesn't go well. Now we've got threads about how fighters are shafted because multiclassing makes them more powerful -- and that, by inference, they are therefore underpowered in their natural form.

If I had to pick one side or the other to believe, I'd go for the spellcasters. I'd rather see spellcasting multiclassing improved (ie, made easier but not to the 2E "Sure, just as powerful in both classes as an ordinary person" level) than see the fighter gain a lot of powers that you only get if you go up to level 20.

Of course, I'm coming at this after awhile in a d20 Modern game, in which a character with nothing but one class is considered to be something of an over-focused specialist. I LIKE the idea of multiclassing (provided you fix saves and BAB progression so that you don't end up with a +10 Base Will Save character with a BAB of +0).

At its heart, my argument is that I'm tired of people defining their characters by their classes. There is not, and should not be, anything sacred about being a single-classed character, and I'd rather that people go with Fighter/Rogue mixes to get the wily old general -- or that they modify the fighter as the DMG suggests on a per-character basis, losing Climb and Swim and getting Diplomacy and Sense Motive -- rather than make the Fighter class into something it was not designed to be.

To take a class designed for nothing except fighting and then complain that it is lousy at social skills is like berating apple pie for being the worst quiche you ever tasted.

The argument that a barbarian or ranger will outfight a fighter of equal level and equipment is one that I'll leave for somebody else. I personally have seen every class in the book performing well and badly, and I'm satisfied that the fighter does what he's supposed to do (fight in any style you want him to fight) as well or better than any other class in the game. Competitive builds eventually degenerate into a rock-paper-scissors game. Sure, your ranged guy can beat my tank, but my disarming/defensive master can beat your ranged guy, and my tank can beat that disarming/defensive master, and we've really not proved anything at all.

 

[Storminator]

'course, that does bring up an interesting point. Most of the classes give you better and better things as you go up in level (ranger - TWF/Bow trees, Cleric/Sorc/Wiz spells, etc). The fighter does not. Indeed, if you go by straight up core rules (3.0 or 3.5, whichever), you could argue that the fighter has a diminishing return on his special ability. If you're character's point is having the highest AC possible, then you're going to run out of feats to take pretty quickly (around level 8, IIRC), and you need to look at other sources to further develope the character concept.

<SNIP>

Magius out.

Actually, the highest possible AC guy maxes out at 1st level. Buy a tower shield, then use it for full cover, all the time. It's better than any high AC.

Of course you're useless. If you mean a guy with a high AC that's also effective in combat, you've just implied a second feat tree. So take them both at once, and delay your progression in your signature style by a level or two. No fighter worth a damn should limit himself to just one tree, ever.

It's much more effective to buy the low level feats in two trees, and you still get the high level feats before other characters. Whirlwind takes 5 feats, which means a fighter can get it at 4th level. No other base class can get it before 9th, and non-humans can't get it until 12th. So if the fighter spends a number of his low level feats on, for example the bow tree, he can still get Whirlwind at 8th, but also have PBS(1st level), Precise Shot(3rd level), and Rapid Shot(6th level). He's still better than all other classes at his schtick (Whirlwind), but he's also nearly as good as other classes at a second style.

Then at 9th and 10th level he's still got good bow feats to go for, and can always add in WF and WS. He's still getting good value for his feats--his 4th and 5th feats in the archery tree are the top ones available to all other classes (except archery rangers)! And he could also start folding in a 3rd tree while the lower feats are valuable

PS

 

[Crothian]

edit: Crothian: Good example of one of the generalist builds I was talking about. I agree that the fighter has no problem filling up the feat slots he gets. The thing is, what if you have a tighter concept then you run out of feats faster. Try the same thing with the "Highest AC" character, without adding anything outside of the concept, and you'll see what I mean.
BTB, I don't have the AEG Feats book yet, so I don't know what's in it. It worth the buy?

My opinion on feats:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/revi...active&reviewer=Crothian+non+PDF&product=Feat

Best AC. Okay, I'm just going to list feats and see what I come up with. Again I'm only using these two books.

Combat Expertise
Dodge
Armor Focus (adds +1 to AC armor check penalty (ARP) is reduced by 1 when using either light, medium or heavy armor)
Armor Specialization (stacking +2 AC , ACP reduced by 2, one feat for each armor category as above)
Armor Mastery (Stacking +3 AC bonus, ACP reduced by an additional 3, as above)
Defensive Fighter (get +2 AC and suffer only -1 to attack for fighting defensively)
Devoted Defense (when taking the total defense option get +8 instead of +4 to AC)
Improved Dodge (dodge bonus increases to +3, applies to all opponents)
Lightning Reflexes (needed for Improved Dodge)
Improved Expertise (Allows expertise to go up to BAB)
Parry (get +1 AC dodge bonus)
Weapon Finesse (needed for Parry)
Shield Focus (+1 AC using shield, reduce ACP by 1)
Shiled Specialization (+2 stackible bonus to AC, reduce ACP by 2)
Shield Mastery (+3 AC bonus stackible, reduce ACP by 3)

That's 13 feats that only increase AC. There are also three more feats that can be listed that help when you are unarmered; just in case you are cauht naked.

 

[reapersaurus]

Frank - that last post of yours brought in everything but the kitchen sink, and therefore digressed the discussion.

I'll try to keep some focus here:
You compared the fighter to a Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin.
I'm no expert on the new Ranger, so I'll leave that to others.

