It's fun to be successful at things. The fighter was having a good time being successful at swimming checks. It'd be nice if he could be successful at things that are level-relevant once he's out of the "swimming matters" levels.
So keep swimming relevant. If you're in a major town that has a harbor, lake, or river nearby, chances are they have swimming races; if they don't, start one. You're interacting with the NPCs, using the skills that you can do well, and have a very strong chance of being successful. Roleplaying is as much determining what dice gets rolled and when for each individual character as it is speaking or acting in character and then having each character roll for the same skill all at the same time, even while knowing that half of them don't stand a chance. If you want to keep rolling swim checks or any other skill to get things done, it's up to you to find ways to do so; that may mean finding new, more creative uses for the different skills as time goes on.
Stop right here. He isn't arguing that the character with 7 Int is equivalent to a someone with 20 Intelligence. He's argued that someone with 7 Intelligence isn't that much dumber than the average human with, assuming 3d6, 10.5 intelligence. As far as I can tell, that's pretty reasonable.You didn't change anything. No, you changed it to say "in my opinion", which shouldn't need saying, but hey if you feel the need to. If you feel that a character with an estimated IQ of 85 should be capable of the same complex planning and mental agility of a genius with an IQ of 180, then by all means argue your case.any player that does so from this character is metagaming and not role-playing in my opinion.Fixed that for you.
Well that depends on how you define "that much dumber" really, doesn't it?
Somebody with 7 int, with moderate training or a decent instruction manual, can change a wheel on a car. Someone with 10 int, with moderate training or a decent instruction manual, can fix a fault in the engine.
A fighter with 7 int knows to get in and hit hard, and use a bow when he can't do that. A fighter with 10 int knows to assess the situation and use the appropriate weapon. A fighter with 14 int can take advantage of an enemy's weaknesses and draw up a strategy on the fly to deceive and entrap him with minimal loss.
Fair. Really though if i make a character that doesnt dump int i play them as smart as i want to.
So keep swimming relevant. If you're in a major town that has a harbor, lake, or river nearby, chances are they have swimming races; if they don't, start one.
There are ways to keep swimming relevant at higher levels. For example, the party could go to a merfolk kingdom at the bottom of the ocean. Or they could travel to the Plane of Water to visit marids. These are the sorts of exciting adventures that are appropriate for mid-to-high level characters. Unfortunately, the fighter doesn't fare very well in these sorts of circumstances. It takes more than a really high swim modifier to breathe at the bottom of the ocean.
The problem with simply increasing the number of skill points is that by itself it doesn't really resolve any of the problems people have with skills, and in easing some of them, that solution simply makes others worse; as part of a more thorough revamp of how skill points are given out, it could work, but by itself, it's not worth it
It does solve a problem a lot of people have with fighters, he does not say anything about increasint the amount of skills for everyone but juust for the ones with 2+int.
A fighter with only 2+int skill per level is one of the most absurd things in this game, both mechanically and thematically.
By the way, id o recommend to not give that much importance to social skills, at lleast in my opinion games are considerably more fun that way.
But as people have stated, it is just the way I prefere and it is not the way the rules are.
Well that depends on how you define "that much dumber" really, doesn't it?
Somebody with 7 int, with moderate training or a decent instruction manual, can change a wheel on a car. Someone with 10 int, with moderate training or a decent instruction manual, can fix a fault in the engine.
A fighter with 7 int knows to get in and hit hard, and use a bow when he can't do that. A fighter with 10 int knows to assess the situation and use the appropriate weapon. A fighter with 14 int can take advantage of an enemy's weaknesses and draw up a strategy on the fly to deceive and entrap him with minimal loss.
Where did you find these hard and fast dilliniations between intelligence scores? They seem pretty interesting, but I can't seem to find them, as they certainly aren't in the Core Rulebook.
Fair. Really though if i make a character that doesnt dump int i play them as smart as i want to.
Indeed, there is a lot more to mental ability than just intelligence. As long as a player in one of my games has a good score in one of their mental stats and hasn't dumped the rest, I'm happy for them to play it as they feel it with occasional skill-checks. On the converse, I'm happy to give them ability checks for things I think that they would be aware of or be capable of.
What I do object to is a player dump-statting mental attributes and then ignoring the dump-stats to play the character as smart/wise/sociable as they can, effectively just metagaming their way along.
Where did you find these hard and fast dilliniations between intelligence scores? They seem pretty interesting, but I can't seem to find them, as they certainly aren't in the Core Rulebook.Well that depends on how you define "that much dumber" really, doesn't it?
