Why don't fighters have acrobatics as a class skill?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

1 to 50 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Just curious about it since with the mechanical advantages of tumbling it should be something that every fighter learns about. Not warriors of course, but fighters are focused on fighting, they're not simply soldiers.

I'm planning to make it a class skill in my game as a house rule, but I was wondering why it isn't one already (and for that matter, why Tumble wasn't one in 3.0/3.5).

Cheers! :)


The rogue is really a light fighter. They have Acrobatics. The "heavy" fighter doesn't get it because they don't need it. They're all about lots o' damage, not speed.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

David Spaar wrote:

Just curious about it since with the mechanical advantages of tumbling it should be something that every fighter learns about. Not warriors of course, but fighters are focused on fighting, they're not simply soldiers.

I'm planning to make it a class skill in my game as a house rule, but I was wondering why it isn't one already (and for that matter, why Tumble wasn't one in 3.0/3.5).

Cheers! :)

Three reasons I can think of:

1) Fighters are typically the tanks, heavy armor slow moving (yes I know the Iconic isn't, bear with me) so flipping etc is right out.

2) Pathfinder skills mean that the fighter will only be 3 points behind someone with the skill (and even par if they sink a feat into skill focus.)

3) Your a fighter, you don't get nice things :P
3a) Check the Thug at www.d20srd.org for good ideas for a light fighter type.

Liberty's Edge

varianor wrote:
The rogue is really a light fighter. They have Acrobatics. The "heavy" fighter doesn't get it because they don't need it. They're all about lots o' damage, not speed.

But with feats like weapon finesse and agile maneuvers, there's nothing that says a fighter can't be light and quick. In fact I've built several fighters that way - the great thing about D&D is that there's so many ways to build and play each class. A fighter doesn't necessarily mean heavy or light - and since several other skills that fighters use have been wrapped into acrobatics (jump, etc) it makes sense that it should be a class skill for them.


David Spaar wrote:

Just curious about it since with the mechanical advantages of tumbling it should be something that every fighter learns about. Not warriors of course, but fighters are focused on fighting, they're not simply soldiers.

I'm planning to make it a class skill in my game as a house rule, but I was wondering why it isn't one already (and for that matter, why Tumble wasn't one in 3.0/3.5).

Cheers! :)

Ultimately I think it's about the vision of how a character functions in the game that influences the design elements. For a decent number of older gamers the default fighter was a sword and board specialist in heavy armor and was not particularly mobile.

For other people they envision fighters more in the mode of a wuxia swordsmaster or a member of the three Musketeers with high mobility and light if any armor.

Unfortunately since 1e (and OD&D before then) it's been somewhat difficult to incorporate the second vision into the game. With multiclassing and PrCs (like the duelist) 3.x was able to simulate that game style but it generally wasn't done through a straight fighter but rather a fighter x/rogue x/duelist x combo.

While incorporating tumbling into the fighter's list of skills might allow them to tumble some (although armor penalties should limit the ability to do a huge amount of acrobatics) it doesn't seem to replicate the ability of wuxia fighters and swashbucklers to avoid damage.

Honestly though I think you could make the case that fighters could should have access to just about any skill as there are definitely examples of sagacious generals (knowledge skills out the ying-yang) or brilliant leaders of men (diplomacy, etc).

I think a simple house rule is to simply erase the distinction between class skills and non-class skills and simply give the class skill bonus to a character that trains in any skill. That way you can have fighters that know how to pick locks and rogues knowledgeable in spellcraft. It's not that much of a power boost and gives people additional flexibility in achieving character design goals without forcing them to multiclass ad nauseum.

The Exchange

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
David Spaar wrote:

Just curious about it since with the mechanical advantages of tumbling it should be something that every fighter learns about. Not warriors of course, but fighters are focused on fighting, they're not simply soldiers.

I'm planning to make it a class skill in my game as a house rule, but I was wondering why it isn't one already (and for that matter, why Tumble wasn't one in 3.0/3.5).

Cheers! :)

In 3.x, I presume Tumble was left off the Fighter list because it exists largely to avoid AOO. Classically, rogues are the nimble tricksters who slip by untouched, while the fighter puts on his platmail and wades through the enemies while their attacks clatter uselessly off him.

EDIT: Also, because the fighter has a crap number of skill points to begin with, so why tease him by giving access to skills he might actually want?

