| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if you optimize exclusively for combat, it's the system's fault that you feel useless outside of combat? Shenanigans.
Tripping is extremely useful in low- to mid-level play, so just because it's less useful at high-level doesn't make it "useless." Double shenanigans.
And complaining that a non-spellcasting class lacks the versatility of a 9-level spellcasting class: Triple shenanigans and moving the goal posts.
The problem is the resources it takes to make a fighter competent in a variety of combat situations. That is the fault of the system. That and the limited resources available to the fighter; they get pretty much nothing but feats and +1s to things in combat. A fighter needs to spend feats on being competent in her main style of combat, as well as a backup (sometimes you need to put down your falchion and pick up your longbow). If you want to do more than HP damage, you have to spend feats on that. If you spend a few feats on being good at tripping, that's feats that aren't being used elsewhere. Spending multiple feats on something that'll become obsolete at higher levels isn't a good trade (unless you know you'll never reach those levels). Sure, the fighter has a built-in way to retrain, but that just doesn't work on feat chains. The fighter also has to spend feats on shoring up her defenses, picking up Iron Will and the like. Because the fighter has to use her one main resource (feats) to cover many things, she actually doesn't have too much of that resource to spend on improving her out of combat ability. Also, the feats available to her really aren't that great at improving out of combat ability.
Compare the fighter to classes that don't have the issue, say the bard and inquisitor. A bard or inquisitor optimized for combat will still have things to do outside of combat, even if they spend all their feats on improving their in-combat ability. They still have skills---they both get 6+Int skills per level and have class abilities that give them more bonuses. They both have spells to use out of combat. While a bard or inquisitor will probably spend many of their spell slots and spells known on combat spells, they have enough to also use utility spells.
Even the barbarian, the class whose entire shtick is getting angry and hitting things really hard, has more to do out of combat than the fighter. Barbarians have more skills and access to rage powers like Spell Sunder. They can even spend their feats on those rage powers!
What's the point of a Fighter even trying to do out of combat stuff though? Is it really worth it for him to sink the resources in when you have other people that can do that better then Fighter even if the Fighter blows tons of resources trying to be good at it? Oh hey look I get to use that "It's a team game." line that people love to toss around, except I can actually use it in a scenario where the fact that its a team game matters.
What's the point of a Fighter even trying to do out of combat stuff though? Is it really worth it for him to sink the resources in when you have other people that can do that better then Fighter even if the Fighter blows tons of resources trying to be good at it? Oh hey look I get to use that "It's a team game." line that people love to toss around, except I can actually use it in a scenario where the fact that its a team game matters.
All depends on the campaign. If you were to sugest playing a fighter in a campaign I ran, I'd strongly suggest making sure your out-of-combat abilities are covered. Anything less than 5 skill points per level would probably feel inadequate. In other campaigns, including one I play in with a fair amount of enjoyment, that's less the case.
In other words, build your character to suit the circumstances. Communicate with the GM.
What's the point of a Fighter even trying to do out of combat stuff though? Is it really worth it for him to sink the resources in when you have other people that can do that better then Fighter even if the Fighter blows tons of resources trying to be good at it? Oh hey look I get to use that "It's a team game." line that people love to toss around, except I can actually use it in a scenario where the fact that its a team game matters.All depends on the campaign. If you were to sugest playing a fighter in a campaign I ran, I'd strongly suggest making sure your out-of-combat abilities are covered. Anything less than 5 skill points per level would probably feel inadequate. In other campaigns, including one I play in with a fair amount of enjoyment, that's less the case.
In other words, build your character to suit the circumstances. Communicate with the GM.
Exactly! The solution to not having out of combat things to do as a Fighter is to not be a Fighter. Thus solving the problem forever.
OK, let's look at this another way:
Consider a human fighter and (blaster) sorcerer, both with 10 Int. The fighter puts all skill ranks in Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive (since fighters lack any "must have" skills to function, this doesn't impact the fighter's combat utility). The sorcerer puts all skill ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft, and Use Magic Device (which are the sorcerer's "best" skill choices).
Now, which character is more useful in social situations after the first few levels? Which character will feel "useless" when not in combat?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Fighter is now both less useful in Combat and is still worse then the Sorcerer at Social Situations, since the Sorcerer can rely on his Charisma (automatically making him better than the Fighter til at least level 5 and spells to overcome any skill deficiencies. Also a Single point (ahaha) in Diplomacy will net the Sorcerer 4 + CHA to Diplomacy which will beat the Fighters investment up to level 9+ without even needs spells or any other investment (and this is why you should just not play a Fighter).
Or play a Lore Warden, for instance. Tons of extra class skills, 2 extra skill points per level, and a perfectly valid package of abilities. And that's a pure fighter. If you're inclined to multi-class, there's heaps of options, obviously. A 2-level dip in bard can add a lot of possibilities, including but not limited to extra class skills, versatile performance, access to a spell list (and UMD), etc. A dip into ranger has likewise a lot of goodies for some fighters.
In general, I advocate that people first come up with a concept, then a background, then a personality - and only then look at mechanics. Too many people work in reverse, picking a set of mechanics they want to emphasize and then end up straitjacketed.
