Nothing that we seem to have come to is an actual fix for the fighter, but a fix for the 3.5 system as a whole.
2+ skill ranks would be fine if we consolidated what physical skills are useful to characters.
The feat chains, and static bonuses need to be consolidated also, giving the fighter effectively twice as many options as everyone else.
More than one good save is okay to fight for imo, I see that as being a problem, sure.
But at the end of the day, I see less problems with the class and more with the system as a whole, but I like the system, which is why I think I don't mind fighters as they are.
I see less problems with the class and more with the system as a whole, but I like the system, which is why I think I don't mind fighters as they are.
I see a lot of problems with both. I happen to play in it and would like to see improvements here and there. The more people deny that something needs fixing the less likely it is to be fixed.
The skill points were already consolidated a lot. 3.5 had an awful skill system compared to PF, but PF didn't give rogues much in return for their niche being snatched so good came with some bad. 4+ skill points as a base is just nice for doing what you need I think.
|
Modularity for fighters should always be their shtick.
Give them 4 skill points, and let them pick any two skills to add to their list. Zing! Modularity.
Let them ignore non-BAB pre-reqs for their fighter feats, and let them swap out the feats anytime they get a new class feat. Zing! the ability to ignore long feat trees. Modularity.
Let them add Bravery to Will Saves, Armor Training to Reflex, and Weapon Training to fort if they take the appropriate feats. ZinG! No more save problems.
In like vein, let them pick either Reflex or Will as either a second good save, or a moderate save (+1/2 levels). Zing! Choice of saves.
Weapon Training should apply in full to all weapons they choose to train extra in. Other classes don't suddenly lose effectiveness by shifting weapons, the fighter should likewise not be so punished.
Armor Training should grant a straight Dodge bonus. If you make them take the Dodge feat to acquire this, fine. Guess what? It becomes just like the ability a barbarian can now get!!...and equivalent to the per-level bonus a monk picks up.
They should get DR in armor or wearing a shield that stacks by level, not that suddenly pops up at level 19. And it should stack with Adamantine, which would FINALLY give people reasons to buy adamantine armor.
Note that NONE of the above actually increases their DR by much, with the minor change of secondary weapons become as good as primary...you know, like every other class out there.
There should be feats that REWARD people for being non-magical. SR against hostile spells. Spell-cutting. Etc, etc. The Pierce Magical Protection and Pierce Magical Concealment feats from 3.5 did this nicely. Casters HATED them. Great feats.
====
As for fixing class disparities, that won't be done until BAB is as precious as caster level; when Skill Ranks are more important then Skill Bonuses; and attacks/round is once again a class ability, not a function of BAB.==Aelryinth
Also great ideas
>_<
giving a fighter 4 skill points per level is bad and you should feel bad.
Too bad markthus, it helps with balance. Would it help you if there was a feat that gave an extra 2+INT to your skill ranks in the fighter class, with a fighter level 1 pre-req, that fighters could select as an extra bonus feat that couldn't be replaced/used on anything else (except maybe a third good save) and didn't count towards bonus feat total, and couldn't be taken past third level?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want 4 skill points per level you should play a different class.
The fighter is a specialized class that focus on feats instead of skill, arcane magic, or divine magic.
There is nothing about being a fighter that makes one more skill focused than a commoner. Fighters get feats, weapon training, and armor training.
What you actually want is a better skill system, but that goes into fixing the rogue without turning him into a fighter.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dementrius, Those are good suggestions, keep the pre-req skipping, but what if instead you got
** spoiler omitted **...
I agree - but featize them:
Awe-Evoker (Combat)
You can cow enemies to force them ally with you
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +6, Intimidating Prowess, fighter level 6th
Benefit: Instead of inflicting the shaken condition when using Indimidate to demoralise in combat, you may cow your enemy into following your commands. On a successful Intimidate check, your enemy becomes helpful for 1 hour. The duration is increased by 1 hour for every 5 by which you beat the DC.