EDIT2: Ninja'd thrice. Wow. Damn ninjas. I bet they have Acrobatics.


Thanks everyone, those are some good insights and fall pretty much in line with what I expected. Even though PFRPG (well, at least Beta) makes it much less tragic to have a cross-class skill, I still think I'll make Acrobatics a class skill for fighters. I don't believe that it undermines balance too awful much.

Sovereign Court

Your playing a modular character class RPG.

If your idea of a fighter happens to want to tumble and be agile, I suggest multi-classing with monk or rogue. Or simply play a rogue and call them a fighter. Easy to do, just don't take ranks in Disable Device. ;)


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Actually giving everyone all skills as class skills is a major power shift because for some classes having lots of class skills is their thing. Giving that to everyone weakens them by comparison.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Traits are a good option here, if you look there is practically a trait that grants a +1 and a makes a skill a class skill for any skill.


While it does not say it under the tumble section of pathfinder, in the PHB it says

Quote:
You can dive, roll, somersault, flip, and so on. You cant use this skill if your speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment or loot

Now in pathfinder final edition they may have added that line back in which means if you are in Medium or Higher armor you can not Tumble. Since warriors have trained to use medium and heavy armor, they might not have focused so much on Tumbling.


SuperSheep wrote:
Actually giving everyone all skills as class skills is a major power shift because for some classes having lots of class skills is their thing. Giving that to everyone weakens them by comparison.

Ehh, it's a pretty marginal shift in power for the Rogue as they still have copious amounts of skill points per level (allowing them to be awesome in a large number of areas).

It somewhat impacts the Rangers and Bards (the primary intermediate skill monkeys) but not to a huge degree. Rangers will still be better at ranger things like tracking and wilderness lore (because fighters rarely take wisdom as a high ability score and only have 2 skill points per level). Bards will still be better face characters since their face skills are attached to the same ability as their spellcasting and special abilities.

For the most part it allows Fighters to become shallowly skilled generalists rather than keep up with the skill specialists. That's because people can get a substantial benefit from spreading their skills around in the form of the +3 bonus for trained skills (assuming that you expand that bonus to all trained skills).

If you expand the number of skill points that classes get per level (a fairly common houserule)you would be advised to give the skill monkeys some sort of benefit to compensate for their decreased comparative power. However in comparison to the power discrepancy that high level full casters have over the melee classes I can't see how giving the fighter increased skill flexibility is that bad of a change. Or are we supposed to avoid giving the fighter good things in this addition? ;)


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Either the +3 is a big deal or its not. If the +3 is a big deal then giving it to a class is a big deal.

If it's not a big deal, then it doesn't matter if they get it or not. They can always take it, they'll just have 3 less than the people who do.

None of this precludes fighters from taking levels or rogue. And none of this prevents them from dumping max ranks into it.

Personally I don't see pure fighters as being the tumbling type. Emphasis on pure.


Have ya tried tumbling around in chain mail (let alone a breast plate)? I managed it... it was ugly, ungainly and ultimately painful.

Not fun.


SuperSheep wrote:

Either the +3 is a big deal or its not. If the +3 is a big deal then giving it to a class is a big deal.

If it's not a big deal, then it doesn't matter if they get it or not. They can always take it, they'll just have 3 less than the people who do.

None of this precludes fighters from taking levels or rogue. And none of this prevents them from dumping max ranks into it.

Personally I don't see pure fighters as being the tumbling type. Emphasis on pure.

Honestly I don't really see pure fighters as being tumblers either mainly because their abilities are so tied to being heavily armored tanks. Considering that armor (rightfully) provides a significant penalty to acrobatics few if any fighters are going to attempt to tumble out of AoOs.

However some people might like to simulate wuxia style swordsmasters (thus implying full BaB progression + lots of combat feats) without needing to multiclass or go PrC in order to gain access to all the acrobatic wire-fu typically of that style of play.

If you can hack the game into allowing non-armored fighters the ability to tumble around, fight in treetops, and still be lethal without impinging on the roles of other classes then I really don't see the problem. It simply gives fighters the option of pursuing multiple advancement paths instead of forcing them into the default heavy armor plus two-handed weapon that was heavily encouraged within standard 3.x games.

