That time would be basically every Interaction or Exploration event. Seriously, nobody's coming on here crying about how the Fighter class gives you that absolute worst class platform for either of the other pillars. He has no skill enhancements, no knacks, no spells, and no maneuvers dedicated to any of it.
Then let me be the first to do so.
(Though I have to assume that you mean "this thread" when you say "here", rather than "this forum", because I'm quite certain that I and others have raised the issue before.)
I am seriously unclear on why the fighter is the only one of the classes (disregarding the now-on-hiatus sorcerer) presented so far that gains absolutely no bonus skills.
Does learning combat take more of their time than learning magic takes of a wizard's, and learning both melee combat
and magic takes of a cleric's? Both of those classes gain one bonus skill.
How can one be considered to have trained to be a master combatant without having learned balance? How to feint (bluff)? How to intimidate? Why don't all fighters have Knowledge (Warfare)?
--
I should also pause to note that the Rogue lost some of its support in the other two pillars in this change. In addition to the (probably necessary) backtrack on Skill Mastery, they've lost their free secret language, and the Schemes have lost pretty much all of their non-combat, non-skill benefits in favour of gaining some combat benefits. No more night vision, increased access to stealth, or immunity from surprise.
--
If you dig back far enough in the archives, you can find a lengthy post or two by me back when they first talked about the idea of the three pillars.
From day one, I've been vehemently opposed to the idea of trading off effectiveness in one pillar for losses in the others (especially when it's
both others). The idea that this creates any sort of balance is only true if all campaigns have exactly the same ratios of the three pillars in play. I argued that we'd be much better off with a system that balanced the classes
within each pillar. Take 4E's much vaunted (and, to be fair, much criticized) balance in combat, and apply it in the exploration and interaction pillars as well.
In the balance-across-pillars approach, the fighter was always destined to be the guy you'd love to have when combat rolls around, but a bit of a drag on the party the rest of the time. Given the name, and general concept of what a fighter is, of course their pillar to shine was always going to be the combat one.
The catch though, is that nobody's allowed to truly suck at combat. Even in a faster-paced system, combat takes up too much time and has stakes too high for a party of adventurers to drag around dead weight. The side effect of this is that "being the best" at Combat seems to cost "being any good at all" in Exploration and Interaction.
WotC, and many players, like to toss around the phrase "the fighter's the best at combat". But is he really? Oh sure, he's got access to the best weapons and armour, and has the best attack bonus and hitpoints. That's great, that's all very helpful, but it's a marginal edge at best, and can even disappear when matters of ability mods and equipment come into play. Being able to use plate gives you no edge over the guy who can only use chain
if you cannot afford and have not found anything better than chain. Having a Weapon Attack bonus that's 1 higher than the Rogue's makes no difference if he's attacking with an 18 dex and you're attacking with a 16 strength. Your class may grant you bigger hit dice, but if the cleric has a higher Constitution than you, the difference in actual HP might be rather small.
In a shocking twist, it turns out all the other classes are actually good at combat too. Oh sure, if they try and fight like a fighter they won't hit as often or as hard. But they have no reason to fight like a fighter. When a Wizard fights as a Wizard (especially in the Battle Magic tradition), they make significant and meaningful contributions to combat without having to swing a sword. Sure, if they prepare all Combat spells this adventuring day, they're not going to be quite as effective at the other pillars (today) as they could be, but the important distinction is that they'll both still be decent, and that it's a daily choice how much they focus on a particular pillar. Clerics have combat magic, healing magic, AND can swing a mace pretty decently too. And again, they can choose to adjust their focus.
The Rogue, even with this scaled back Sneak Attack and scaled back non-combat abilities, has enough combat utility to contribute meaningfully. Especially now that he has access to some of the very same maneuvers that, last packet, gave the fighter an edge over him. All while still being dramatically better outside of combat.
"Being the best" at Combat apparently means a series of marginal edges, many of which are only really edges if you assume the other classes are playing against-type, whereas "being the best" at say skills, means gaining twice what the worst guy has.
If the fighter is going to have to suck in the other pillars (and I really think he shouldn't have to), then forget marginal edges and make the fighter the freaking god of war. Bump the advantage in Weapon Attack even higher. Grant two Expertise Dice from level 1. Make Cleave an automatic class feature that all fighters gain and which triggers every time they kill something, instead of something that you have to select and which costs Expertise Dice. Grant an AC bonus just for being a fighter.
Maybe then I'll be able to see why being good at combat is supposedly worth the cost in the other pillars.
]
