I think in 4e this would be a feat or power, not a class features - so on a list that can be edited down to taste.
EDIT: See Neonchameleon's correction below - it's an Essentials Thief class feature.
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
My group and I don't want a "Sub-System" for dealing with out of combat scenarios.
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
EDIT: See Neonchameleon's correction below - it's an Essentials Thief class feature.
5 skill choices two of which rely on charisma and you think this is ok? Maybe you have lots of charisma based fighters running around in your world idk it just seems weak to me.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I don't have (m)any charismatic fighters. But many classes don't have Streetwise or Charisma, so the Fighter is likely not that terrible at it.
That said, I know what you mean, and in that regard, skill challenges sometimes need a certain push - enforcing situations where you want a specific person to make a check, rather than someone else, not due to the high bonus they have, but because of the role in the story of the challenge they play.
Neonchameleon
Legend
OK. Let's compare 4e to previous editions.
vs 2e - 2e skills are very minor modifiers to straight stat rolls unless you've chosen to take combat NWPs or NWPs like Bowyer/Fletcher. 4e skills are major modifiers to stat rolls. Meaning that training is almost more important than stat. It's a different emphasis but one that means that what you are trained in makes more difference so a broader range of archetypes is available. But it's close
vs 3.X.
3.X fighters get 2+Int skill points/level trainable out of the following list
Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str)
4e Fighters have 3 skills trainable out of the following list:
Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Streetwise (Cha)
Doesn't look like much of a difference, does it? 2+Int out of seven vs 3 out of 5 (incidently the fighter has the worst skill list in both games).
But let's look at those skills for a second.
Climb, Jump, and Swim between them in 3.X all are one skill in 4e. Athletics. So if you want to be very physically adept in 3.X (and let's face it, most fighters do) you need to borrow skill points from somewhere. You don't have to compromise on being superbly physically adept and still have two skills left over. So the archetypal 'Strong Guy' skills now take one pick not three - a huge advantage for the 4e fighter.
Ride's gone. Anyone's assumed to be able to stay on the back of a horse under basic conditions and to be pretty crummy in combat (which is all ride really gets you). If you want to be really good at riding you need the mounted combat feat in both editions, so spending skill ranks on it in addition in 3.X is annoying. Craft's also gone. If your background is a craftsman, write it in. Both are effective skill point sinks that the 4e fighter doesn't have to worry about.
So the 3e fighter then has the chance to put points in Handle Animal, unlike his 4e counterpart. In reply the 4e fighter can pick Streetwise (a mix of Knowledge (Local) and Gather Information), Endurance, and/or Heal.
In terms of what you can buy out of the box the 4e fighter is therefore a long way ahead, mostly due to the consolidation of the skill list (climb, jump, and swim being separate skills for someone with so few skill points is crippling). But the 4e fighter can easily broaden his skills beyond that list. He can add a skill to his list (or get a +2 in a skill) with a background. He can get a whole new skill not on that list with a feat. And most importantly there are the multiclass feats. Feats that give you a decent bonus and give you a free trained skill from the class list of the class you are multiclassing into. Picking up e.g. Arcana, Nature, or Perception is therefore easy - and I don't think I've ever seen a fighter with fewer than four trained skills. And given that this normally includes Athletics and Perception (the first worth three skills in 3.X, and the second being Spot and Listen) you're into ranger skill territory.
A 3.X fighter struggles to get skills not on that list without ceasing to be a fighter for a while - he's paying 2 for 1.
And for an illustration of how skilled you can make a 4e fighter I've thrown a 1st level human fighter wielding a pair of shortswords together just now designed to be a skill monkey. He's perfectly legal and has the following skills trained:
Perception, Athletics, Streetwise, Intimidate, Stealth, Thievery.
(Sneak of Shadows and Twilight Adept feats, and a background to slip perception onto the skill list).
In 3.X terms that equates to the following skills trained:
Spot, Listen, Search, Jump, Climb, Swim, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local), Intimidate, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, Disable Device, Sleight of Hand.