To give an example: in a campaign I play in, I was slated to play a lorewarden swordfighter, of the dueling type. I had a nice background sketched out, I had the personality firm in mind - and then noticed that we had not a single divine caster, nor any other form of healing spells. So, I took that identical character, and made it an oracle of battle. Everything stayed the same, although I obviously lost quite some feats. I dropped the monk styles from my planning, I changed one trait to make sure I had the skills I wanted, and I was good to go. Same character, different mechanics. I even play a very similar role in combat (and obviously out of combat, since it's the same background and personality).
In short: play the character in the story, not the mechanics in the book.
Why Lore Warden when you can be a Ranger? Plenty of Archetypes can expand that (like say Trapper) making you even more versatile then say a Lore Warden out of combat and that's before addressing spells. Fighter (even Lore Warden) is just plain less effective at out of combat stuff (and honestly even its in combat is never going to be top of the heap).
The Fighter is now both less useful in Combat and is still worse then the Sorcerer at Social Situations, since the Sorcerer can rely on his Charisma (automatically making him better than the Fighter til at least level 5 and spells to overcome any skill deficiencies. Also a Single point (ahaha) in Diplomacy will net the Sorcerer 4 + CHA to Diplomacy which will beat the Fighters investment up to level 9+ without even needs spells or any other investment (and this is why you should just not play a Fighter).
Also, blaster sorcerers don't have to invest all their spells known into blasting spells.
The Fighter is now both less useful in Combat and is still worse then the Sorcerer at Social Situations, since the Sorcerer can rely on his Charisma (automatically making him better than the Fighter til at least level 5 and spells to overcome any skill deficiencies. Also a Single point (ahaha) in Diplomacy will net the Sorcerer 4 + CHA to Diplomacy which will beat the Fighters investment up to level 9+ without even needs spells or any other investment (and this is why you should just not play a Fighter).Also, blaster sorcerers don't have to invest all their spells known into blasting spells.
Agreed, I like to have every Summon Monster starting at 2-3 on a Sorcerer list. The versatility that provides is going to just crush the Fighter of course, but eh what can you do (other then again... just not play a Fighter).
Just about every suggestion you give is a perfect example of how you can roleplay the effects of HIGH CHARISMA. See, that's the problem with the roleplaying vs. roll-playing divide. It is one thing to say that you can roleplay the results of some action when that action is...- Fighters are men-at-arms, and thus display all those traits that common people really admire. The common man doesn't really know all of the PC classes, he just knows there are those who wear common garb, those who wear robes and don't HAVE to work and those who wear armor and carry weapons and slay monsters. That fighter is likely to be noticed as a man of power and accomplishment.
- Locals ask him to tell the stories of his adventures. They completely ignore the rest of the group, who appear as weirdos, and robe-wearing snobs.
- Merchants want to hire him for protection of their caravan. Even if he's not available, they tell him about local dangers (because he's a warrior, and knows how to handle such things).
- The local mob wants to hire him to "do jobs". It doesn't matter that he's not a rogue, it matters that he's big and tough.
- The local ruler wants to invite him for dinner, because it's politically advantageous to be seen with powerful adventuring warriors. (Especially those who may do favors for your enemies if you don't make friends first)
- Local men-at-arms and soldiers want him to join them, or small groups want to join with HIM. (Forget the leadership trait and treat them as loose followers, or "fans").
- A local ruler wants to hire him to train his men/guard his stuff/deal with a problem/return something somewhere risky/get a message to someone/take some troops and get something done.
Fighters...tend to become kings. Think about it. This is how a warrior grows and is seen by others. They become barons and lords and landholders. Leaders of thousands of men.
Monks? They are warrior-poets. Aesthetes. Watch Kung-Fu the series with David Carradine for some ideas.
No, not everything I listed is a charisma check.
This is what we call a "false dichotomy"; the idea that it's one or the other, and nothing else is possible.
Believe it or not, you can play and have a good time without having every related stat maxed in an optimum "build". I have players make rolls on their non-optimized stats all the time. I have had them make untrained skill checks. I have had entire hours of play time go by with everyone enjoying themselves, and no dice are rolled. It's called "roleplaying" , give it a try sometime.
This idea that everyone has to wrap themselves up in "RAW" to prevent abuse by some evil, evil, Dungeonmaster and his capricious and unfair whims has to go.
...Just about every suggestion you give is a perfect example of how you can roleplay the effects of HIGH CHARISMA. See, that's the problem with the roleplaying vs. roll-playing divide. It is one thing to say that you can roleplay the results of- Fighters are men-at-arms, and thus display all those traits that common people really admire. The common man doesn't really know all of the PC classes, he just knows there are those who wear common garb, those who wear robes and don't HAVE to work and those who wear armor and carry weapons and slay monsters. That fighter is likely to be noticed as a man of power and accomplishment.
- Locals ask him to tell the stories of his adventures. They completely ignore the rest of the group, who appear as weirdos, and robe-wearing snobs.
- Merchants want to hire him for protection of their caravan. Even if he's not available, they tell him about local dangers (because he's a warrior, and knows how to handle such things).
