Sneak Attack Damage and Multiple Attacks In a Round

[Kae'Yoss]

Right. Fighters can fight, but little else. But they're quite good in that. If you don't play a campaign where you fight regularly (none at all, for example), you don't take the fighter class.

And sneak attack for every attack that qualifies. If he wants to balance that, he can give you smart foes that can prevent from being sneaked, or are immune to it. Or they just give that rogue a good beating as soon as he comes close, for then he has to flee and refrain from making sneak attacks, for else he falls quickly (with their inferior AC and few HP, they won't hold out very long...)

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I focus a lot on skills as well, which is why you only see multiclass fighters in my games. Fighters are great for a game that is focused on dungeon crawl, or a game that is split down the middle for skill use and combat. Fighters aren't that resourceful with much of anything except a weapon, and IMO, that's just how it should be. If you want to be a smarter fighter, grab a few levels of rogue, or any other class that focuses on skills.

Honestly, I don't see this as a problem with the fighter. It's just all about the style of game and what does or does not fit well.

Fighters aren't even remotely close to being good enough at fighting to justify their abjuct suckiness outside of fights, IMO. I'd be compleately fine with the concept of ultra specialized classes where the fighter just could fight and sucked at everything else if he dwarfed others at fighting, but he doesn't.(Heck I'd sorta prefer 3 ultra specialized classes figther, skill master, spell caster, and multiclassing covered everything in between) Considering how bad the fighter is out of a fight there should be zip, zero, nada situations where any class out perfoms the fighter in a fight. As is, the rogue with minimul thought can frequently out perform the fighter in damage out put, spellcasters frequently outperfom fighters in a fight(without even consideirng save or dies), the pseudo fighters are very marginially worse than a fighter in a fight and usually gain signifigant versatillity past the fighter outside of a fight, +special abilites. In certain campaign styles it pans out because there are enough fight encounters, that the fighters general edge comes through a lot, and his huge skill weakness doesn't hinder him much.

Personaly I Thought it was beter for my game to beef up the fighter class a bit out of a fight than to basically make multiclassing a necessity. IMO if you have to multi a class then in that campaign style that class is out of balance, and I'd prefer to try and rebalnce it. If they would go my ultr specialized class rout it wouldn't be an issue since the classes would be more explicitly just ability collecitons that you mixed and matched to get your character concept. As is with many distinct classes I have lots of palyers who want to be a specific class, and don't want to multi to rogue since they don't see themselves as a rogue. They either are unwilling or unable to see the classes as merely a collection of abilities.

edit bad word typo.

 

[IceBear]

So, what did you exactly do Shard? Just curious for my notes

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

As is with many distinct classes I have lots of palyers who want to be a specific class, and don't want to multi to rogue since they don't see themselves as a rogue. They either are unwilling or unable to see the classes as merely a collection of abilities.

IMO, that is actual problem.

I guess I'm spoiled by my group. Most of them, not all, but most, never say "I want to be a rogue." Instead, they say "I want to be sneaky, quiet, and ever watchful, but at the same time, I want to be a seasoned soldier."

If you can tell me what that person would be going for, you're welcome into my group at any time.

 

[dead_radish]

2 late responses:

1. Remember that anything immune to crits is immune to sneak damage - so all the undead, constructs, etc of the world walk over rogues. And remember that any amount of displacement negates the ability to sneak attack (blur is a 2nd lvl spell, ya know, so rings of Blur are fairly cheap), and that armor of fortification is your friend.

2. Re: Extra attacks in the surprise round. Also consider expert tacitian.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

So, what did you exactly do Shard? Just curious for my notes

IceBear

I added these skills to their class lsits.

Listen (fighters are the guards usaully they should have this and hey it actually means the rogues have to roll thier sneak skills now and then)

Diplomacy: fighting is more than just killing things, negotiations with the enemies are essential especially to leader oriented fighters.

Snese motive: see listen for my reason.

Tumble: this is a combat skill if I ever saw one, and agile fighters are still fighters.

Heal: fighters need to now how to treat teh wounds they receive and they don't have magic to wave the wound away.

(craft and profession added to every class list it was lacking in)

I then gave them 4 skill ppoints a level.(though I bumped up everyones skills by 2 if they weren't primary spellcasters)

 

[LokiDR]

Shard, I like the idea of the fighter class being actually USEFUL outside of a fight. I do have a few issues with your changes though.

Some of the primary advantages of the ranger and monk classes are their skill selection and skill points. Even with 2 more skill points per level, it seems like they are weaker than fighter. Monk has listen. Ranger has spot, IIRC.

I mostly see fighters as combat options. Not neccessarily better than everyone else, but they can open their options a lot more. A fighter of decent level could focus on archery and mounted combat, for example. They also have a good advantage in HP and grapple checks over most every one else. I guess I just like the ability to pick what feats you want, rather than a static progression.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I added these skills to their class lsits.

Listen (fighters are the guards usaully they should have this and hey it actually means the rogues have to roll thier sneak skills now and then)

I can see that.

Diplomacy: fighting is more than just killing things, negotiations with the enemies are essential especially to leader oriented fighters.

I disagree. If a fighter wants to be a good negotiator, he should either multi-class or take cross class skills. Being trained as a warrior doesn't mean being trained as a diplomat.

Sense motive: see listen for my reason.

I disagree. Being a trainged fighter doesn't have anything to do with being able to tell if someone is being truthful. Again, cross-class or multiclass.

Tumble: this is a combat skill if I ever saw one, and agile fighters are still fighters.

I can see the arguement for giving fighters this, but you are really hurting monks and rogues by doing so.

Heal: fighters need to now how to treat teh wounds they receive and they don't have magic to wave the wound away.

Again, I disagree. If you want a fighter to be able to use the heal skill, you should either multi-class or take it cross-class. Knowing what plants to use to remove a rash or help counter a poison is not something that fighter is going to get training in. Plus you are really screwing over the ranger.

I then gave them 4 skill points a level.(though I bumped up everyones skills by 2 if they weren't primary spellcasters)

You are giving the fighter skills that have nothing to do with fighting, so you are making the fighter class a lot more powerful than it should really be, IMHO; and at the same time you are pretty much completely negating the only compelling reason to be a ranger.

It seems to me that you don't like multiclassing. I don't understand that. In order to really nail a character concept, especially the ones that you are calling fighters, you should use the best character developement tool ever put in D&D: multiclassing.

--Anti-Rule 0 Spikey