14 skills in 3.X terms. 14 skills, all of which, without exception, are useful to a rogue. A 3.X rogue would have immense problems matching this level of ability (and that without the hiding bonus from Twilight Adept).
So yeah. Tell me how the 4e fighter isn't better at skills than the 3.X fighter when the basic fighter can get climb, jump, and swim as one skill, and a properly built fighter who's trying for skill versatility can challenge a 3.X rogue at being a rogue
And before you suggest I nerfed my combat potential to do it, the answer is that my stats are all in good places for a fighter (there's a good reason to have a dex of 15 or higher with a fighter, and wis adds to your opportunity attacks as a fighter) and of my two feats, one gives me a 2d6 sneak attack 1/fight - well worth a feat.
It's a class feature for the Thief.
OK. Let's compare 4e to previous editions.
vs 2e - 2e skills are very minor modifiers to straight stat rolls unless you've chosen to take combat NWPs or NWPs like Bowyer/Fletcher. 4e skills are major modifiers to stat rolls. Meaning that training is almost more important than stat. It's a different emphasis but one that means that what you are trained in makes more difference so a broader range of archetypes is available. But it's close
vs 3.X.
3.X fighters get 2+Int skill points/level trainable out of the following list
Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str)4e Fighters have 3 skills trainable out of the following list:
Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Streetwise (Cha)Doesn't look like much of a difference, does it? 2+Int out of seven vs 3 out of 5 (incidently the fighter has the worst skill list in both games).
But let's look at those skills for a second.
Climb, Jump, and Swim between them in 3.X all are one skill in 4e. Athletics. So if you want to be very physically adept in 3.X (and let's face it, most fighters do) you need to borrow skill points from somewhere. You don't have to compromise on being superbly physically adept and still have two skills left over. So the archetypal 'Strong Guy' skills now take one pick not three - a huge advantage for the 4e fighter.
Ride's gone. Anyone's assumed to be able to stay on the back of a horse under basic conditions and to be pretty crummy in combat (which is all ride really gets you). If you want to be really good at riding you need the mounted combat feat in both editions, so spending skill ranks on it in addition in 3.X is annoying. Craft's also gone. If your background is a craftsman, write it in. Both are effective skill point sinks that the 4e fighter doesn't have to worry about.
So the 3e fighter then has the chance to put points in Handle Animal, unlike his 4e counterpart. In reply the 4e fighter can pick Streetwise (a mix of Knowledge (Local) and Gather Information), Endurance, and/or Heal.
In terms of what you can buy out of the box the 4e fighter is therefore a long way ahead, mostly due to the consolidation of the skill list (climb, jump, and swim being separate skills for someone with so few skill points is crippling). But the 4e fighter can easily broaden his skills beyond that list. He can add a skill to his list (or get a +2 in a skill) with a background. He can get a whole new skill not on that list with a feat. And most importantly there are the multiclass feats. Feats that give you a decent bonus and give you a free trained skill from the class list of the class you are multiclassing into. Picking up e.g. Arcana, Nature, or Perception is therefore easy - and I don't think I've ever seen a fighter with fewer than four trained skills. And given that this normally includes Athletics and Perception (the first worth three skills in 3.X, and the second being Spot and Listen) you're into ranger skill territory.
A 3.X fighter struggles to get skills not on that list without ceasing to be a fighter for a while - he's paying 2 for 1.
And for an illustration of how skilled you can make a 4e fighter I've thrown a 1st level human fighter wielding a pair of shortswords together just now designed to be a skill monkey. He's perfectly legal and has the following skills trained:
Perception, Athletics, Streetwise, Intimidate, Stealth, Thievery.
(Sneak of Shadows and Twilight Adept feats, and a background to slip perception onto the skill list).
In 3.X terms that equates to the following skills trained:
Spot, Listen, Search, Jump, Climb, Swim, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local), Intimidate, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, Disable Device, Sleight of Hand.