- The local mob wants to hire him to "do jobs". It doesn't matter that he's not a rogue, it matters that he's big and tough.
- The local ruler wants to invite him for dinner, because it's politically advantageous to be seen with powerful adventuring warriors. (Especially those who may do favors for your enemies if you don't make friends first)
- Local men-at-arms and soldiers want him to join them, or small groups want to join with HIM. (Forget the leadership trait and treat them as loose followers, or "fans").
- A local ruler wants to hire him to train his men/guard his stuff/deal with a problem/return something somewhere risky/get a message to someone/take some troops and get something done.
Fighters...tend to become kings. Think about it. This is how a warrior grows and is seen by others. They become barons and lords and landholders. Leaders of thousands of men.
Monks? They are warrior-poets. Aesthetes. Watch Kung-Fu the series with David Carradine for some ideas.
Actually, your simply house-ruling things. You are pretty much saying "This guy is able to do this because I said so and you have to deal with it!" which is a weak argument. You are running under some pretty steep assumptions. For instance, in your little world, what would you say about Magus? Yes, they cast spells (they can actually get some pretty nasty spells with certain Arcana, wiht Eldrich Heritage (arcane), or as an Samsarian) but can still run around in plate armor (at higher levels) and still wield weapons. So where do your assumptions go there? For all intents and purposes, they would then become fighter+...
It's not about RAW, its about the fact the Sorcerer decided to have high Charisma and should be rewarded for it. If we gives your so called "roleplaying" a try the Fighter shouldn't bother talking at all since he's bad at it and it will cause problems. Or that Fighter can talk and cause all kinds of problems with his miserable social skills. That's called roleplaying and it does little to help your argument Owly.
Hope that they learn their lesson for next time? If you build your character for nothing but combat then thats what you'll be left with. If you're concerned with the numbers, use traits to add to your skill list and move some points around. Not enough skill points? Stop dumping intelligence. Of course you could always simply make a character you like role-playing. You don't need to be trained in diplomacy to talk to someone. The alternative of course is to make a shallow character and be stuck complaining about it.The monk and fighter are complaining about feeling totally useless for anything out of combat, but I don't know how to rectify this for them.
What could I do for them that the other classes couldn't do better?
+1 on Ciaran Barnes comment.
I am new to these boards, but one thing that seem to be evident here is an almost anal mindset on overoptimization. Well, there you have it, one-trick ponies can be boring to play.
Players should stop seeing Pathfinder as an MMO. It is called a "Roleplaying" Game for a reason. A character should be more than a stat block. Playing rolls without playing role is missing the point of RPGs IMHO.
And, like many other have suggested, players should work on their character background at least as much as their stat block. Then, with a good GM, their character will always be fun to play.
One of my favorite thing specific to Pathfinder is the trait option. Traits are a great tool to develop a character's background (even for the most clueless or lazy players) and should not be selected just with the greedy lust for more bonuses. They can open a new skill to your Fighter's limited class list (provided he has not dumped his INT and has some points to spend). Knowledge, Profession and Craft skills are obvious ways to make a Fighter still useful during their "rest & resupply" stays in town.
I am surprised by the OP's comment about the monk of his group feeling useless outside fights. Monks have access to all kinds of different abilities, skills, feats that should make them good in multi-tasking roles. The one in my group is pretty much the group's scout (having the best stealth and perception), is the secondary face (with good Sense Motive to boot), and, having taken the Caretaker trait, is the back-up healer to stabilize dying, stop bleeding, take care of recovering wounded, etc.
Final point: I disagree with propositions that a GM should give extra skill points or items or any other advantages to compensate players for their poor choices on their part while building their character. If you are not too far in the game, you might want to give them a chance to change a trait and/or revise their skill spending. Either that or make them start new character from scratch with an invitation to read the first chapter in ULTIMATE CAMPAIGN.
Roleplaying works against your argument though Tengu Verymuch as a character who is bad at Diplomacy and has low Charisma should well... act like it. So roleplaying makes a Fighter even more useless out of combat then the skill mechanics. Did you ever see Guts in the Flashback handle talking to people when Griffith could do it? Of course not, Guts knows how to roleplay his lack of out of combat ability... by not doing anything out of combat and leaving it to other people...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if you optimize exclusively for combat, it's the system's fault that you feel useless outside of combat? Shenanigans.
Well, yes. A ranger is a full bab that can take all his traits and feats for combat purposes and still have tons of out of combat utility. Like the inquisitor, the bard or a wizard.
Roleplaying works against your argument though Tengu Verymuch as a character who is bad at Diplomacy and has low Charisma should well... act like it. So roleplaying makes a Fighter even more useless out of combat then the skill mechanics. Did you ever see Guts in the Flashback handle talking to people when Griffith could do it? Of course not, Guts knows how to roleplay his lack of out of combat ability... by not doing anything out of combat and leaving it to other people...
C'mon, this is a bad argument. I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to want to roleplay a character who's competent in combat and in social situations. The dashing swordsman archetype is a thing. The fighter class is really bad at doing this and mechanically nudges the player towards dumping Cha. But that doesn't mean that people should be told they're only roleplaying the fighter correctly if they sit quietly in the background when out of combat. The problem is the fighter class, not the people who get tricked into taking a trap option.