Everyready (Combat)
Your extraordinary toughness means you are never down for long.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +6, Con 19, Diehard, Endurance, Toughness, fighter level 6th
Benefit: You recover hit points as if resting every hour, regardless of activity.
Improved Everyready(Combat)
You get knocked down, but you get back up again.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11, Con 23, Diehard, Endurance, Toughness, Everyready, fighter level 11th
Benefit: You recover hit points as if resting every ten minutes, regardless of activity.
Greater Everyready(Combat)
They're never gunna keep you down.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +16, Con 25, Diehard, Endurance, Toughness, Improved Everyready, Everyready, fighter level 16th
Benefit: You gain fast healing 2.
Disrupting Glare(Combat)
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +6, Disruptive, Intimidating Prowess, fighter level 6th
Benefit: Instead of inflicting the shaken condition when using Indimidate to demoralise in combat, you may interfere with you opponent's spellcasting. On a successful Intimidate check, an enemy caster level for its spells and spell-like abilities is reduced by 2 for 1 minute. The duration is increased by 1 minute and the caster level penalty increased by 2 for every 5 by which you beat the DC. An opponent whose caster level is reduced to 0 cannot cast spells.
I see less problems with the class and more with the system as a whole, but I like the system, which is why I think I don't mind fighters as they are.I see a lot of problems with both. I happen to play in it and would like to see improvements here and there. The more people deny that something needs fixing the less likely it is to be fixed.
The skill points were already consolidated a lot. 3.5 had an awful skill system compared to PF, but PF didn't give rogues much in return for their niche being snatched so good came with some bad. 4+ skill points as a base is just nice for doing what you need I think.
It varies from Fighter Player to Fighter Player; One guy just likes the combat, another guy wants a Fighter with skills. . .
I think that a choice between a bonus trait which opens up 2 other skills and ups his skill points per level to 4+ or a bonus combat feat help to even it out between the skill people and the combat people.|
|
Dementrius, Those as feats make them throw walls of pre-reqs at things that could be justified as class skills, but are feats because it allows more versatility. IMO, they would be fine as simply being the class features listed above, yet as feats with fighter level 1 pre-req for healing strike and Anti-magic glare, And fighter level 7 for Awe Envoker. Even with the fighter ability ignore some FEAT pre-reqs, I think that these pre-reqs are simply delaying the feats that should be available at low levels. If other martials want them, then make those pre-reqs apply to 3 feats and just have or fighter level one and make them like monk style feats that others can get, but are optimized for fighters.
@Caligastia Exactly. Making that choice also allows even more different builds for fighters and makes it easier to make fighter mimics of other iconic heros. I think everyone can agree with your idea of choosing between extra 2+INT skills vs. extra bonus feat.
I will never agree with giving the fighter more skill points than a commoner.
If you want to make a feat called Powerful Leap attack that gives the fighter the ability to jump and attack monsters for greater effect than normal AND has the additional side benefit of giving the fighter the ability to jump without skill investment, then I would be all for that.
Another example would be a feat like "Intense Presence" or "Killing intent" that creates a fear aura around the fighter AND gives him the ability to intimidate people outside of combat.
If spells can replace skills, then why shouldn't feats?
Then you woul be fine reducing the skill points of the oracle, druid, cavalier, barbarian and gunslinger?I will never agree with giving the fighter more skill points than a commoner.
They are "rounded" classes that fall in-between rogue, wizard, fighter, cleric. And thus are giving some leeway.
You could have read the rest of comment too. But I'm sure nit picking is better.
|
|
If spells can replace skills, then why shouldn't feats?