Part of the reason that the Bo9S was so popular with people who play fighters was that it allowed people to explore alternative fighters without becoming to far behind the CharOp standard. Considering Bo9S is not OGL I think making the bog-standard fighter somewhat capable of simulating that style of play to be an admirable design goal.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Am I mistaken or doesn´t Acrobatics include *jumping* in the Beta?

Taking the Jump skill away from the Fighter strikes me as somewhat odd...


I`m seriously considering a house rule that says there are no cross-class skills. I think the only thing worth "protecting" skill-wise are certain skill uses. And those uses are unavailable to people not of certain classes anyway.

I don`t have a problem with a rogue identifying a spell as it`s cast, or a lightly armored cleric doing flippies.


That's a fair point Kuma. One nice variant I saw on that is to say that cross-class limits the amount of ranks you can have instead of the amount of ranks you can put into a skill. (So the fighter under discussion would be limited to ranks=level instead of ranks=level+3.)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

That's functionally what PRPG does with its skill system, varianor (it's also about how I've been ruling it since highschool).

I can see the advantages of ditching class skills, but I think part of the problem here is that the fighter tries to be such a broad archetype in theory with such a narrow focus in play. Everyone expects him to the the pirate, the muskiteer, the knight, the general, the gatekeeper, the bodyguard, the gladiator, the...

It doesn't help either, I think, when someone tries to build a slightly more focused class for one of those archetypes and everyone else says "Just play a fighter".


The bigger question is why the Ranger, the only core skilled fighter, has never had Balance or Tumble. He can run through thick bushes and overgrowth but put him on a slick surface and see ya. Poor guy. All them skill points and nothing really useful to spend them on besides Perception and Stealth. At least in Pathfinder, he's not quite so hampered.

Liberty's Edge

Frogboy wrote:

The bigger question is why the Ranger, the only core skilled fighter, has never had Balance or Tumble. He can run through thick bushes and overgrowth but put him on a slick surface and see ya. Poor guy. All them skill points and nothing really useful to spend them on besides Perception and Stealth. At least in Pathfinder, he's not quite so hampered.

Totally agreed. I see classes like the scout as attempts to correct the problems that have stuck with the ranger over the years: a fast light character skilled with light and ranged weapons who can barely perform the basics of his high agility profession. I think they're lost somewhere in equalibrium between rogue and fighter and not truly finding the niche they're meant for.

At least the skill system for pathfinder alleviates many of the concerns i've had. They should be a lot more fun, as you said.


Personally I think he was left without acrobatics for a few small reasons. For one Jumping is no longer Strength based, which is one of the only reasons he had it before. Also with the new skills system he only loses out on that class +3 bonus so feel free to put ranks in it if you like! He just won't be as good as the monk or rogue probably.

I would like to point out that there really should be a complementary Athletics skill that takes into account Climb and Swim. If you're going to roll Acrobatics together why not Athletics?


I have to agree with Athletics as well. Climb and Swim are both marginally useful skills and I've never once even thought of specializing in either one. I almost wish they would've kept the skills split and simply added more skill points to make up for it but that's a different topic.


Rather than make it a class skill for all fighters, you should instead make it an alternate build.

Wuxia/Light Fighter
Most fighters train in medium and heavy armor, and do not learn the footwork needed for fast footwork and quick dueling swordwork. You are the exception.
Benefit: You gain Athletics as a class skill, as well as weapon focus with one light one-handed weapon of your choice which you are proficient with.
Change: You do not gain Heavy or Medium Armor proficiency.
Level: You must take this at 1st level.

EDIT: Alternately Dodge feat might make more sense than weapon focus, or perhaps Weapon Finesse. Or, a choice of one of the 3.


That would probably work well but if you're giving up Medium and Heavy Armor proficiencies, I don't see why you would have to burn a feat to gain one skill as a class skill. I think that's a fair trade straight up. I'd just treat it as swapping class skills without bothering with the weapon focus or finesse.

On the topic of Weapon Finesse, please tell me they dumped that one (I haven't looked). That's the dumbest feat ever. I have a 30 DEX but only an 8 STR so I can't strike with a dagger without stabbing myself in the head six or seven times. Uhg!

Sovereign Court

Why don't fighters have acrobatics?

'cause in PRPG final, they've been given "Athletics" which is STR based and has the climb, swim and jump skills rolled into one.

[...and PDK went back to his wishful thinking...]