No its a very good argument for why claiming "roleplaying" is a bad defense of the Fighter's inability to do anything out of combat. Because not doing things out of combat is roleplaying a Fighter.
If people want to roleplay in and out of combat that's great, but that's separate from my argument.
claiming "roleplaying" is a bad defense of the Fighter's inability to do anything out of combat.Agreed.
Because not doing things out of combat is roleplaying a Fighter.
Not agreed. The problem is that the fighter class lacks the mechanics to back up whatever roleplaying you want to do. That doesn't mean doing nothing outside of combat is the correct way to roleplay a fighter.
It is the correct way if you are "roleplaying" the lack of mechanics to back up whatever you want to do. A Fighter who is bad at Diplomacy, shouldn't be doing the talking. So if you want to roleplay being bad at those things (ie. your character) the correct way to do so is to not do them, or do them poorly and cause problems.
Well a good "roleplayer" should play their role. And their role if they pick a Fighter is going to be "Person who gets lots of combat feats and virtually no ability to communicate or exert their will on others."
Now if they want to roleplay "Person who can exert their will on others, can disable traps and is skilled at combat" that roleplayer should maybe consider an Archaeologist Bard. Or a Seeker Oracle. Or anyone with skills to spend and the Trap Finder trait. Or someone who can cast Aram Zey's-focus. Or...
If you don't want to roleplay your stats, then we're in magical tea party territory (not a bad thing just different).
Well, I must say those groups aren't very good at roleplaying or at least not very good at roleplaying the character they made. I just find it amusing that the "just roleplay and there's no problem with the fighter" people in this thread can't even be bothered to roleplay their statistics. (And if they don't want to roleplay their statistics, why bother have them in the first place? Free form RPing is a thing after all.)
I mean its not like someone put a gun to their head and said "Be Fighter." If they picked Fighter I presume they want to roleplay a guy who is good at combat and not much else. Otherwise they should have played something else. (And of course if someone did put a gun to their head all of the above is invalid.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well a good "roleplayer" should play their role. And their role if they pick a Fighter is going to be "Person who gets lots of combat feats and virtually no ability to communicate or exert their will on others."
Now if they want to roleplay "Person who can exert their will on others, can disable traps and is skilled at combat" that roleplayer should maybe consider an Archaeologist Bard. Or a Seeker Oracle. Or anyone with skills to spend and the Trap Finder trait. Or someone who can cast Aram Zey's-focus. Or...
If you don't want to roleplay your stats, then we're in magical tea party territory (not a bad thing just different).
There's a middle ground you and a lot of people are missing. You can roll dice and still keep the fighter relevant outside of combat, you just have to be creative in what you're rolling the dice for. Wrestling is essentially unarmed combat using the grapple maneuver. Boxing is essentially unarmed nonlethal combat. You can have archery tournaments, races of all kinds, tracking challenges, etc. that use skills/rolls that are either contested or come with some kind of DC, keeping them within the framework of the ruleset. These are all things that the fighter (or any character really) can be successful at and still gain the effects that a successful Diplomacy check would. Craft, Profession, and Knowledge (easily accessible via traits) checks all make them experts in a certain field, giving NPCs a reason to listen to them, provided that the fighter didn't completely dump Int, and still has a few skill points to play with. Changing away from fighter doesn't really do anything because the mindset at the root of the problem is still there.
Ok, but the problem with that is in your own post sunshadow21. "Or any character really", is the whole problem with the Fighter. *Any* character can do what they do. Thus, "Roleplaying" is not a helpful suggestion and in fact one that actively promotes the Fighter not doing anything to properly roleplay their ineptitude at it. I'm still putting money on the Archaeologist Bard for most of those competitions to. And he can still make Diplomacy checks.
Sure the Fighter has a few skill points, but what's he going to be good at that its worth putting them in? Knowledges? Sorry the Wizard's INT bonus makes that pointless (he also has enough skillpoints to put one in each knowledge for a 4+INT to the skill). Diplomacy? Not if there's someone with a positive CHA score and diplomacy on their class list. Spot? I'd leave that to the Druid if I were you. Climb? Ya ok... Fighter can be the group climber, until the casters get Spider Climb.
In an attempt to generate some more ideas that help the OP with the problem he is facing at the table as a DM, here is a summary of what he's said about the situation:
The monk and fighter are complaining about feeling totally useless for anything out of combat, but I don't know how to rectify this for them.What could I do for them that the other classes couldn't do better?
The fighter is focused totally around power attacking, and the monk similarly is focused all around combat.
It's hard for me to find ways for these totally combat focused characters to do well outside combat.
They're not even that good at combat.
they have a lot of fun during combat, and whenever they pass a skill check they enjoy it. The fighter in particular loves to pass swim checks, but at this point in the game swimming is not a challenge.
I tried doing a note passing thing, but they clearly did not enjoy it.
They are very quiet, and always defer to the other players whenever I try to get them to engage.
I will try puzzles, but those two are very very bad at riddles.
So we've got a DM asking for help in getting two of his players more engaged, and crafting opportunities for them to feel like their characters are contributing to the success of the party. He's tried everything he can think of to do it.
