A Fighters skill points....

[Bauglir]

the single classed spellcasters wants for nothing in his ability to actually compete with multiclassed warriors.

 

[reapersaurus]

1) Similarly, you can make a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian to beat a Fighter.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) 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.

1) No, you can't make a Paladin to beat "a" fighter, unless you place a Paladin on his bonded mount, and the Ftr not on any mount.

2) No, your statement only holds true if the "role" you're requiring doesn't include lots of feats. With high-feat-requirement builds, lots of Ftr levels are NECESSARY.
I don't make high-feat builds, so I can't provide examples.

3) So Cleric spells are more powerful than a Ftr - that's no surprise, if you've read my posts, or many discussions here thru the years (seriously, we're on the same side here, thoroughly).
A Bbn's skill in using a Greatsword is just too easy to squash now, since his best benefit (Rage) is SO easily taken away by 3.5 no-save spells.
How can a Paladin be a better lancer than a Ftr? You must be including his mount in this thought (IOW, only above level 5).
Mounted Fighting requires FEATS (and potentially Handle Animal and Ride, both of which are Ftr skills).
Ftrs get feats.
Ergo, Ftr's make better Mounted Combatters (barring multiclassing).

Ranger, I'll leave alone.

4) Again, your belief is FLAWED (see below).
No matter how many times you say that a Ftr can't be the best at something (compared with other classes), doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
The sheer number of feats, and WS, make the Ftr best at combat effectiveness and flexibility.
Very simple.

Now, there are 2 things I want to make clear:
a) I totally agree with you Frank that Ftrs are underpowered.
But I am on record as saying that ALL +1 BAB classes are severely underpowered compared to primary spellcasting classes.
I'm not saying the Ftr isn;t screwed: on the contrary, I'm saying he's screwed, and the Paladin is even more screwed.

b) Your contention that a straight-classed Ftr should be better than a multiclassed character is FLAWED.
Multiclassing is stronger than straight classing.
I have no proof for this, but I think it's obvious.
I CAN prove to you that a Ftr/Clr is stronger in combat than a Paladin - does that mean the Paladin class is "broken"?
Seriously, I'd like an answer to that.

edit: oh, yeah - Frank - nice dodge of my previous post.

 

[Storminator]

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.

All a fighter needs to beat a barbarian consistently is a tower shield. Use it for total cover until the rage ends, then destroy the fatigued barbarian. Usable at any time, without the cost of a single feat.

In terms of utility to a party, I've seen far too many barbarians bleed to death when the rage ends (it isn't all of them, but its close) to believe they are superior to fighters.

PS

 

[Magius del Cotto]

b) Your contention that a straight-classed Ftr should be better than a multiclassed character is FLAWED.
Multiclassing is stronger than straight classing.
I have no proof for this, but I think it's obvious.
I CAN prove to you that a Ftr/Clr is stronger in combat than a Paladin - does that mean the Paladin class is "broken"?
Seriously, I'd like an answer to that.

Well, it is if the the Paladin is supposed to be a merging of the two. Otherwise, why would you ever take the one when the two do the same thing better?
'Course, this is the sort of thing that's happening with fighters. There are several fighter concepts that call for a certain range of skills, and the fighter's skill list doesn't satisfy them. Say, a career merc would have Profession: Mercenary and Survival; a Knight Errant (and yes, this is the non-paladin version) would have diplomacy; a sailor would have Proffession: Sailor and Spot. Et Cetera, Et Cetera.
A fighter should be able to be any of these things, and as it stands, he can be none of them. Of course, if you simply expand his skill list, you end up allowing a fighter to be all of them, and I don't think that would be too wise either.
I think that giving the fighter two or three bonus class skills would go a long way toward getting things on track, but I can see how that could lead to interference with other classes...

Crothian: I stand corrected, then. It would seem to be possible to use almost all, if not all, the fighter feats no matter how narrow the concept is. Now I really want to pick up that feats book. And finish my Big Ol' Book O' Feats, but that's a matter for another time.

Magius out.

 

[Crothian]

Crothian: I stand corrected, then. It would seem to be possible to use almost all, if not all, the fighter feats no matter how narrow the concept is. Now I really want to pick up that feats book. And finish my Big Ol' Book O' Feats, but that's a matter for another time.

Magius out.

Mongoose also has a book of feats tHat I don't have. However from what I've heard there is little cross over.