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Studpuffin wrote:
Frogboy wrote:

The bigger question is why the Ranger, the only core skilled fighter, has never had Balance or Tumble. He can run through thick bushes and overgrowth but put him on a slick surface and see ya. Poor guy. All them skill points and nothing really useful to spend them on besides Perception and Stealth. At least in Pathfinder, he's not quite so hampered.

Totally agreed. I see classes like the scout as attempts to correct the problems that have stuck with the ranger over the years: a fast light character skilled with light and ranged weapons who can barely perform the basics of his high agility profession. I think they're lost somewhere in equalibrium between rogue and fighter and not truly finding the niche they're meant for.

It's been my intent for years to houserule rangers so that they get a slow SA progression.

With the exception from aragorn, who was definitely a wilderness fighter and not a ranger (in much the same way that Conan is a sneaky fighter and not a barbarian), every ranger I've seen in literature uses ambush tactics, or makes ranged attacks from hiding.


Might make more sense to give them skirmish.

After some thought, I think I'm going to go with something that CoC d20 did: Pick your own class skills.

The skill system in pathfinder is pretty forgiving, but I want people to have their own concept of what the character can do. So I think I'm going to tell my players to count up the number of class skills that their class has, and then pick that many skills to be considered "class" skills. If they're lazy, they can just take the standard ones.

I'm wondering whether this should be a first level only thing to prevent people from getting every skill in the game through multiclassing, but most people don't have the skill points to make use of all that many class skills, so it might be a moot point.

Liberty's Edge

Hydro wrote:


It's been my intent for years to houserule rangers so that they get a slow SA progression.

With the exception from aragorn, who was definitely a wilderness fighter and not a ranger (in much the same way that Conan is a sneaky fighter and not a barbarian), every ranger I've seen in literature uses ambush tactics, or makes ranged attacks from hiding.

I'm not sure about giving them a sneak attack, though I agree they should have a commando feel to them. You don't necessarily have to have the ability to deal more damage on an ambush for that feel. A character designed for hit-and-run tactics is more what I had in mind. Unfortunately for the ranger, most of their abilities only work during specific circumstances (in the forest). That makes them great NPCs... for what is supposed to be a PC class. A little more generalization is needed for them, perhaps even making them more like shadowdancers than they already are.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Well, I think the ranger’s class features need to do two things.

The first, as we agree, is to make him good at sneaking, ambush, and/or other cunning non-linear tactics (this should contrast the fighter, who’s “always-on” attack and defense bonuses and heavy armor let him rock in a straight-up fight). This can include taking advantage of terrain (if he can fight on his terms he’s good) and favored enemy bonuses (if he can choose his target he’s good).

The second thing his class features need to do, I feel, is make him a better warrior.
Because that’s what he is. A full-bab, good-hp bruiser, who should be on par with the other three fighting classes.

Technically, you don’t have to do the latter. But in order to make the ranger good WITHOUT giving him combat bonuses you would have to pile on an enormous number of defensive or non-combat class features (think paladin), in order to compensate for the much more synergistic bonuses that a fighter gets.

The core ranger, or even the Pathfinder Beta ranger, handles these two objectives separately: they get “combat style” (which feel stale and are essentially fighter bonus feats), and then they get miscellaneous wilderness-related boosts (which are fun but don’t make him much better at fighting).

The reason I’m drawn to sneak-attack as a mechanic is because it does both of these things at once. To me, the arrow that flies out of the foliage and takes an unsuspecting stag (or your armored comrade) in the throat has always been a staple of the ranger-archetype; when I first started playing I found myself wondering why the “wilderness rogue” held such appeal to me.

The reason was that he makes a better ranger than the ranger does.

Of course, there are other ways to reward rangers for using sneaky/cunning tactics. A skirmish-type bonus, as has been suggested. You could also give him bonuses vs. terrain, in either direction (he gets more from cover, and/or ignores the cover of his enemies). You could give him flat bonuses to attack or damage during surprise rounds coupled with bonuses to initiative, or “wolfpack” type bonuses that make him better at flanking.

But sneak-attack just seems like the best fit to me, and it’s already in the system.


Frogboy wrote:

That would probably work well but if you're giving up Medium and Heavy Armor proficiencies, I don't see why you would have to burn a feat to gain one skill as a class skill. I think that's a fair trade straight up. I'd just treat it as swapping class skills without bothering with the weapon focus or finesse.