Let's assume, for the sake of the DM and his players, that the system mechanics are not intended to require that two people at the table should just accept boredom during a play session as the price of having certain numbers in certain places on a piece of paper.
Can anybody think of ways that have not already been discussed to help the DM engage these two players in the collaborative process of storytelling as human beings?
+1 on Ciaran Barnes comment.
I am new to these boards, but one thing that seem to be evident here is an almost anal mindset on overoptimization. Well, there you have it, one-trick ponies can be boring to play.
Appreciated. Thank you. Having spent several years posting on gaming message boards like this one and on other kinds of message boards before that, I can offer the following nugget, which keeps me from pulling my hair out. While there is an emphasis on "over- optimization", roleplaying is very personal and there is less to discuss with strangers. Also, players who "over-roleplay" are less likely to spend a lot of time of message boards like this one.
|
Another problem with just allowing a person to roleplay no matter the ski1l points is that it kind of screws other players who do invest in social skills. I am playing a Bard at the moment. I sure as hell don't want the fighter being as good as my bard in diplomacy without having the skill points. What's the point of investing major points in social skills if just everyone is equal at the table. I might as well put one skill point in social skills. If Paizo decided to give the Fighter class low skill points it's not my problem to deal with. As a player or DM.
Same thing as a DM unless you invest skill points in social skills your not going to be as good as say a Bard at the table. Espcially if yiur dump stat is Charisma. If your fugly your not going to succeed for often in social situations. Tables that houserule and offer a more free form style of rping can get around that. With RAW it's just not going to happen. Which is why I always point to a Ranger as a possible substitute for the Fighter. Better skill points and skills and more to look forward to every level. Than just more feats and better damage dealing. Which the Ranger can still do as well just a little less effectively.
While I respect gamers who think roleplaying can solve everything at the game table in reality it does not solve every issue at a gaming table. If I implemented that everyone can roleplay equally no matter the skill points I would have a very unhappy table and rightfully so. If I was a player at such a table I would be unhappy as well. In the end want to roleplay then pick something else besides a fighter. As the don't have enough skill points or selection of skills to do a proper job of it.
I like the people in this thread who are just like "It's not the game's fault they feel useless out of combat, it's theirs/yours! You are not ignoring the out of combat mechanics! If you ignored half the rules and ran on fiat instead, your fighter/monk could contribute just as well as anyone else! This is not a fault with the game, and trying to change it means you are just not roleplaying hard enough!"
There are many aspects of social interaction and role playing that don't fall under the skill set of Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate.
The "Well, maybe instead of trying to be good at their main thing, they should have spent resources on trying to be good at out of combat as well. No, splitting their attention wouldn't have made them terrible at both because of the limited scope of the class's abilities, what are you talking about?" guys are also fun though.
I don't understand the mentality of dumping Int and Cha down to 7 because you have to be good at Str. You can optimize and still be well rounded. However, if you are Min/Maxing... there is going to be a Minimum in there somewhere.
Ok, but the problem with that is in your own post sunshadow21. "Or any character really", is the whole problem with the Fighter. *Any* character can do what they do. Thus, "Roleplaying" is not a helpful suggestion and in fact one that actively promotes the Fighter not doing anything to properly roleplay their ineptitude at it. I'm still putting money on the Archaeologist Bard for most of those competitions to. And he can still make Diplomacy checks.
Sure the Fighter has a few skill points, but what's he going to be good at that its worth putting them in? Knowledges? Sorry the Wizard's INT bonus makes that pointless (he also has enough skillpoints to put one in each knowledge for a 4+INT to the skill). Diplomacy? Not if there's someone with a positive CHA score and diplomacy on their class list. Spot? I'd leave that to the Druid if I were you. Climb? Ya ok... Fighter can be the group climber, until the casters get Spider Climb.
First, leave magic out of this, because most competitions aren't going to allow it; a race to the top of a cliff with the winner gaining local prestige is going to rely on base stats and skills, not magic. We're not talking a pure party vs environment situation, we're talking a encounter where style points and how you do it as just as important as the end goal of reaching the top, and no magic would definitely be a big part of that.
Similarly, just because a wizard has a higher knowledge doesn't mean that the isolated villagers are going to bother to give him a chance to share it; a fighter who can earn local respect via physical exploits will have a higher chance pf getting them to listen in the first place than a weird robed guy that waves his hands around. A bard could do something similar using Diplomacy or Perform instead of a wrestling match, that it true, but it's not the same thing. The difference is that Diplomacy and Perform are effected by language and cultural norms to a much greater effect than shows of physical strength, which in most D&D worlds is the basis for basic survival. Diplomacy and charisma based skills in general are great for doing business, but not so much when the NPCs are looking for a general who knows combat and war.
In the end, it's not just who in the party can do it best, it's who are the NPCs going to look to first, and the fighter is actually one of the first they will look to if you are playing them realistically as a DM, provided that the fighter doesn't shoot himself in the foot by dumping every single mental stat, because he is the most familiar to them and the easiest to understand. If the fighter can provide the competence they are looking for, they probably won't look any farther for a lot of the things that the party deals with, and there are lots of ways to prove that competence. There will still be plenty of areas that the fighter won't be strong in, leaving room for the rest of the party to shine.
