"Playing a non-cliche character does not mean you disregard what the character is known for, you just don't use that as the main basis of every last thing you do."
Last time I checked, fighters could still gain cross-class skills, and roll the exact same skill checks as everyone else. (Exclusive skills excluded.)
They just suck at it compared to a Rogue.
Last time I checked, wizards can equip armor and use martial weapons just like anyone else.
They just suck at it compared to a Fighter.
.
.
.
.
"I'm sorry, not every single campaign I'm in involves NPC's that aren't enemies.
You just said, "Not every campaign I'm in involves NPC's that are friendly or neutral to my PCs."
If most campaigns you are in consist of mainly evil NPC's, isn't detect evil a useful ability? To separate out who is evil?
.
.
.
"And there's no need for the DM to go out of his way to point out PC flaws, either.
DM: So you rolled 1 bad stat, eh? *Gets out torturing whip* Time to make an entire campaign involved around Joe-Bob's character with the low Int."
And yet, the DM would be in his right mind to suggest that the character with the low Consititution might die for having low hit points, the low Dexterity guy might have a crappy AC or the low Strength guy might do less damage in melee.
If I had a 3 Strength, the DM is not going to say, "I'm going to ignore that you can't carry anything or do any damage in combat."
If I had a 3 Intellegence, the DM should not say, "I'm going to ignore that your character is an idiot."
.
.
.
"None of that changes things because the rogue is the best suited for not only choosing the battle situaitons, but making it so the party chooses the battle situations."
Enlighten me again as to why the enemies allow the Rogue to choose the battle situations.
And please enlighten me on why the enemies do not kill off these unfortunate Rogues who are caught away from the party.
.
.
.
"And for those times they can't crit things so no sneak attacks, oh geez they have to suffer with cleric bab, what ever will they do, with their high dex and bow attacks."
High Dexterity does not make a high damage output.
Since when do Rogues get any and all of the Bow feats?
Since when do Fighters not use Bows?
Since when is the Cleric BAB better than or equal to a Fighter's BAB?
.
.
.
"The rogue gains, sneak attack, skills, uncanny dodge, evasion, and high level abilities."
If uncanny dodge and evasion count as being insanely powerful combat abilities, then dang, your fighters must suck.
High level abilites equates to 4 special abilities at level 20. Each is roughly equivalent to a feat.
.
.
.
"But they don't suck (in combat), they nearly equal fighters by sometimes dealing less damage, and yet sometimes delivering far more damage than the fighters do."
If that was all that combat was about, namely: damage potential, then I just might agree with you. (Although you have not shown that a Rogue can ever consistently do damage.)
However, I give the Rogue the task of tanking from now on. He gets to stand in front and take the brunt of all attacks.
Your "rogues use bows" idea is now moot. Rogues will now and forever protect the casters from all harm.
Of course, they have crappy hit points, can't do consistent damage in melee against all opponents with their low Strength, have a low AC, can't use reach weapons, don't get lots of feats at an early level, and have crappy Fortitude saves vs. all of those poison and disease checks they have to face while in melee.
.
.
.
.
"Fighter as a name shouldn't mean all they can do is fight. If all they could do is fight, then the rogues should never, be able to deal as much damage as a fighter in a round of fighting. And yet rogues and virtually every other class somehow manages to deal as much damage or more, and contribute in a variety of other ways to combat. Yet none of them are supposed to suck out side of combat."
I would agree with this point if Fighters did not get ANY skill points.
However, they do, so I do not agree.
.
.
.
"And if your players had a lick of power gaming sense a lot more of them would be playing single classed rogues. With some clerics thrown in for spell power, and good combat skill support."
So all campaigns from now on are going to feature single-class Rogues and single-classed Clerics exclusively?
The people at WoTC messed up play balance so badly that there are only two playable classes?
Sounds kind of wishy-washy to me...
.
.
.
.
"Detect evil at will is in NO WAY even CLOSE to a feat."
List of possible feats it meets or excels:
Alertness
Armor Prof (Light)
Armor Prof (Medium)
Armor Prof (Heavy)
Combat Casting
Dodge
Mobility
Endurance
Expertise
Improved Disarm
Improved Trip
Great Fortitude
Improved Initiative
Deflect Arrows
Lightning Reflexes
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Mounted Combat
Mounted Archery
Trample
Far Shot
Shot on the Run
Improved Bull Rush
Run
Shield Prof
Simple Weapon Prof
Skill Focus
Toughness
Track
Weapon Finesse
BTW, I did not say it was equivalent to an 'efficient' feat, or a 'powerful' feat, where feats are only judged based on how much damage your character can inflict.
I said: it is equivalent to a feat.
Same goes for Aura of Courage, Remove Disease, Immunity to Disease, and Smite Evil.
.
.
.
"Immune to disease / remove disease. This is worth TWO feats? WTF? How much exposure to diseases do you have in D&D? Almost none. "
How can you possibly answer this question? It is dependent on the campaign in question.
Example: Turn Undead. This ability really blows IF THE CLERIC NEVER FIGHTS UNDEAD.
I ALWAYS fight things that have disease. I ALWAYS have casters with spell diseases. You cannot possibly extrapolate that everyone who plays DnD never uses the disease rules.
Same goes with Fear.
.
.
.
"And there you have the crux of the problem behind all these abilities. Sure, in some very limited circumstances they are great, but most of the time they don't do a damn thing."
That is because your DM does not use the MM or spells to their full potential.
