Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cyraneth" data-source="post: 1143702" data-attributes="member: 1199">Well, this is quite a thread, so let me add my last words to it:It seems that fighters aren't as &quot;fun&quot; because they don't have enough skill points. Well, rogues are still fun, although they &quot;don't have enough&quot; magical skill and combat ability. The same goes for bards. And wizards and sorcerers lack any kind of toe-to-toe combat ability, but that's all fine. Just work with what you got. A fighter might not have as many skill points as a rogue. Well, that just means he can't max out as many skills. He can still get up to 12 skills (1st-level human fighter, Int 10), but he won't be as skilled as a more specialized fighter. It's exactly the same as the rogue. A 1st-level human rogue (Int 14) could pick up 44 or 11 skills, or anything in between, depending on what he's feeling like.What I want to say is, few skill points merely means you won't be as good at that particular thing as other classes, but it's not like it's the end of the world. A fighter can still participate is courtly dialogue even though he doesn't have the Diplomacy skill. He can still help plan an infiltration, or even help execute it, even though he doesn't have Gather Information, Disguise, Bluff, Hide, or Forgery. Having or not having a skill isn't that important. It's finding a way that solves the problem at hand with the resources your party's got that is key. No need to worry 'cause your 1st-level noble warrior-knight &quot;only&quot; has 2 ranks in Knowledge (nobility and royalty). He happened to pay more attention to the fighting classes than the heraldry classes. Otherwise, he'd be a bard or some such.- Cyraneth</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cyraneth, post: 1143702, member: 1199"] Well, this is quite a thread, so let me add my last words to it: It seems that fighters aren't as "fun" because they don't have enough skill points. Well, rogues are still fun, although they "don't have enough" magical skill and combat ability. The same goes for bards. And wizards and sorcerers lack any kind of toe-to-toe combat ability, but that's all fine. Just work with what you got. A fighter might not have as many skill points as a rogue. Well, that just means he can't max out as many skills. He can still get up to 12 skills (1st-level human fighter, Int 10), but he won't be as skilled as a more specialized fighter. It's exactly the same as the rogue. A 1st-level human rogue (Int 14) could pick up 44 or 11 skills, or anything in between, depending on what he's feeling like. What I want to say is, few skill points merely means you won't be as good at that particular thing as other classes, but it's not like it's the end of the world. A fighter can still participate is courtly dialogue even though he doesn't have the Diplomacy skill. He can still help plan an infiltration, or even help execute it, even though he doesn't have Gather Information, Disguise, Bluff, Hide, or Forgery. Having or not having a skill isn't that important. It's finding a way that solves the problem at hand with the resources your party's got that is key. No need to worry 'cause your 1st-level noble warrior-knight "only" has 2 ranks in Knowledge (nobility and royalty). He happened to pay more attention to the fighting classes than the heraldry classes. Otherwise, he'd be a bard or some such. - Cyraneth [/QUOTE]

Verification