A fighter that uses these tactics creatively outside of combat is going to be able to compete with anybody in the party in getting their share of the spotlight in a noncombat scenario, and that is all they need to do. They don't have to suddenly be the party leader and get more than anybody else. They don't even have to roll dice every single encounter, just once or twice to get the tale and fame started and after that every now and then to sustain it, unlike Diplomacy which has little to no carryover from NPC to NPC. All it takes is using the full ruleset creatively vs insisting that only a small portion of the ruleset applies.
Your argument that the fighter shouldn't bother because someone else can do it better misses the point. They don't have to be the primary star in order to be useful and enjoy playing through the scene. They just have to be able to contribute meaningfully, and they can while still staying within the rules if you do it right.
In the end want to roleplay then pick something else besides a fighter. As the don't have enough skill points or selection of skills to do a proper job of it.
Sure they do; it's definitely a bigger challenge, but it can be done as long as both the player and the DM are willing to look at the full extent of what can be done with the different skills and/or combat related abilities in a noncombat situation.
claiming "roleplaying" is a bad defense of the Fighter's inability to do anything out of combat.Agreed.Because not doing things out of combat is roleplaying a Fighter.Not agreed. The problem is that the fighter class lacks the mechanics to back up whatever roleplaying you want to do. That doesn't mean doing nothing outside of combat is the correct way to roleplay a fighter.
I agree, and I do not like playing characters with limited skills because you do lack the skills to back up things. That said, a smart human fighter with the right traits can pull it off and still be effective as a fighter.
Another problem with just allowing a person to roleplay no matter the ski1l points is that it kind of screws other players who do invest in social skills. I am playing a Bard at the moment. I sure as hell don't want the fighter being as good as my bard in diplomacy without having the skill points. What's the point of investing major points in social skills if just everyone is equal at the table...
There are roles that people play in the world by virtue of their character's appearance and participation, AND by people's perception of them, not just their character class.
A narrow example: A fighter and a sorcerer walk into a town that is beset with monster problems. Which PC are the simple townsfolk likely to approach? The townspeople are looking for a hero. They don't even know what a "sorcerer" IS. If they realized it was someone with magic in their blood, they might be afraid of him/her and would be indifferent at best, suspicious and fearful at worst.
In such a situation as GM, I'd make the fighter the go-to guy for the townspeople, and the sorcerer would take a secondary role.
Another narrow example: A monk and a bard return to the monk's home town, which is beset by a tyrant who has taken over the monastery. Sure, the bard is terrific at diplomacy and bluff, but who are the townspeople going to trust to deal with this very localized problem?
An extreme example: A group of adventurers (cleric, fighter and bard) is seated at an important dinner with the king and his general. The king wants to discuss a problem with bandits. He sees the fighter as the group's warrior leader, and the cleric as the group's spiritual heart. The bard? Well, to a king a bard is entertainment. The player playing the bard attempts diplomacy roll after diplomacy roll until the king announces "If this one opens his mouth again, take him to the dungeon."
Roleplaying is an answer if the players seize the opportunity to play ...roles...and not just feel entitled to results based on their character stats.
In one of my games, I have a player playing a rogue kitsune with high charisma skills. It took him a while to get used to the idea that he can't talk everyone out of their purse, and eventually learned he could be a local contact for the thieves guild. The player lets me know how he wants to play his character, and I let him know what is possible within the confines of whatever society he's IN.
Right now I have a player playing a half-orc oracle with high charisma. He's not doing too well because he's dark and mysterious and a half-orc wandering around a human settlement.
Has anyone here seen the Warlord from Path of War?
He gets some pretty cool rules that I would houserule onto the fighter in a heartbeat.
1. 4+ skill points a level, Also Fighter skills+ Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Bluff
2. Charisma to will saves in addition to Wisdom
3. Flanks and Aid Another using +2 or his Charisma bonus
He has a lot of other class abilities that really lend well to being a force of nature in human form (Spartacus, Griffith, Leonidas, Askeladd, other General/leader types).
I really suggest checking Path of War out sometime, it has great fun stuff.
edit@ Owly: Bards in Pathfinder are not "mere entertainment" when they have potent spellcasting, the ability to function well in combat with weapons, and are overall incredibly effective in combat situations. Also people don't walk around with Class nametags. That party would likely look like this to the king
Big guy who looks ugly as f%+! or a normal looking dude who has a severely stunted ability to act proper in social situations.
Medium sized guy who seems very wise and probably looks good or speaks with great dignity.
Medium sized guy who speaks incredibly eloquently, understand proper table manners, and seems to know everything as he makes fun and memorable table conversation.
Why would they be wearing armor, or carrying weapons/instruments with them to a dinner table?
Ok, but the problem with that is in your own post sunshadow21. "Or any character really", is the whole problem with the Fighter. *Any* character can do what they do. Thus, "Roleplaying" is not a helpful suggestion and in fact one that actively promotes the Fighter not doing anything to properly roleplay their ineptitude at it. I'm still putting money on the Archaeologist Bard for most of those competitions to. And he can still make Diplomacy checks.