However, it has been statistically proven (conclusively enough for me) in other threads, that a fighter will BEAT a Barbarian of equal level.
If memory serves, this was due to the Fighter's use of Expertise to outlast the Bbn's Rage, then chop him up when he's fatigued.
If anyone can search for it and post a link, it will prove to you Frank that the Ftr is better in combat than the Bbn. However, you mentioned the Bbn is better out-of-combat due to the 4 skillpoints and reasonable skills list.
In 3.5, the Bbn only has Listen and Survival more than the fighter.
I wouldn't call that dominating, though the 4 skillpoints is.

So now let's compare the Ftr and Paladin, shall we?
(you shouldn't have brought up the Paladin, Frank)
I happen to know for a fact that the Paladin is worse than the Ftr in combat. I could point it out, example after example, but all you have to do is look at what the Pal gets for offensive abilities, and they don't even come close to comparing to the Ftr's bonus feats.

So that leaves us with the Paladin's utter dominance in out-of-combat.
Well, they only get 4 skills the Ftr doesn't (Diplomacy, Heal, Knowledge, and Sense Motive), whereas the Ftr gets 3 skills the Pal doesn't (Intimidate, Jump & Swim).
We could go deep into it, but basically, due to the Paladin's absolute attribute-crunch, his only 'dump' stat is INT. Therefore, he will be lucky to get 2 skillpoints per level (8 INT and human), as opposed to the Ftr who very likely could have 4 skillpoints (12 INT and human). Since the Pal arguably doesn't have enough skill points to even remotely take advantage of the few class skills he has more than the Ftr, I'd have to say that since the Ftr can easily have twice as many skillpoints, than the skills comparison goes to the humble Ftr.

This leaves the Paladin's other non-combat abilities: Detect Evil and ... umm.. I guess that's it. Other than the pathetic spells he has, I don't see any non-combat bennies the Paladin is getting that aren't available to the Ftr.

So let's sum up:
The Ftr will have higher INT (if he wants) than the Pal, and therefore many more skillpoints. The Paladin doesn't have a significantly better skill list, and only has Detect Evil 'over' the Ftr in non-combat. The Ftr is better in combat than the Pal (we can discuss this more if you'd like).

So I have just presented a case that shows how the Paladin is even WORSE off than the Ftr in exactly the areas you have been discussing for lo this whole long thread.

If your points are:
a) that multiclassed characters are stronger than single-classed characters, then....
DUH.
b) that the Ftr is inordinantly weaker than all other classes, then... I have just shown a case where the Paladin is even weaker.
Oh, I forgot to add in the incredibly-restrictive Code that the Paladin has, which effectively gives the Ftr a huge bonus to out-of-combat flexibility in comparison, due to the Ftr not having to be limited in the same ways.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Frank - that last post of yours brought in everything but the kitchen sink, and therefore digressed the discussion.

I'll try to keep some focus here:
You compared the fighter to a Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin.
I'm no expert on the new Ranger, so I'll leave that to others.

However, it has been statistically proven (conclusively enough for me) in other threads, that a fighter will BEAT a Barbarian of equal level.
If memory serves, this was due to the Fighter's use of Expertise to outlast the Bbn's Rage, then chop him up when he's fatigued.
If anyone can search for it and post a link, it will prove to you Frank that the Ftr is better in combat than the Bbn. However, you mentioned the Bbn is better out-of-combat due to the 4 skillpoints and reasonable skills list.
In 3.5, the Bbn only has Listen and Survival more than the fighter.
I wouldn't call that dominating, though the 4 skillpoints is.

Small point but the only thing I ever saw proven that a fihgter could be specifically built in a way to beat a barbarian. Not a big surprise, though that fighter gives up a ton on standard combat utility for this. Those 5 points put into int so you can have expertise(a good feat) came from somewhere, the barbarian gets by with a 10 int thanks to no expertise since he rages and 4 skill points. Those 3 extra points could mean another point of str or another couple points in con or whatever. So while the fighter beats the barbarian in the death match the barbarian defeats more of the baddies that the group faces.

A lot of the builds here go on and on about the fighters versatility and guess what in a point buy its tough. The dex based feats like the archery train require a decent dex, whirwind well you need a 13 int thanks to expertise, and you still need con and str. Sure played well they can still be tough, but probably not as tough in the overall scheme of things than a just really strong high con guy.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Yeah... go back and see the Rock Paper Scissors example.

I have seen more than one set-up where people made a Fighter specifically to beat a Barbarian. Similarly, you can make a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian to beat a Fighter. Neither proves anything.

The point is, that you can make a character with no more than 2 levels of Fighter who fills a straight Fighter's niche in the party better.

Just like my Cleric Archer is better than a Fighter Archer - a Barbarian can be a better Greatswordsman, a Paladin can be a better mounted lancer, and a Ranger can be a better multi-purpose diverse situations combatant.

The Fighter can be outshined by a build at anything he attempts to put his mind to. And therefore, he's underpowered. A character class, taken exclusively, should be better than any other combination of core classes at something - and for the Fighter that just is not true.

BTW: The Paladin really shines in Defensive builds - having an extra +3 (or more) to all saves is a really big deal to a defensive charcater. Not everything is going to attempt attack rolls against you, and the Paladin has more over-all staying power than any Fighter build does.

----

As to Wizards and multiclassing - yes. Multiclassing for spellcasters sucks, and something should be done about that. That is for another topic, however. As things currently stand, however, our massively multiclassed Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian, while he outshines the straight Fighter in all things - does not actually outshine a Wizard of equal character level in all combats.

A Wizard is always going to do better against huge numbers of weak opponents (area damage, and all that) - and often performs better against single powerful opponents (With Save or Die spells). So while the multiclassed spellcaster needs rules alterations to bring them up to speed with single classed spellcasters - the single classed spellcasters wants for nothing in his ability to actually compete with multiclassed warriors.

-Frank