It is not a flaw inherent in the game, it's a flaw in the DM.
.
.
.
"A 3 charisma paladin would SUCK."
Compared to what?
.
.
.
"The spells are nice, but the fact that your caster level is so low and you get higher level spells so late, it's almost not worth it except for the one or two really powerful paladin only spells."
These spells only "suck" if your party has a Cleric who always has all of their spells for the day, and never runs out of spells in the course of an adventure.
These spells only suck if you only have one encounter a day and the Cleric is not using all of their spells for buffs, damage potential, or utility.
In short, these spells only suck if the DM engineers situations where Clerics have infinite spell capacity.
.
.
.
"You're looking at this HUGE list of class skills and you want to max out like 12 of them"
And you are supposed to be allowed to MAX out 12 or more without a high Intellegence?
Why do they have to be maxed out?
And this is different than a Sorcerer who has a HUGE list of spells and you want to know like 12 of them?
Dang it, I think we should allow Sorcerers to learn more spells.
And we should allow Clerics to cast more spells per day, because they have trouble deciding what spells to memorize. Same goes for all other casters.
And we should give Fighters more feats because, they have a HUGE list of feats to choose from and you want to know like 12 or more of them...
.
.
.
"Why? What the heck is the fighter going to put them into? Craft Wicker Baskets?"
No, I think the consensus is Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive.
.
.
.
"It would be nice to once in a while see a fighter that doesn't look like he's a blind deaf mute who's never learned a single thing in his whole life."
Then put a high statistic into Intellegence.
.
.
.
"If you enjoy roleplaying a character that can't use contractions or can't think of anything useful that's fine but if I want to act in a more normal fashion that's my perogative as the player."
Using this rationale: a low Strength character should only suffer penalties if a player wants him to.
Bogus.
.
.
.
"One only suffers from having a low charisma if they happen to be adventuring alone."
Using this rationale: one only suffers from a low Constitution if they happen to be adventuring alone.
Bogus.
.
.
"Even then a low charisma makes things a little harder, not impossible."
If you had a 3 Strength, and you were attempting to break down a simple door (DC 13), I would not allow it, regardless of your roll or the rules.
Why?
Because a 3 Stength character has the strength of a Weasel.
.
.
.
"Immunity to dragon fear only means you don't take a -2 to hit."
"Shaken: A shaken character suffers a -2 morale penalty on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls and saving throws." DMG pg. 85
.
.
.
"Long posts of nothing but short sentences without any paragraphs or reasonable thought sequencing add little if anything to a discussion."
Oh.
.
.
.
"Repeating the word fighter over and over is not any help either."
I compared specifically a Paladin and a Fighter and you brought up a Cleric, which has absolutely no bearing on whether a Paladin and Fighter are balanced with each other.
The reason why it has no bearing is thus:
A Cleric can buff, heal and utility the Fighter.
The Fighter cannot buff or heal.
The Cleric must use some of it's spell potential for the day on the Fighter.
A Cleric can buff, heal and utility the Paladin.
A Paladin can also buff and heal.
A Cleric must use some of it's spell potential for the day on the Paladin, but not as much as is needed with the Fighter.
Therefore, Paladin spells DO have use even when you get them late in character advancement.
.
.
.
"All classes have to be considered in a comparison. You can't over value something because one class doesn't have it when other classes have it in spades."
The other classes may have it in spades, but they do not have it infinitely. They tap out. It is a limited resource. Clerics run dry.
If they don't then the DM is not using 4 encounters per day.
.
.
"Almost all parties have the fighter, healer, rogue and arcanist. So the example of happy D&D land where balanced adventuring parties exist is the valid example while the all fighter or all caster parties are the exception."
Um...this is 2ed Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric speaking.
If this was a necessary requirement of most parties, then they would not have had any hybrid characters.
3DnD would have only 4 classes.
Why can I not swap out a Paladin for a Fighter, Druid as my healer, Savant Psion as my Rogue and a Bard for my arcanist?
Is this not a balanced party? Does it not handle encounters as balanced as the FMTC party?
.
.
.
.
"These items can be found in the PsiHB, OA, and MotW."
All non-core books. (Was the PsiHB added recently? Don't know...)
.
.
"They might be found other places and also in the creating magic item guidelines which is where the formulas used for items in WotC products comes from."
I would not allow a +10 Spot checks magic item.
Why? Because not all skills are created equally. A +10 Climb checks magic item is not equal to a +10 Disable Device magic item.
And the guidelines are guidelines. By your rationale that those guidelines are hard and fast rules, Gloves of True Strike should be 1,800 gp.
.
.
.
"There is also a 1st level spell on the wizards.com site that gives +30 competence to a skill check. "
Please post this spell so we can see how it is relevant.
.
.
.
"Also, look how easy it is to make skill bonus items. It's bonus squared times 20gp. An object that gives +20 to a skill costs only 8000gp. THat's not to hard for any wizard or other spellcaster to make."
Guidelines. They do not equal hard and fast rules.
.
.
.
BTW, all of this talk of how easy it is to get skill increasing magic items in your campaigns actually weakens your argument.
Your gripe: Classes are starved for Skill Points.
Your own admission: Magic items that give bonuses are easy to find.
My question: Then why are classes starved for Skill Points? Why is the fighter "useless outside of combat" if he has cheap skill-boosting magic items? Why is the Rogue such a Powerhouse because he has so many Skill Points and Class Skills?
