Class skills for Fighters

[NoOneofConsequence]

Finally, my main beef is, I think, actually with the Rogue Class.
If ever there was an unbalanced class, baby, this is it. They can't be hit most of the time by the most effective Arcane spells (Evasion), at high levels they can deal potentially far greater damage (Sneak Attack), and played with moderate Intelligence, they can deal that damage without being hit themselves. AGHHHHHHH! (DM downed by 5d6 sneak critical....)

Ahh, but you forget, DM's are immune to sneak attacks and criticals, just like all other oozes.

 

[hong]

Finally, my main beef is, I think, actually with the Rogue Class.
If ever there was an unbalanced class, baby, this is it. They can't be hit most of the time by the most effective Arcane spells (Evasion), at high levels they can deal potentially far greater damage (Sneak Attack), and played with moderate Intelligence, they can deal that damage without being hit themselves. AGHHHHHHH! (DM downed by 5d6 sneak critical....)

First, note that anything that's immune to crits is pretty much laughing at the rogue. That includes characters with armour of heavy fortification (cheap at +5).

Second, the rogue may be able to dish it out, but he can't take it. A rogue that hangs around to do a full attack in melee had better finish the job, or he'll likely be turned into salsa the next round. They just don't have the hit points to duke it out with things like giants, dragons, etc.

 

[Ravellion]

After multiple re-reads of theses posts, I think that Spot & Listen should still be class skills, along with some sort of knowledge skill (and, yes I know the ones I posted earlier aren't in the PHB).

I understand why they don't get "Profession" - their class IS their profession. A profession indicates continual study and dedication - Fighters apply this to their class, not a separate area.

Also, with regard to the comparison to Ranger & Barbarian: yes, Fighters get a cubic butt-load of feats. Rangers & Barbarians get a butt-load of Feat-Like abilities (Special bonuses, Rage, etc.), AND more skill points to boot. The question is, why would anyone take Fighter?

Finally, my main beef is, I think, actually with the Rogue Class.
If ever there was an unbalanced class, baby, this is it. They can't be hit most of the time by the most effective Arcane spells (Evasion), at high levels they can deal potentially far greater damage (Sneak Attack), and played with moderate Intelligence, they can deal that damage without being hit themselves. AGHHHHHHH! (DM downed by 5d6 sneak critical....)

So with spot and listen as class skills and the skill points upped to 4, why would anyone ever play ranger.

The way I see it: take two levels of ranger. That way your fighter has one feat less and can spot a whole lot better. You can do that as often as you want. (ie. instead of taking 2 levels of fighter and get a feat, take two levels of ranger and get perception benefits).

And I have never, in three years, found rogues broken or fighters underplayed. I have played in three different gaming grouos as well... I think you are trying to make decisions on the class while you haven't actually seen it in action (fighters that is; apparently your players don't like them): Correct me if I am wrong though. I usually notice this in groups with an aversion of heavy armour; the thing is, heavy armour is actually a very good deal.

Rav

 

[DustTC]

There's already fighters for all sorts of situations, they are either multiclassed or members of a prestige class.

If you want the average fighter to have a specific class skill, you can always take a level of Expert or the Cosmopolitan (I think) feat from FRCS (Kalamar too apparantly?).

As for Intimidate, I wouldn't make it a class skill, but do allow them to have it work of strength. Any fighter worth his salt will be adding tons of ability bonus to his Intimidate that way.