Because feats are supposed to be extra abilities gained through levels. If there was a feat that gave an additional 2+INT skills, and fighters got 2 bonus feats at first level, what would be so wrong with that markthus? If a fighter is supposed to be an elite combatant, why should they need to have few skills out of combat? Being good at combat doesn't always mean killing all who oppose you, sometimes talking your way out of a fight is cleaner, quicker, and better for fame/PR (that would be important for Leadership Feat). Fighters shouldn't be terrible out of combat. This makes a compromise between the "Fighters need better feats" and the "Fighters need more skills" argument. A feat that gives a bunch more versatility vs. A feat that could be better in combat seems like a fair trade off on either side. Why should fighters have to spend 3 or four feats to be better out of combat then a commoner. This is a compromise because those who like skills essentially have to spend a feat to get better skills, and those who like feats can take better combat feats and commoner skill ranks. do you have any problems with more CLASS SKILLS instead of more SKILL RANKS?
I have stated how I feel fighters should be able to do skill like things and that should be as side benefits to really cool combat feats.
No fighters do not need/deserve more skill points. No feats to add skill point. Nothing like that at all. Giving a fighter more skill points is the same thing as admitting the fighter concept does not work and never will, that we should abandon the core concept and just scap all the bonus feats fighters get and replace the class with the 3.5 warblade.
Then you woul be fine reducing the skill points of the oracle, druid, cavalier, barbarian and gunslinger?I will never agree with giving the fighter more skill points than a commoner.
They are "rounded" classes that fall in-between rogue, wizard, fighter, cleric. And thus are giving some leeway.
You could have read the rest of comment too. But I'm sure nit picking is better.
They are rouned for their mechanics, not by an inherent law.
The fighter is not as rounded by an arbitraly decistion of some dev, if they wouldnhave 4+int skill per level they would be as rounded as a barbarian for example.
No they wouldn't be, because you have just removed a core pillar of the spectrum and admitted that all martials are inherently useless.
|
|
OK markthus, you made your point, now back it up. Go ahead, properly format or completely present feats that can replace skills, while also having combat use, and have fairly balanced pre-requisites. I did with my alternate class features to back my previously made points, so why shouldn't you do the same. We're waiting for you to have a strong argument, and I'm sure some would be fine with proper feats that allow this. I would.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving a fighter more skill points is the same thing as admitting the fighter concept does not work and never will, that we should abandon the core concept and just scap all the bonus feats fighters get and replace the class with the 3.5 warblade.
I would honestly be okay with that.
Realistically, if the core concept of the fighter is "Guy who can do absolutely nothing useful other than hit people pointy stick" then I think that is a concept that needs to go into the garbage can. One-trick-ponies do not make for fun characters or good mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be a distressing amount of "let's see you do better" going on here. One does not necessarilly need to have the ability to do something in order to see someone else is doing it wrong. Nor does someone need to know exactly how to get to the desired goal to still have a valid concept of which direction to start walking in.
I think the main difference between the "fighter-haters" and the "fighter-lovers" (or "fighter-disappointed-ers" and "fighter-okayers," whatever) is the level of play. Fighter, Monks, and Rogues have always done fine at my table but my players are not "optimizers" by any stretch of the imagination. No one has shown up at my table with a RageLancePounce Barbarian or a Beastmorph-Vivisectionist Alchemist, no one I know has ever run the DPS on a character. I think these kind of problems come up as you start to push the limits of the game. This is not to say "optimizing" or "power-gaming" or whatever you what to call it are bad. I just think the different play styles reveal different problems. This is also probably why the devs don't see a problem. From what I have gathered from these forums, they tend to run a more casual game.
Edit:
You may have a point, but wouldn’t it be great if both camps could be happy? :-)edit:
BTW, It’s sad that some of my fellow “fighter-lovers” are staring acting like Jerks. I have no idea my some of them start coming down hard and insulting on some of the other posters in this thread. I may not agree with “the other camp”, but I sure don’t need to offer them fire, ridicule and scorn.
>_<
giving a fighter 4 skill points per level is bad and you should feel bad.
then give 4 to all classes with 2. Seriously, 2 isn't enpught to be competent at anything
Instead of taking narrative power away from casters, we give it to the martials. Two days ago, I presented a series of hypothetical class features -- at level breaks 5, 9, 13, 17, and 20 -- that allow a fighter to keep up with a planar binding mind-controlling caster on a level-appropriate basis.... People didn't like those ideas, but so far no one has posted anything at all that comes close to meeting the same bench mark.