On the topic of Weapon Finesse, please tell me they dumped that one (I haven't looked). That's the dumbest feat ever. I have a 30 DEX but only an 8 STR so I can't strike with a dagger without stabbing myself in the head six or seven times. Uhg!

Uhm,

I never said they'd burn a feat. They're giving up two feats at first level (Medium and Heavy armor proficiency). In exchange, I was saying give them Acrobatics as a class skill and a free feat of their choice from a list of 3. That's not burning a feat, that's giving a free feat. I don't think giving up two feats (medium and heavy armor proficiency) is an equal trade for one class skill.

As to weapon finesse, I've always thought light weapons should use higher of dex or str, with any other larger weapons needing the feat. So a rapier, a dagger, whip, etc use dex or str. A long sword uses str. My own thought though.


David Spaar wrote:
Thanks everyone, those are some good insights and fall pretty much in line with what I expected. Even though PFRPG (well, at least Beta) makes it much less tragic to have a cross-class skill, I still think I'll make Acrobatics a class skill for fighters. I don't believe that it undermines balance too awful much.

City Scape allows you to drop the ride skill for the tumble skill.

Maybe you should do that?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

I think we may be losing sight of what the "tumble" skill (and its use in combat) is ment to represent: swashbuckling acrobatics. A person using tumble in a fight is taking flashy dance-school techniques which no military academy would ever teach and finding an application for them in combat. It's useful at times, but it's not directly tied to swordsmanship or spearwielding or what-have-you; there are 1st level experts who rock at tumbling around foes and there are 20th level fighters who just don't bother.
It really loses some of its charm if identified as an orthidox combat technique.

That said, I'm just speaking from the perspective which (I think) the rules were written from. Not necessarily the 'right' perspective and certainly not the only one.


Hydro wrote:

I think we may be losing sight of what the "tumble" skill (and its use in combat) is ment to represent: swashbuckling acrobatics. A person using tumble in a fight is taking flashy dance-school techniques which no military academy would ever teach and finding an application for them in combat. It's useful at times, but it's not directly tied to swordsmanship or spearwielding or what-have-you; there are 1st level experts who rock at tumbling around foes and there are 20th level fighters who just don't bother.

It really loses some of its charm if identified as an orthidox combat technique.

That said, I'm just speaking from the perspective which (I think) the rules were written from. Not necessarily the 'right' perspective and certainly not the only one.

Nah, I could easily see tumble being used for something more along the lines of flashy fencing. Which is pretty orthodox, depending on the school.

I could even see it being used with heavy weapons, in all honesty. If you ever have the opportunity to see two experienced axe-fighters go at it, expect to be surprised by their agility. (and perhaps their light armor)


Kuma wrote:

Nah, I could easily see tumble being used for something more along the lines of flashy fencing. Which is pretty orthodox, depending on the school.

There is a huge difference between a lunge, and doing 3 cartwheels and a flip to go over your opponent and stab him from behind.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

I don't know about cartwheels, but what tumbling allows you to do is move past someone (or move in circles around them) without getting wacked.

And in the 'skirmish' scenerios which D&D offers that's actually pretty useful. Against huge foes with reach, that's definitely useful.

But as one medium-sized humanoid fighting another (even as part of a flashy fencing tradition), or a large group of mediums charging another large group, it's pretty useless, which is how (in my little world) I can justify these techniques not being taught to fighters.


mdt wrote:
Level: You must take this at 1st level.

Sorry, this part made me think that it was a feat. My bad.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

I think I would format that as a fighter replacement level (that way it kicks in on your first fighter level, not necessarily your first character level).

Edit: Indidentally, I think it would be fine even as a feat.

Most dex-based fighters will take Weapon Focus at first level anyway. Most dex-based fighters will never use medium or heavy armor anyway. The tumble class skill, in this case, is totally gravy.


Hydro wrote:

Edit: Indidentally, I think it would be fine even as a feat.

Most dex-based fighters will take Weapon Focus at first level anyway. Most dex-based fighters will never use medium or heavy armor anyway. The tumble class skill, in this case, is totally gravy.

Agreed - losing two "feats" of armor proficiency that you would never use is difficult to judge a loss worthy of a useful feat and one of the best class skills.