14 skills in 3.X terms. 14 skills, all of which, without exception, are useful to a rogue. A 3.X rogue would have immense problems matching this level of ability (and that without the hiding bonus from Twilight Adept).
So yeah. Tell me how the 4e fighter isn't better at skills than the 3.X fighter when the basic fighter can get climb, jump, and swim as one skill, and a properly built fighter who's trying for skill versatility can challenge a 3.X rogue at being a rogue
And before you suggest I nerfed my combat potential to do it, the answer is that my stats are all in good places for a fighter (there's a good reason to have a dex of 15 or higher with a fighter, and wis adds to your opportunity attacks as a fighter) and of my two feats, one gives me a 2d6 sneak attack 1/fight - well worth a feat.
It's a class feature for the Thief.
Yet as has always been the case in my experience the fighter whos starting potential skills are limited to 5 option 2 of which depend upon his dump stat will in every instance attempt to use his highest rank skill which is probably athletics. Some people run skill challenges by saying you can't use the same skill twice in row putting our poor fighter in even worse shape. In any case its doubtful he even picked both streetwise and intimidate and chose to get a -1 to both skills. But which ever one he was forced to choose by the design of his class will be his absolute last option to be used only when forced to. So yes fighters got screwed in the skill category no matter how you wish to sugar coat it by wasting feats.
You learn something new every day! Thanks for the correction.
Is this going to be different in D&Dnext? At least so far, I haven't seen anything in the playtest rules or in L&L, Ro3 etc that explains how fighters and other mostly-physical PCs are expected to engage in non-physical situations, like social, investigation etc. (Other than crushing the pewter mug to Intimidate using STR - but that will get fairly old fairly quick if it's all the fighter can do.) You could give the 4e fighter twice as many skills and it wouldn't make your complaint go away - CHA and INT are still likely to be low.
I have my own techniques that I use to get players of low-CHA, low-scocial skill PCs involved in social situations (like [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION] said, relying on the fictional situation to get them involved). But these don't change the underlying mechanical issue.
Isn't the issue that casters get to use mental stats to do both physical stuff (via spells) and mental stuff (via using their stats) whereas martial PCs don't have the same option in reverse? And this in combination with a system that makes stat bonuses very significant in the overall maths.
I was not 4E bashing (I play it, I have fun playing it, but i don't view it as the pinnacle of D&D that many have suggested it is) or suggesting that another edition does it better or that 5E fixes the problem. I was simply stating that fighters have always gotten the shaft in this regard 4E was no different despite claims to the contrary. I hope 5E does allow someone to be a good fighter and a good negotiator if thats what they want to play. It should be possible and shouldn't cost you any of your fighting ability to do so. IMHO
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Just want to clarify 2E NWPs. These were the most popular and most detailed method for second edition. I would even say they became the default assumption for most groups. I don't think you meant to suggest they were minor modifers to straight stat rolls, but tk clarify, they are not modifiers. Wat they do is codeify what you can use ability checks for to a degree but are straight ability checks and each nwp comes with a built in penalty or bonus. S if yiu have a 13 int and take astrology, you can perform astrology on a 13 or under. You can also take additional ranks which do give you a plus one each. But the main advantage is being able to use the abili check for the NWP in the first place.
Each nwp did have an accompanying modifier that was either a penalty or bonus to reflect the difficulty of using it. But the purpose of the nwp wasn't to bestow these.
NWPs are fairly robust but traditional. They don't ever really replace role play or interaction with the setting so the two obvious ones missing are diplomacy and detect. However there are about 30 general NWPs, a dozen priest NWPs, 16 or so rogue NWPs, 15 fighter NWPs, and 10 Wizard NWPs (but some of the class NWPs repeat). So there is a lot there and they are each described in some detail.
Last edited:
D&D next lets you do that. As it stands now, you can be a fighter and take the negotiator background to be a good negotiator. The background you pick is independent of your class and it seems like skill advancement will follow a completely different track then combat advancement. (They described something like spending money on guild training.)