I like them, but I don't like them for all fighters. I think that's one of the large advantages wizards and sorcerers have. Flinging around death magic doesn't fit your character concept? Don't take those spells. That, more than anything, is why your abilities don't work ideally to hardwire into the class and its assumptions. So there needs to be some way that you can allow a fighter to choose from those powers, or less wide sweeping ones. I think you actually already mentioned it, fighter talents. Some wizards just fling fire. Some fighters can just swing swords. But for those who want it, the potential to do more would exist.
What I'm curious about is why do the world's NPCs throw down their swords for the fighter, but not the paladin, barbarian, or rogue? In my world, I frequently have weak foes break ranks and flee before my mighty 14-15th level PCs, but that's not hardwired in...they could just as easily fight to their bloody deaths each and every time.
A combat thing I'd like to see is making it more worthwhile to try disarm or other combat maneuver techs. My PCs often ignore them because it is more efficient to just full power attack...any benefit they gain from the maneuver is offset by the fact that few foes can withstand a full power attack...and those who do typically drop when the second one hits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feat Example:
Powerful Leap Attack
Prerequisite: None
"You may end a jump with a melee attack before you hit the ground. For every 10ft you have jumped add 1 to your attack roll and subtract 1 to your AC. This stacks with the normal charging bonus. Should your attack hit, any falling damage that you might have received is instead given to whatever you have hit. This feat cannot be used to strike the ground.
Having this feat allows you to make a special jump check that equals a d20 + str modifier + BAB. This check can be done in place of an acrobatics check, but only for jumping"
Feat Example:
Powerful Leap Attack
Prerequisite: None"You may end a jump with a melee attack before you hit the ground. For every 10ft you have jumped add 1 to your attack roll and subtract 1 to your AC. This stacks with the normal charging bonus. Should your attack hit, any falling damage that you might have received is instead given to whatever you have hit. This feat cannot be used to strike the ground.
Having this feat allows you to make a special jump check that equals a d20 + str modifier + BAB. This check can be done in place of an acrobatics check, but only for jumping"
like it!
And there's another weird problem.
The fighter can jump a tremendous distance as long as he's going to cleave something at the end of it.
If he's confronted with a 15' wide pit, he just stares, unable to get across.
==Aelryinth
And there's another weird problem.
The fighter can jump a tremendous distance as long as he's going to cleave something at the end of it.
If he's confronted with a 15' wide pit, he just stares, unable to get across.
Maybe we should use this leap attack instead then? What could go wrong!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about a fighter level x pre-req feat that lets them x/day scaling use a pounce on a charge, or even just whenever pounce. Also what if at a certain level feats worked BETTER for fighters than anyone else, supporting the elite combatant themeThat sounds interesting, both of these sound really interesting. People will say it's broken, or (partly correctly) point out that Fighters aren't lagging when it comes to dealing damage. But Fighters often have problems getting into position to do that damage, and this would help limit the draining resources from other characters on those occasions. It's another idea worth thinking about and it's sort of sad it got no feedback. The thread is full of too much generic crosstalk, so actual ideas are getting lost in the chaff.
How about if fighters got the ability to make intimidate checks to recruit temporary allies that remain for one day. The idea is not that you scare them into doing your bidding exactly, but you impress them into wanting to help you. This way, you don't have "overpowered" cohorts and don't know everything about your new allies, but can have an even more versatile set of fame because no matter where you are, your cohorts are adapted to the landscape. To avoid getting killed in your sleep, make the feature say that you always start as friendly against those NPC's and someone controlling them has to make a secret opposed control check vs. your intimidate check (made secretly by GM).
Another idea worth giving thoughtful consideration to that got lost in the chaff, however then I also do really think Fighters need more skill points (to which one frequent poster has a huge problem with, as if 2 additional skill points/level will totally demolish the fun, and conversely Kirth says 2 skill points or 200 makes no difference after Level 5 because most skills get obsoleted by spells. However, then the solution is to make skills more useful to non-casters. Thus the below idea).
