archastrel
First Post
I've added Sense Motive to my fighters, partially because it opposes Bluff in combat situations.
Giving Fighters Another Class Skill
- Thread starter Remathilis
- Start date
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Profession should be a no-brainer. I've seen several supplements that have stuff like Profession: Soldier or other material in that vein. Adding one more core skill wouldn't hurt either.
The problem then, is skill points. You bump the fighter, then you almost have to bump everyone else.
The problem then, is skill points. You bump the fighter, then you almost have to bump everyone else.
Remathilis
Legend
I hadn't considered bumping the skill points per level (thats a whole new can of worms), but just offering some variety.
Just as a reminder: the fighters class skills are craft, climb, jump, swim, ride, handle animal, and intimidate (3.5).
Just trying to improve fighter options and get them a little less cookie-cutter.
(BTW: I agree Profession should be a no-brainer. Bad WotC, Bad!)
Just as a reminder: the fighters class skills are craft, climb, jump, swim, ride, handle animal, and intimidate (3.5).
Just trying to improve fighter options and get them a little less cookie-cutter.
(BTW: I agree Profession should be a no-brainer. Bad WotC, Bad!)
Barendd Nobeard
Explorer
I just picked Listen and Spot, because I think they should be class skills for every class.
The others are not needed for Fighters. If you want to be a tumbling fighter, take the cross-class skill penalty & spend your precious few skills points on Tumble. If you want to be a feinting fighter, take the cross-class skill penalty & spend your precious few skills points on Bluff.
Fighters are not about Skills; they're about Feats.
The others are not needed for Fighters. If you want to be a tumbling fighter, take the cross-class skill penalty & spend your precious few skills points on Tumble. If you want to be a feinting fighter, take the cross-class skill penalty & spend your precious few skills points on Bluff.
Fighters are not about Skills; they're about Feats.
Lurker 2.0
First Post
Okay, my two cents against all y'all's two cents: Fighters shouldn't have any of these skills with the possible exceptions of Profession and Knowledge (History). 1: Armies have not historically (in the last 700 years or so) had the warriors do much other than fight. Typically we have support units - a.k.a. foragers (Survival experts), medics (Heal experts), siege engineers (Knowledge (A&E) experts), and others. The warriors are expected to hack. They might know how to freak enemies out (Intimidate) or hack while on horseback (HA & Ride), but that's typically the limit. As for Spot/Listen, well no, warriors aren't good sentries. That's why armies typically have a lot of them, so that hopefully if one guy has a -1 Spot, the other 19 guys within range of the disturbance can catch it.
2: Fighters are not soldiers. As the DMG says, a majority of soldiers in armies are commoners or warriors. A fighter isn't necessarily a career soldier, though he can be; he's a combat specialist. Which typically means a weapons master who's done nothing but study for years, or a soldier who only cares about the dance of battle, or another background similarly devoted to only hacking. That's why the fighter has mondo feats - he specializes in Combat, not in other things that can be tangentally related to combat. That's why he doesn't even get Profession - he's been too busy slicing/piercing/bashing things to consider getting paid for it or something else (this point even I'll concede, however; Profession does seem a bit of a universal skill, even if it's limited to Profession (Guide/Herbalist) for the Barbarian). If you want a light fighter who's good on his feet and a decent sentry, Multiclass. If you want a Fighter capable of arranging siege weapons and finding structural weak points, Multiclass. That's pretty much my response to anything. The Fighter Fights. If you want a character who can do differently, add in other class levels. But don't change the class.
3: archastrel, dunno if you looked it up, but the combat Bluff is already weak against fighters - it's not opposed by a normal Sense Motive, it's opposed by Sense Motive with a bonus equal to your BAB. So a fighter without Sense Motive isn't going to be much worse than a Rogue with it at detecting feints.
4: Despite what I've said above, you still don't have to Multiclass. If you want a Fighter who's picked up a bit about how to feed himself, stay on watch, or fight on uneven terrain, pick up a cross-class skill. At low levels, the difference is small, easily offset by a good ability score. At high levels, well, if you really need ranks at high levels, multiclass into Expert or Rogue for just one level and dump skill points.
In short, I think the Fighter's skills are fine. He's got a lot to make up for it.
But everyone's entitled to an opinion. And if it's my opinion that Kirk is a Denebian Slime Devil, well, that's just an opinion.
2: Fighters are not soldiers. As the DMG says, a majority of soldiers in armies are commoners or warriors. A fighter isn't necessarily a career soldier, though he can be; he's a combat specialist. Which typically means a weapons master who's done nothing but study for years, or a soldier who only cares about the dance of battle, or another background similarly devoted to only hacking. That's why the fighter has mondo feats - he specializes in Combat, not in other things that can be tangentally related to combat. That's why he doesn't even get Profession - he's been too busy slicing/piercing/bashing things to consider getting paid for it or something else (this point even I'll concede, however; Profession does seem a bit of a universal skill, even if it's limited to Profession (Guide/Herbalist) for the Barbarian). If you want a light fighter who's good on his feet and a decent sentry, Multiclass. If you want a Fighter capable of arranging siege weapons and finding structural weak points, Multiclass. That's pretty much my response to anything. The Fighter Fights. If you want a character who can do differently, add in other class levels. But don't change the class.
