Evolution of the Fighter

[Remathilis]

D&D isn't a MMO where you hit an invisible wall because you reached the end of the zone, and have to use the correct exit point to transfer to the next zone. You can climb the trees, and you can dig a hole in the ground. The whole stays there until someone of time fills it up, not until the zone is reset or the ground respawns so other people can dig there.

Unless your arguing the numbers don't matter (in which case, D&D is no better than Cops & Robbers; "Bang! You're dead." "No I'm not." "Yes you are...") then a fighters mechanical limitations DO come into play. His sleight of hand number will not work except against foes well below his level. His will saves DO suck vs. foes of approximate challenge. There are limits to the GAME, even if a RPG has less of them than an MMO.

Unless you don't mind my fighter casting Meteor Swarm 1/round do you? I mean, its not an MMO...

 

[Imp]

You don't have to have all checks scale up all the time for everything the party encounters. There isn't necessarily a reason for it, and followed uniformly, it's as contrived as customizing every single encounter to fit exactly with the party's capabilities.

That said my fighter house rule is to give them 4 skill points and any two skills as additional class skills. Allows them to, for example, play the eagle-eyed archer or the boisterous sailing hero, which are a couple of obvious things the class should be able to cover.

 

[Treebore]

Because you might like more ways to use their armour and weapons, and different ways for killin' things? All these "extra powers" involve killin' things.

Some people do get tired of "charge, full attack, full attack, charge..." or whatever the edition-equivalent is for the game you play. I guess I would ask "why is killin' stuff necessarily repetitive"?

In some sense it was nice to have a mechanically simple character that just whacked stuff. But what about players who like to whack stuff, but also want more complex mechanics to do so?

As any martial artist knows, whether hand to hand, swords, knives, etc..., there are only so many ways to swing, punch, kick, shoot, etc... after that it comes down to speed, strength of the blow, accuracy, and technique. So
fighting is rather boring. To watch. Still, Extreme Fighting, wrestling, boxing, etc... seem to maintain a animated following.

I know when your actually engaged in the fight/match it is far from boring.

So the fighter being boring is apparently all in how the RPG mechanics make it look.

 

[WalterKovacs]

What is wrong with some people. Do they have such a defeatist attitude in real life?

I can't do this because [insert excuse here]. I can't do that because [insert excuse here].

OR....

I can't do it, so it must not be able to be done.

Think. Where does it say that there is an automatic failure for some specific thing a fighter tries to do. Since this is being hen-pecked by some book rule, then cite me the book, edition, and page #.

Keep with picking pockets for continuities sake.

A trained rogue vs. an untrained fighter will have a huge advantage.

Unless the DM wants the rogue to rob everyone blind, the DC has to rise to the rogue's level of sleight of hand ... in which case the fighter can't pull it off.

It's the same reason why the Fighter will constantly fail Wil saves. If you put a monster that can beat the BEST will save in the party, it will ALWAYS beat the WORST will save in the party. If it can hit the best AC, it will always hit the worst. That's one of the biggest problems of high level play.

The DM is able to set DCs whever he wants to allow the fighter to do it.

However, a DM that sets DCs so that it's possible for a fighter, but it's not automatic success for a rogue is basically saying "well, ignore your actual stats, and if you roll X or higher you get to do it, if you roll Y or lower you fail".

If the solution to Fighter's being horrible at skills is to just ignore the entire skill system ... well that's a rule zero fix. Ignoring the problem does not mean the problem isn't there.

 

[justanobody]

When the system says to perform a thing a common human/oid can do is only allowed by someone trained, then the system is flawed.

I am not saying rogue vs fighter.

Just why can a fighter not do it? Only because the rogue exists in some way to make the rogue feel special?

The rogue is special because he has much better odds, but that doesn't mean he is the only one that can do it.

So why can a fighter not pick pockets?

I would say a DM settings some DC so high to not give a fighter a chance is playing DM vs players.

There should always be a slim chance for any class to do anything, that is why dice exist to show that chance and often extreme luck.

We aren't talking about a fighter flying by thinking it like a wizard might. Flight is beyond human ability and therefore should not be some option just granted, or then you don't really have humans in your game, and should change the name to something else.

All humans can pick pockets to a degree. Some much better than others, but there is a chance that even a novice will get it right.

Heck a broke clock is right at least twice a day!

So what rule says a fighter is not allowed to pick pockets?

 

[justanobody]

once was enough thank you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So the fighter being boring is apparently all in how the RPG mechanics make it look.

Yep.

 

[Lacyon]

When the system says to perform a thing a common human/oid can do is only allowed by someone trained, then the system is flawed.

I am not saying rogue vs fighter.

Just why can a fighter not do it? Only because the rogue exists in some way to make the rogue feel special?

The rogue is special because he has much better odds, but that doesn't mean he is the only one that can do it.

So why can a fighter not pick pockets?

I would say a DM settings some DC so high to not give a fighter a chance is playing DM vs players.

There comes a point in the 3E rules where it becomes a mathematical impossibility to set a DC that a specialized Rogue has any chance of failing and a Fighter has any chance of passing. It happens whenever the total modifier gets to +20 or more apart. It happens at a +11 difference if the Rogue has Skill Mastery and is therefore able to take 10.

The fact that cross-class ranks max out at (Level +3)/2 instead of Level +3 guarantees that this breakpoint must occur, and at this point any DC the fighter has a chance at is essentially free loot for the Rogue.

There are plenty of solutions to this problem; it's almost trivial to come up with one. None of them are the rules of the game.

 

[Imp]

Oh, FFS, set it up so the rogue has to use his expert skills on something while the fighter with his cross-class skill or two has to use that skill on something else. Voila, no house rules. Or maybe the cross-class skill covers something the rogue didn't dump a billion skill points in.

Everyone in these balance discussions seems to talk as if the more powerful class has every single relevant bonus maxed. The rogue has maxed all their class skills, the wizard has every single spell at their fingertips plus all the item creation and metamagic feats they want, the cleric has ten rounds to buff himself for the big fight, etc. etc.

 

[Runestar]

Everyone in these balance discussions seems to talk as if the more powerful class has every single relevant bonus maxed. The rogue has maxed all their class skills, the wizard has every single spell at their fingertips plus all the item creation and metamagic feats they want, the cleric has ten rounds to buff himself for the big fight, etc. etc.

I don't see it as an unreasonable assumption. The rogue has 8+int mod skill points every level, what would he max, if not his core competencies? Knowledge skills?

I don't see where it assumes that the wizard has every spell at his disposal. Ditto for the cleric buffing. Typically, at higher lvs, quickened divine favour+divine power will suffice. The remaining buffs are nice, but not needed.

Just why can a fighter not do it? Only because the rogue exists in some way to make the rogue feel special?

There is nothing stopping the fighter from trying to pick the merchant's pocket. But the DC will surely be so high (if it was low, why didn't the rogue with maxed out ranks in sleight of hand do it?) that he cannot succeed on the check, even on a natural 20. And the party will probably be worse off as a result of his botched check.

This also brings me to the next point. The rogue will surely have higher ranks in sleight of hand than the fighter. Any time a check is required, the rogue is the obvious candidate to attempt it. I cannot imagine why you would ever want to the fighter to make the check instead of the rogue.

So, can a fighter pickpocket? Sure. Should he be the one to attempt it? Obviously not! It is like saying if I can punch a policeman in real-life simply because I don't like his face. Sure - there just going to be a long jail term in my future.

It is really an issue of identifying your core competencies, and focusing on them. The fighter is no rogue, so it there is little point in him trying to emulate one.