But IMO this idea, combined with potentially giving Martials (who should be quite intimidating) a scaling reduction in the time it takes for them to use Intimidate (similar to how Bardic Performance takes less and less time to initiate as Bards level) might be very interesting.
For example, at X level, Fighters (and perhaps other Martials) can intimidate as a move action. At Y level, they can intimidate as a Swift, at N, as an Immediate (potentially causing a foe who is about to strike to break it off), and at Z level as a free action (simply showing up is enough to cause foes to quake in their boots).
But by the bar I set earlier, it's not an alternate to Leadership because it still fails to give the fighter any influence on any part of the world outside of his immediate presence. When your caster friends can talk to people across the country, summon reinforcements, and teleport them to where they're needed -- at that point, if you can't influence things half a kingdom away, your narrative power is totally eclipsed by theirs.
Yes; this is the reason for those leaderly-abilities.
Enabling Fighters to be able to influence the world outside of combat as their levels scale.
Now, as for the correct caviate that in past editions they had to clear a territory, well in this iteration of the game, by default characters don't have to jump through hoops to get their class abilities, though there are any number them for which, in a perfect campaign, I think it would be appropriate for the DM to say "well I have no objection to X ability but we should RP through how exactly you came to get it, just so it makes sense in the context of the campaign."
>_<
giving a fighter 4 skill points per level is bad and you should feel bad.
I feel that way all the time anyhow so I have no problem supporting this fix. It's well overdo for classes that aren't INT-based.
That said Kirth is right that many skills get obsoleted by 5th level, anyhow. Perhaps we need a "The Main Problem with Skills" thread?
Except that will make Lamontius lament, because he wants more threads about things that are good (and tons of things are good. IMO the Devs can each have a cookie, because the game is really good overall and a lot of its features just shine and we forumites can and should share the nifty things we find, even if it's been said before. After all, there are no new threads on the internet. Just necro and topic recycle).
Maybe it's time for a Pathfinder 2.0? Upgrades to the Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Cavalier?
I know people don't want PF 2.0; PF 1.5 might be wise. At least something to start thinking about (since their 2014 product schedule is already mapped out, PF 1.5 wouldn't be out till 2015 at the earliest anyhow).
To the people who really don't want a new edition: look at it this way, given the dynamics of games, it's either a new edition, or power-creep expansion accessories that build upon the old, and which means build upon the flaws of the old without any means of fixing those flaws (since even if there are "known issues," that is, things the Developers themselves would happily change if they had it all to do over again, nobody makes significant rules adjustments in splatbooks because "not everyone gets those.")
If you want 4 skill points per level you should play a different class.
The fighter is a specialized class that focus on feats instead of skill, arcane magic, or divine magic.
Here's an idea that may satisfy you, then:
1) Designate skills clearly as either "physical" and "mental." In general, this split already exists and is determined by which ability score the skill is tied to (one of the three physical = automatically a "physical" skill, one of the three mental, automatically a "mental" skill), however Craft skills overlap both categories, as does Perception.
2) Create a Feat that allows Martials to substitute 1 physical ability score of their choice for INT in determining bonus skill points, but only for physical skills (this is thematically similar to a number of feats or abilities that allow people to use X ability score for Y instead of the ability score it is usually tied to).
Naturally they can put their regular 2 skill points/level into any skill (3 if human), either physical or mental.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another idea then, inspired by "Bardic Knowledge"
Fighter ability: Physical Prowess - Fighter adds half his level (minimum 1) to all skill checks for skills tied to physical attributes, and makes all such checks as if he were trained.
IMO that would solve the skill thing without requiring more skill points. Fighters would still have their piddling amount of skill points available to distribute into other things or to enhance their physical skills.
That still leaves some of the other areas, such as the world-affecting ability Kirth's ideas have been addressing, and which is arguably more important anyhow.