Sure the Fighter has a few skill points, but what's he going to be good at that its worth putting them in? Knowledges? Sorry the Wizard's INT bonus makes that pointless (he also has enough skillpoints to put one in each knowledge for a 4+INT to the skill). Diplomacy? Not if there's someone with a positive CHA score and diplomacy on their class list. Spot? I'd leave that to the Druid if I were you. Climb? Ya ok... Fighter can be the group climber, until the casters get Spider Climb.
Roleplaying, and having fun with it, has nothing to do with stats or results. Roleplaying is basically acting. An actor can be interesting and have fun doing it wether he plays a fool, a brute, a brilliant, a charismatic, a schlob, a wretch, a sniveling weasel...
In my group, players almost never play a Wizard if they can have access to a Sorcerer. A sorcerer starts with the same number of skill points as a fighter. But even with characters with lots of skill points, they can't be master of everything. A fighter could still find his own niche/speciality (with traits, he has access to almost ANY skill), he could pick a skill or two not covered by his fellow adventurer and fully invest to be the best at it while others might spread out their skill points on too many different skills. Feats, traits, racial bonus might even boost him up further.
The group I currently GM has a Fighter, a Cleric, a Sorcerer (who all have 2+INT bonus skill points/level) and a Monk (4+INT/level). So they have to share different responsabilities. The cleric concentrate on Knowledge: Religion, the Sorcerer on Knowledge: Arcana, the monk has no skill points to spare on any Knowledge because he has to cover the rogue/scout role (Stealth, Perception, etc). So that leaves a lots of options for the fighter to make himself useful just on the Knowledge front. Ours decided to concentrate on Knowledge: Dungeoneering, but he could also have covered Engineering, History or other useful knowledge skills via traits (and/or feats).
Of course, the bigger the group, the more it is difficult to find his own niche, and not only for Fighters. If the group is large with numerous skill monkeys (rogues, bards, rangers, etc), the the fighter might have less options. But there is always Profession or Crafting skills that will at least add color to the character. Crafting masterwork armor and weapons can make for a decent income. Even the climbing skill you mentioned, sure the sorcerer could use a Spider Climb spell, but I'm sure most casters will be more than happy to let the Fighter use his climb skill, so that the caster can keep his 2nd level spell slots for more useful spells such as Mirror Image, Invisibility, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying is an answer if the players seize the opportunity to play ...roles...and not just feel entitled to results based on their character stats.
These roles doe snot exist per se. You are forcing the bard to be just an entertainment and you are giving the fighter the status of the gropu warrior leader just because.
there is nothing that stop the bard to have big muscle, use a medium armor and have a big weapon and be the party leader.
For those that are saying that the problem is with the player not roleplaying enough, I have a question:
Regarding the suggestions I put in my spoiler-ed post at the top of this page (linky in case you are lost and can't find me), would such changes make things bad in some way for the health of the game overall?
If not, then is it a poor suggestion for the OP who is asking for help for his player having trouble with his fighter outside of combat?I can understand giving the advice of more input on the roleplaying side to make your character feel useful. I've played a fighter in a strict core rules only 3e game, and I made myself useful by having a normal Int/Wis score to justify giving tactical advice or being part of the discussions on what to do, where to go, etc.
I understand contributing without having to resort to "numbers".However, I fail to see where that devalues mine, or others' suggestions with regards to mechanics changes.
See, there's contributing ideas and discussion and tactics; however, there's also a certain spotlight set for rolling the dice, and meeting DCs and being successful. Or having that unique ability that can solve the problem.
This spotlight is narrative control. Success hinged on someone having the right tool for the occasion. Be it a skill, or a spell, or an ability, or whatever. Fighters and Monks have a bit of a dearth of non-combat narrative spotlight.
Now combat is a HUGE narrative section of the game. Being able to withstand or conquer enemies is a major spotlight.
However, in most games that aren't just a big dungeon crawl (and even then, skills-based tests are typical), there's a lot of non-combat narrative going on that skills, and primarily SPELLS get the spotlight.Giving the fighter a little more narrative spotlight outside of combat doesn't look like it would hurt a whole lot, especially if it's thematically appropriate (god, why there isn't a...
I think your idea works fine. But I also know a Fighter can be optimized and work perfectly well without min/maxing and unless you are min/maxing you should have at least 2 skill points per level, 3 if you are Human. However, if you decided to take a 7 Int and 7 Cha so you could have a 20+ Str and 20+ Con at level 1, that is no one else's fault.
Roleplaying is an answer if the players seize the opportunity to play ...roles...and not just feel entitled to results based on their character stats.These roles doe snot exist per se. You are forcing the bard to be just an entertainment and you are giving the fighter the status of the gropu warrior leader just because.
there is nothing that stop the bard to have big muscle, use a medium armor and have a big weapon and be the party leader.
Ixar Thundersong the most Metal bard on earth agrees with you. He marches into battle with 14 str/con 18 cha (base stats at level 4), a great axe enchanted to function as a guitar, medium armor (when he reaches 10), and speaks with authority. With the armor off he would be smaller than the fighter, but it would be obvious to any observer that HE'S the leader and not Phy Tor.