 

[Thanee]

I think some of the core classes that are extraordinary viable for multiclassing (mainly the fighter) are deliberately weaker as single classes compared to other core classes (altho I don't really agree with this reasoning, that it should be like that).

The fighter is not underpowered, when you compare him to other non-spellcasting classes (real spellcasting classes).

Everything is underpowered, when you compare with those spellcasters. That's simply because there are just too many spells resembling class abilities, which effectively give you all the benefits the other character needs to take several levels in a certain class for. And, of course, since spells have a greater impact than most other abilities, with the reasoning, that they are limited-resource abilities mostly.

Bye
Thanee

 

[LuYangShih]

The argument is getting nowhere. I have two problems with the Fighter. One, is it is nearly impossible to build a character concept with the class that is interesting and effecient. Two, there is rarely a reason to continue taking levels in the class once you hit mid to high levels. I have yet to see anyone refute either of these two problems.

 

[Inari]

Intesting discussion indeed. Personally, I'm on the opinion that fighters descerve only two points, akin to the cleric, paladin and the arcane spellcasters (wizard and sorcerer). I see no reason why the fighter should be more skillful than a wizard, who constantly learns through studying from heavy books (knowledge anyone?).

Further, I don't think you can compare the heroes to the core classes of the 3.x D&D. For example, Robin Hood definatelly is a ranger, although he has no connection with animals. Same goes that Gandalf was a wizard, but he was more fighter-ish, wielding that great sword of his with amazing skill. IMO I think you'd be better off comparing people also to AU's classes, as they seem more diverse in some meaning (I think Robin here would rather be Unfettered, and Gandalf more of a Magister (or even a Witch)).

However, back to the subject at hand, I'm DMing a group in the Rokugan setting, and I've got two fighter characters (weird thing is, there's not a single caster).

nr.1 Jujune, Miiga. A Gajiin (foreigner) to Rokugan, Miiga is the most successful archer I've seen. I readily give players more and more class skills, but with his int of 9, he's still able to pull off some good skills. He took 5 straight fighter levels, but recently took one ranger level (because he already had Track, I gave him 4 more skill points instead of the class ability). He's though kicking serious ass when he's within 30ft of an opponent, dishing out +12/+7 1d8+4 x3 with his (non-magical, non-MW) Yumi (longbow).

nr.2 Heichi, Jatosha. One of the last of the boar clan, Jatosha has traveled far beyond the dunes and slew a great general from the senpet empire not long ago. He's the literal great fighter of the group. With his weapon specilization, and +1 enchantment bonus, he's dishing out +12/+7 1d12+9 x3 with his "Deathspade" greataxe. He's got a bunch of useful skills, thanks to his 12 int, and human heritige. Amongst his skills include 9 ranks in Local (borderlands) and 9 ranks in nobility and royality. Not bad for a 2 skill point character.

My reason for posting these two characters (other than to show off my players) is to show that you don't always need to boost up the fighter skill points. It's fine as it is, unless you want to up ALL the classes by +2. It shouldn't really be a problem, but it's unfair if you're making the most combat oriented class suddenly as skillful as the rangers of old were. It just doesn't make sense (same as I think that the Bard shouldn't have so many skill points, but that's a discussion for some other time).

 

[LuYangShih]

The Wizard does have more class skills than the Fighter, and the high Intelligence required means he has many more points to spend. Furthermore, the skills you listed your "great fighter" having are impossible to achieve with a standard Fighter until 15th level, and they would cost a total of 36 skillpoints.

 

[Inari]

Furthermore, the skills you listed your "great fighter" having are impossible to achieve with a standard Fighter until 15th level, and they would cost a total of 36 skillpoints.

Hence, why I said I was so generous with class skills. I think they should vary a bit more. Thenagain, my DMing style is a lot more of an emphasis on role playing and flavour, meaning I often purposly against the rules when I DM.

Wizards most of the time have higher Int, meaning more class skills, but a better example would be the sorcerer who knows spells through studying him/herself greatly. I'm still on the opinion that sorcerers should have d6 hp and 4+int skills, but I know the game's balanced the way it is, and I'd just be doing no good if I were to change one class, and not the rest.

Anyways, like I said, the best way to go would be to give more class skills in general, and even give all of the classes two more skills per level. It shouldn't unbalance the game, although I'd start feeling bad for the human rogue with 18 in int... even just at first level, we're talking about 60 skill points... meaning 15 skills that could be maxed.