But at least this is an elegant solution, it doesn't alter skill points, and it emulates without replicating an ability another class has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want 4 skill points per level you should play a different class.
The fighter is a specialized class that focus on feats instead of skill, arcane magic, or divine magic.
Here's an idea that may satisfy you, then:
1) Designate skills clearly as either "physical" and "mental." In general, this split already exists and is determined by which ability score the skill is tied to (one of the three physical = automatically a "physical" skill, one of the three mental, automatically a "mental" skill), however Craft skills overlap both categories, as does Perception.
2) Create a Feat that allows Martials to substitute 1 physical ability score of their choice for INT in determining bonus skill points, but only for physical skills (this is thematically similar to a number of feats or abilities that allow people to use X ability score for Y instead of the ability score it is usually tied to).
Naturally they can put their regular 2 skill points/level into any skill (3 if human), either physical or mental.
This is good, except Fighters need the option for a trait designated the Fighter as trained in some other skills, and the ability to raise his skill points from 2 to 4, to keep up with other classes. If the Fighter just wants to worry about combat, he can take a Bonus Combat Feat or perhaps another bonus trait instead of this...
This makes both the people who want skilled Fighters and the combat-only Fighters happy. . .
Here's another idea then, inspired by "Bardic Knowledge"
Fighter ability: Physical Prowess - Fighter adds half his level (minimum 1) to all skill checks for skills tied to physical attributes, and makes all such checks as if he were trained.
I always liked the freedom to choose the kind of person my character is. That said, the fighter in a way already has that class feature in the form of armor training(though armor training isn't the best). It would also only be in 3 skills per level, and not in ones that are used particularly often. In fact it might be the three least used once flight comes around, and taking 10/20 can make them trival(when they should be!)
Maybe give him skill packages? But at that point you may as well just give him the extra skill points right?
This is good, except Fighters need the option for a trait designated the Fighter as trained in some other skills, and the ability to raise his skill points from 2 to 4, to keep up with other classes.
check out my alternative idea just posted then, and noting that both of these ideas will free up skill points to be spent on other skills. One by increasing the skill points available for "physical" skills, which means the Fighter can spend his 2+INT skill points on non-physical ones (or, if they really want to - and it would be player choice - on additional physical ones).
The 2nd idea by insuring the Fighter has a baseline of competence in all physical skills allows him, again, to more flexibly use his existing skill points on other skills. Or, again if he chooses, put them into physical skills to become a total pro at them.
Note though my ideas may very well need refinement; I'm not the best at rule-design, and it won't irritate me of someone improves on them or comes up with a better way to achieve the goal.
Kirth is correct that skills is a side-issue. It's just that it's been discussed for 50 pages and hopefully these ideas (or something else like-them-but-better-than-I-can-design) will allow us to get beyond the skill-point discussion and focus on the other stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe give him skill packages? But at that point you may as well just give him the extra skill points right?
Yes but after hearing the same person mention 3 times per page for 50 pages he doesn't like the idea of giving them more skill points, and having people try to persuade him in multiple posts per page for 50 pages, I tried to come up with something that might satisfy both sides of that debate without tinkering with the number of skill points they get, since that seems to be an impassibly touchy issue, like it's hard-coded into the physical laws of the multiverse or something.
IIRC there are more than three skills tied to the physical attributes (STR, DEX, CON) (some of which the fighter arguably shouldn't be good at, but adding half his level doesn't make him good at *those* - they tend to require higher ranks - just baseline competent at them, so I don't think it would cause huge headaches).
Another idea would be to give Fighters a bonus of half their level to, for example, Perception and Intimidation.
Or, since you are correct that choosing the type of character you play is important, an ability that allows Fighters to choose two (or three?) skills of their choice and add half their level to those.
Or...
|
|
Here's another idea then, inspired by "Bardic Knowledge"
Fighter ability: Physical Prowess - Fighter adds half his level (minimum 1) to all skill checks for skills tied to physical attributes, and makes all such checks as if he were trained.