Does he look like a Bard? Hell no, he looks more like Nathan Explosion with a Goate. This is his mini http://hoardobits.com/reaper/14620.jpg
There are roles that people play in the world by virtue of their character's appearance and participation, AND by people's perception of them, not just their character class.
Sure. There's more to a character than their class. But of course, a character's appearance and participation is up to the player, not due to their class. Not all fighters look the same. Not all bards look the same. Etc.
A narrow example: A fighter and a sorcerer walk into a town that is beset with monster problems. Which PC are the simple townsfolk likely to approach? The townspeople are looking for a hero. They don't even know what a "sorcerer" IS. If they realized it was someone with magic in their blood, they might be afraid of him/her and would be indifferent at best, suspicious and fearful at worst.
Why does a fighter look more a hero than a sorcerer? What does a hero even look like?
An extreme example: A group of adventurers (cleric, fighter and bard) is seated at an important dinner with the king and his general. The king wants to discuss a problem with bandits. He sees the fighter as the group's warrior leader, and the cleric as the group's spiritual heart. The bard? Well, to a king a bard is entertainment. The player playing the bard attempts diplomacy roll after diplomacy roll until the king announces "If this one opens his mouth again, take him to the dungeon."
That would just be bad GMing.
|
|
Sure they do; it's definitely a bigger challenge, but it can be done as long as both the player and the DM are willing to look at the full extent of what can be done with the different skills and/or combat related abilities in a noncombat situation.
It all depends on a characters charisma score and how many points they have if any in diplomacy. They still will get a major penalty to do so. At least in my games. I don't care if the player running the fighter gives a oscar worthy performance. I'm not going to give him the same chances of success as the player who has at least ten or more points in diplomacy. It unfair. If a player penalizes himself by taking a low charisma and little skill points it's a choice they make to be less effective imo.
|
|
In such a situation as GM, I'd make the fighter the go-to guy for the townspeople, and the sorcerer would take a secondary role.
if the Fighter has a decent charisma and at least one point in diplomacy sure. If he has a low charisma and no diploamcy why would the townspeople want to talk to him As well why would the townspeople suddenly ignore the more personable sorcerer. For me charisma is not just about looks it's also about personality. Why would or should the fugly fighter be better than the very charismatic Bard.
Roleplaying is an answer if the players seize the opportunity to play ...roles...and not just feel entitled to results based on their character stats.
A player can roleplay all he wants in my game. If he does not have the right stats or skills he is going to be penalized. I'm not saying I make them fail automatically. Yet they need to get roleplay and get pretty high skill roles to succeed. The guy with the proper skills and stats has a easier time of it. It's only fair.
Shadowlord sums it up pretty well imo
However, if you decided to take a 7 Int and 7 Cha so you could have a 20+ Str and 20+ Con at level 1, that is no one else's fault.
Giving everyone a equal chance no matter the stats or skills is wanting to have your cake and eat it too. A player can't have it both ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another problem with just allowing a person to roleplay no matter the ski1l points is that it kind of screws other players who do invest in social skills. I am playing a Bard at the moment. I sure as hell don't want the fighter being as good as my bard in diplomacy without having the skill points. What's the point of investing major points in social skills if just everyone is equal at the table...There are roles that people play in the world by virtue of their character's appearance and participation, AND by people's perception of them, not just their character class.
A narrow example: A fighter and a sorcerer walk into a town that is beset with monster problems. Which PC are the simple townsfolk likely to approach? The townspeople are looking for a hero. They don't even know what a "sorcerer" IS. If they realized it was someone with magic in their blood, they might be afraid of him/her and would be indifferent at best, suspicious and fearful at worst.
In such a situation as GM, I'd make the fighter the go-to guy for the townspeople, and the sorcerer would take a secondary role.
Another narrow example: A monk and a bard return to the monk's home town, which is beset by a tyrant who has taken over the monastery. Sure, the bard is terrific at diplomacy and bluff, but who are the townspeople going to trust to deal with this very localized problem?
An extreme example: A group of adventurers (cleric, fighter and bard) is seated at an important dinner with the king and his general. The king wants to discuss a problem with bandits. He sees the fighter as the group's warrior leader, and the cleric as the group's spiritual heart. The bard? Well, to a king a bard is entertainment. The player playing the bard attempts diplomacy roll after diplomacy roll until the king announces "If this one opens his mouth again, take him to the dungeon."
Roleplaying is an answer if the players seize the opportunity to play ...roles...and not just feel entitled to results based on their...
So you don't actually roleplay you just give the Fighter a free Hero medal that is immediately visible to townsfolk who don't care how dumb the Fighter is or how little of an impression (Charisma) he gives off. Didn't know that "real roleplayers" stuck to predefined straight jacketed roles that can't be changed based on class you pick.
Sounds like if you tried to do some actual roleplaying, you might notice the fact that the King is probably only going to listen to the Bard.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And herein lies the difference between those of us who of us who think of this as a role-playing game, and those of us who think of this as a role-playing game.
I appreciate both views, but I hold tight to the first.
And then there are those that think of it as a role-playing game and feel both parts are equally important.
I personally think if it as a rolle-playing game.