Make it a feat, or just swap the armor proficiencies for Acrobatics. I could see just Heavy Armor though.

Sczarni

Interesting to note that the Barbarian now gets Acrobatics as a class skill ... (which is OK with me).


Gully wrote:
Interesting to note that the Barbarian now gets Acrobatics as a class skill ... (which is OK with me).

I was thinking the same thing when I read that. Poor Ranger. :(

Liberty's Edge

If the Barbarian, who is probably the most focused on doing huge damage, and the least focused on defense or subtlety, and is proficient with medium armor has Acrobatics as a class skill. I see no reason the Fighter, which is the most general of the fighting classes, should not have it. I also think the ranger should have it. I like the idea of allowing players to choose the skills they want to be class skills. This is especially helpful when planning to multiclass in the future. This can also add flavor to the character. For example, A dwarf, forced to be a fighter by family tradition and the Dwarven Code of Honor (or whatever) who always wanted to be a wizard, and who secretly studied Spellcraft and Knowledge-arcana. However, this may alter the intended path to entering certain prestige classes that the designers assume will take longer to achieve and/or would involve a certain amount of multiclassing.


Jerald Schrimsher wrote:
If the Barbarian, who is probably the most focused on doing huge damage, and the least focused on defense or subtlety, and is proficient with medium armor has Acrobatics as a class skill.

Especially because Acrobatics covers more than just tumbling. It also covers Balance and Jump from 3.5 rules. The barbarian had the exact same access to those three skills that the Fighter and the Ranger had in 3.5: no on Tumble or Balance and yes on Jump.


I can't wait to see the raging Barbarian flipping and tumbling around the battlefield (while the Ranger and Fighter sit in the corner and sob like little girls). This aught to be fun. :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Given the difference between a class and non-class skill is the bonus +3 I don't see it as much of an issue. Perhaps a better way would to have been to make it a non-class skill for barbarians and give them a bonus as part of their enhanced speed. I do not expect many barbarian characters to emphasis dexterity so I would expect a ranger to be able to balance, jump and tumble as well or better than a barbarian. The lack of the +3 is not going to stop me from creating an Achilles type leaping power attacking type fighter.

Doug


DougErvin wrote:
Given the difference between a class and non-class skill is the bonus +3 I don't see it as much of an issue.

Actually, there is another, much more important difference: qualifying for prestige classes.

You qualify for a prestige class with skill requirement X if you have x-3 ranks in it as a class skill OR (x-3)*2 ranks if it is not a class skill. That means if there are any PrCs that require ranks in Jump, you basically have to multiclass away from fighter or ranger to get access to them, while barbarians are just fine.


Zurai wrote:
You qualify for a prestige class with skill requirement X if you have x-3 ranks in it as a class skill OR (x-3)*2 ranks if it is not a class skill. That means if there are any PrCs that require ranks in Jump, you basically have to multiclass away from fighter or ranger to get access to them, while barbarians are just fine.

Perhaps, but for the record, the idea of needing (x-3)*2 ranks to meet a 3.0/3.5 prestige class's skill requirements (for non-class skills) may be gone. The rank requirements and rules in the Prestige Class Web Enhancement do not list that sort of requirement for non-class skills.

The question in this case may be moot, there are very few prestige classes that have Jump as a prereq (none in the SRD, even epic or psionic).

Liberty's Edge

Majuba wrote:

The question in this case may be moot, there are very few prestige classes that have Jump as a prereq (none in the SRD, even epic or psionic).

I'd like to see Duelist have jump as a prereq instead of perform... since you bring it up. :p


It actually already has Acrobatics as a prereq, from Tumble requirement. :)

Studpuffin wrote:
Majuba wrote:
The question in this case may be moot, there are very few prestige classes that have Jump as a prereq (none in the SRD, even epic or psionic).
I'd like to see Duelist have jump as a prereq instead of perform... since you bring it up. :p


Majuba wrote:
Perhaps, but for the record, the idea of needing (x-3)*2 ranks to meet a 3.0/3.5 prestige class's skill requirements (for non-class skills) may be gone. The rank requirements and rules in the Prestige Class Web Enhancement do not list that sort of requirement for non-class skills.

That's because that rule is in the main beta book. Page 52, "Designer Notes: Prestige Skills".

1 to 50 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Why don't fighters have acrobatics as a class skill? All Messageboards