This is a good idea, but what skills will be changed? I think +5toaster's remark about athletics instead of climb, swim and acrobatics was a good idea instead of having three different skills that have one common theme. If there are 3 physical ability checks and 10 mental ability scores, the fighter isn't any more effective at those mental scores at high level then they are now and the physical scores any fighters with a 12 INT or any human fighter could put ranks in them and be "overpowered". That is the only problem the paizo office might have with Physical Prowess. I think its a good idea to have fighters specialized in physical skill though.
Feat Example:
Powerful Leap Attack
Prerequisite: None"You may end a jump with a melee attack before you hit the ground. For every 10ft you have jumped add 1 to your attack roll and subtract 1 to your AC. This stacks with the normal charging bonus. Should your attack hit, any falling damage that you might have received is instead given to whatever you have hit. This feat cannot be used to strike the ground.
Having this feat allows you to make a special jump check that equals a d20 + str modifier + BAB. This check can be done in place of an acrobatics check, but only for jumping"
This might work, though you'd need about three different feats for every physical ability skill, Though I say this should be a feat anyway because It allows fighters to be doing more damage against flying creatures and lets them not have to get fly. I think that the falling damage should be in addition to the attack though, and maybe fighters could get something in a feat chain later, possibly only if you have bodyguard or In harms way to use combat to your advantage by sacrificing AoOs to provide a +5 or +10 bonus to the jump check.
This is good, except Fighters need the option for a trait designated the Fighter as trained in some other skills, and the ability to raise his skill points from 2 to 4, to keep up with other classes.check out my alternative idea just posted then, and noting that both of these ideas will free up skill points to be spent on other skills. One by increasing the skill points available for "physical" skills, which means the Fighter can spend his 2+INT skill points on non-physical ones (or, if they really want to - and it would be player choice - on additional physical ones).
discussed for 50 pages and hopefully these ideas (or something else like-them-but-better-than-I-can-design) will allow us to get beyond the skill-point discussion and focus on the other stuff.
I was posting at the same time you were; missed it. Your idea is better for the Fighter. Climb and Swim should benefit from this, as well as Craft skills, maybe, for repairing damaged weapons and armor, maybe, as a Fighter will learn from experience the need to keep his equipment in better shape. . . .
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
then give 4 to all classes with 2. Seriously, 2 isn't enpught to be competent at anything>_<
giving a fighter 4 skill points per level is bad and you should feel bad.
The designers of Star Wars d20 would agree with you. Pretty much everyone had either 4, 6, or 8 skill points. Soldiers (AKA Fighter, right down to the bonus feats) had 4, while classes like Jedi Consulars got 6, and then Scoundrels and such got 8.
Honestly I think that all classes with 2 skill points should be bumped to 4. Then we'd have this nice standard as follows.
HD: d6, d8, d10.
BAB: 1/2, 3/4, 1/1.
Skills: 4, 6, 8
Saves: Poor, Good
And if I had my way there would be 3 levels to saves too (poor, average, good; resulting in +6, +9, and +12).
|
|
And if I had my way there would be 3 levels to saves too (poor, average, good; resulting in +6, +9, and +12).
You know, this actually makes much more sense then good saves and bad saves. Wizards I think should get average reflex saves, poor fort saves, and good will saves. When I think of wizards, I typically see the thin bookworms that got picked on in high school and then got a USEFUL job when they got older, while the "bullies" grew up to be warriors and commoners. Those thin "Bookworms" I'd imagine would typically be fairly good at jumping and ducking from getting picked on in school.
Also, I think that Wizards, Alchemists, and Magi should have 2+INT skills because they on average have 5-6 skills/level because they have high Intelligence. The Clerics, Summoners, Sorcerers,etc. though, they should be fine with 4+INT vs. 2+INT. I have some fair sized problems with getting enough ranks in those classes as well as with fighters. You have to balance so many things that the could use 4+INT skills.