3: archastrel, dunno if you looked it up, but the combat Bluff is already weak against fighters - it's not opposed by a normal Sense Motive, it's opposed by Sense Motive with a bonus equal to your BAB. So a fighter without Sense Motive isn't going to be much worse than a Rogue with it at detecting feints.
4: Despite what I've said above, you still don't have to Multiclass. If you want a Fighter who's picked up a bit about how to feed himself, stay on watch, or fight on uneven terrain, pick up a cross-class skill. At low levels, the difference is small, easily offset by a good ability score. At high levels, well, if you really need ranks at high levels, multiclass into Expert or Rogue for just one level and dump skill points.
In short, I think the Fighter's skills are fine. He's got a lot to make up for it.
But everyone's entitled to an opinion. And if it's my opinion that Kirk is a Denebian Slime Devil, well, that's just an opinion.
DungeonmasterCal
First Post
Ehh...I boosted every class with 2 SP per level to 4, and made Spot and Listen class skills for everyone. Heck...I'm in the grip of tinker-fever, and am messing with all sorts of stuff (not all of which will become houserules in the finished set). I'm also seriously considering doing away with the cross class rules. All skills considered "class skills" automatically give a PC +1 in that skill. All non-class skills are available for one point per rank, but give -1 to the check. Sorry...this probably belongs in house rules...but I just started rambling...
Chun-tzu
First Post
I agree with Knowledge: History (and would have voted for it, if it were on the list). I agree with a lot of the things Lurker said, but I'd still add Use Rope, since it's such a generic skill, not particularly tied to any of the major class archetypes.
Bluff, Spot, Listen, Tumble are all really good skills, and shouldn't be allowed freely to any Fighter, unless you don't mind altering the balance of the game a bit. I do like Inconsequenti-Al's idea of skill packages, though. Balancing that is a bit tricky, though. For example, Spot and Listen for a "sentry" package arugably trump all the other Fighter skills combined. You could balance that with feat sets, though, which is pretty much what Dragon magazine did with their variant Fighters in Dragon #310.
Bluff, Spot, Listen, Tumble are all really good skills, and shouldn't be allowed freely to any Fighter, unless you don't mind altering the balance of the game a bit. I do like Inconsequenti-Al's idea of skill packages, though. Balancing that is a bit tricky, though. For example, Spot and Listen for a "sentry" package arugably trump all the other Fighter skills combined. You could balance that with feat sets, though, which is pretty much what Dragon magazine did with their variant Fighters in Dragon #310.
Li Shenron
Legend
I voted Heal, because I think it is IRL always part of every military training.
As a second choice I voted Tumble, although I think that only the use of it vs AoO fits with the Figther, but definitely not tumble as entertain or tumble to avoid falling damage.
I didn't vote for Listen and Spot, but they have some good points. A sentry would definitely have these, but on the other hand I don't think it's common for the majority of fighters to develop such skills at top, and being cross-class is enough.
I completely disagree with Profession. I wouldn't mind very much if it was given to everyone as a general idea (like Craft), but I think fighters never really learn a profession (not even a craft, to be honest, except the ones related to weapons and armors), because their profession IS fighter. You could have some fighter-specific professions, but I have a hard time imagining them work like the other profession skills.
Finally, a possible skill for fighters which doesn't exist in core rules would be Knowledge (War) to cover battlefield tactics, army logistics, strategy, terrain mastery, group manoeuvres, etc... I think it would make very sense if it was class skill for just fighters, representing the large-scale training which is kind of mandatory for the ones who make a career in the army.
As a second choice I voted Tumble, although I think that only the use of it vs AoO fits with the Figther, but definitely not tumble as entertain or tumble to avoid falling damage.
I didn't vote for Listen and Spot, but they have some good points. A sentry would definitely have these, but on the other hand I don't think it's common for the majority of fighters to develop such skills at top, and being cross-class is enough.
I completely disagree with Profession. I wouldn't mind very much if it was given to everyone as a general idea (like Craft), but I think fighters never really learn a profession (not even a craft, to be honest, except the ones related to weapons and armors), because their profession IS fighter. You could have some fighter-specific professions, but I have a hard time imagining them work like the other profession skills.
Finally, a possible skill for fighters which doesn't exist in core rules would be Knowledge (War) to cover battlefield tactics, army logistics, strategy, terrain mastery, group manoeuvres, etc... I think it would make very sense if it was class skill for just fighters, representing the large-scale training which is kind of mandatory for the ones who make a career in the army.