IMHO, I don't really like saying "you have an Int focus so no skills for you". It seems odd to me that the moment a character takes a class that rewards them for Intelligence that you'd attempt to remove the main aspect of having a good Intelligence. Compare the Paladin. Since Charisma is the Paladins best score, should the Paladin get penalized on Charisma skills because his Charisma is expected to be high?
But yes, the +12/+9/+6 would be nice I think for rounding out classes. But I can live without it since honestly you'd need a calculator to quickly determine the save bonuses of creatures without the chart (the "average" is .45 HD, where good is 2 + .5 HD, and poor is 0 .33 HD).
Honestly I think that all classes with 2 skill points should be bumped to 4. Then we'd have this nice standard as follows.
HD: d6, d8, d10.
BAB: 1/2, 3/4, 1/1.
Skills: 4, 6, 8
Saves: Poor, GoodAnd if I had my way there would be 3 levels to saves too (poor, average, good; resulting in +6, +9, and +12).
When Paizo essentially remade 3.5 I don't understand why this wasn't a thing.
Why not just make one Pathfinder 2.0 core book. Just one and reinvent the wheel and adjust the skeleton rather than make a new game. See how it works out and then support it if it's popular. just don't stop supporting regular Pathfinder.
Or we fans could just make a new one. Where's that Kirthfinder thing I've been hearing about?
Interesting wording on this. It almost sounds as though your casters are annoyed because they have to carry you through everything, when I'm pretty sure they are annoyed because they rarely get kills, and the fighters often do.I think we are both right. I'm pretty sure they (and by they I mean Roon) are annoyed because they feel like being busy carrying us through everything is causing them to miss out on kills.
Interesting edit of my quote :P . I am pretty sure you cut out the parts where I stated that "resource draining sponge" (a response to another poster who said that fighters were okay, but became a resource draining sponge by 15th level) was an exaggeration. I hope that reproducing the quote in full will help place it in better context.
However, if you want a (hopefully) fairly levelheaded assessment of Einar's combat contributions...
The complaint is two-fold. You guys get all the kills, and because they can't get kills, the only thing they do is buff you. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, just stating it as the concern.)
I'm not saying you think you are a resource sponge. I'm saying that the casters' (and we both mean Roon) concern about you 'being a sponge' is more in regards to your awesome success, and not dismal failure, which is the typical impression these boards have of fighters, that of a cripple, trying desperately to keep up with the able bodies. In essence, your experiences are not reflective of the concern. That's why only the pertinent portion of the quote was included.
@Ashiel Giving wizards 2 skill points is not punishing them for having a good Int bonus. Just because a wizard is designed with the assumption that they will have at least +2 Int bonus and class based skill points are designed accordingly doesn't 'punish' them in the slightest, any more than assuming a barbarian will have -1 and giving them 4 to ensure they'll have at least the 3 you want them to get.
The little number before the +Int doesn't matter to the character. Only the total.
Interesting wording on this. It almost sounds as though your casters are annoyed because they have to carry you through everything, when I'm pretty sure they are annoyed because they rarely get kills, and the fighters often do.I think we are both right. I'm pretty sure they (and by they I mean Roon) are annoyed because they feel like being busy carrying us through everything is causing them to miss out on kills.
I'm not saying you think you are a resource sponge. I'm saying that the casters' (and we both mean Roon) concern about you 'being a sponge' is more in regards to your awesome success, and not dismal failure, which is the typical impression these boards have of fighters, that of a cripple, trying desperately to keep up with the able bodies. In essence, your experiences are not reflective of the concern. That's why only the pertinent portion of the quote was included.
Both things can be true at the same time. In Kingmaker, my 2handed fighter/barbarian was one-rounding everything. I didn't fullround anything that didn't die at the end of that turn, and I was often the "go-to-guy" to kill the BBEG. However, I know I was a sponge for my casters (despise my efforts to be self-reliant) and I couldn't do s%** without their buffs and we couldn't progress at all without them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I haven't had the chance to read through all the posts from the beginning. Could someone summarize for me - what have you guys figured out over the last 2500 posts?