Somebody with 7 int, with moderate training or a decent instruction manual, can change a wheel on a car. Someone with 10 int, with moderate training or a decent instruction manual, can fix a fault in the engine.
A fighter with 7 int knows to get in and hit hard, and use a bow when he can't do that. A fighter with 10 int knows to assess the situation and use the appropriate weapon. A fighter with 14 int can take advantage of an enemy's weaknesses and draw up a strategy on the fly to deceive and entrap him with minimal loss.
The core rulebook doesn't say that when you die you are incapable of taking any actions, either. Lots of things aren't in it. I am merely giving my opinion on the mental facilities of various intelligence scores by examples - hardly "hard and fast" really. But by all means if you feel that a character with an int, wis, and cha of 7 in each score should be role-played as a witty, intellectual, and fashionable individual, I'd love to hear where you would draw the line on that.
The core rulebook doesn't say that when you die you are incapable of taking any actions, either. Lots of things aren't in it. I am merely giving my opinion on the mental facilities of various intelligence scores by examples - hardly "hard and fast" really.
Oh, well that's disappointing. The way you were stating your interpretations as if they were the facts of the game, or as if they were common knowledge that Zhayne and I just didn't possess confused me.
But by all means if you feel that a character with an int, wis, and cha of 7 in each score should be role-played as a witty, intellectual, and fashionable individual
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This might help with people's trouble with ability scores
With this in mind, a 7 INT is actually VERY bad...
Yikes, this thread got really out of hand, I was just looking for mechanical ways to have the monk and fighter do stuff out of combat. I ended up killing them off and now they're playing a ranger and barbarian respectively, they are having much more fun now.
The Barbarian might eventually have issues, but yeah the extra skill points, spells, and rage powers can make a difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yikes, this thread got really out of hand, I was just looking for mechanical ways to have the monk and fighter do stuff out of combat. I ended up killing them off and now they're playing a ranger and barbarian respectively, they are having much more fun now.
As a side note, my group never gets into issues with roll play vs role play, they usually role play their stats, but if they say something clever or something similar I'll give them a relevant bonus.
Let's see...
Hey now! My advice was pretty good. Fighters and Monks are ill-suited to out of combat (Fighters doubly so) and they should probably pick different classes if they want to be less useless out of combat.
Simple. Accurate. Problem-solving.
Apparently, Anzyr won the thread. Right there. [/thread]
The problem with simply increasing the number of skill points is that by itself it doesn't really resolve any of the problems people have with skills, and in easing some of them, that solution simply makes others worse; as part of a more thorough revamp of how skill points are given out, it could work, but by itself, it's not worth itIt does solve a problem a lot of people have with fighters, he does not say anything about increasint the amount of skills for everyone but juust for the ones with 2+int.
A fighter with only 2+int skill per level is one of the most absurd things in this game, both mechanically and thematically.
Skill point inflation when people don't really use the ones they already have doesn't help. All you would see is more people finding ways to make Diplomacy and Perception class skills, and the main problem of overusing certain skills would still persist. Also, raising the number of skill points for one group and not another leads to increased friction. The players of rogues start demanding a higher BAB because they feel like their territory is being impinged upon. The players of the wizards would also likely demand more skill points, also being at 2 + Int, making the issues that people have with wizards already getting lots of skill points even worse. In the end, it may solve the immediate problem, but would create others and/or inflame already existing problems.
That being said, I think the whole way that skill points are allocated needs to be changed. Rather than relying on a single stat for all skill points, it needs to broken down a bit finer so that everyone has access to about the same number of skill points, but where they have them would be different based on their stats. As long as it's tied to just Intelligence, simply eliminating the 2 + Int in favor of 4 + Int really doesn't solve much; the root problem of Int being seen as largely useless to a fighter, and thus a dump stat, still remains.
One idea I've been toying with is dividing it by mental stats and physical stats, where one's physical stats drive the number of skill points for physical skills and one's mental stats drive the number of skill points for mental skills. This would allow for more skill points all around while creating a bit more balance in who has what skills. If you did something like base + the average of the relevant modifiers for each category, with the base being higher for those classes that now have 6 or 8 base points to start with, everyone has access to more skill points, but it's harder for any one character to dominate all of them. It's an idea I still need to tweak, but it deals with the main problem of one stat driving access to all skills.
The problem with simply increasing the number of skill points is that by itself it doesn't really resolve any of the problems people have with skills, and in easing some of them, that solution simply makes others worse; as part of a more thorough revamp of how skill points are given out, it could work, but by itself, it's not worth itIt does solve a problem a lot of people have with fighters, he does not say anything about increasint the amount of skills for everyone but juust for the ones with 2+int.
A fighter with only 2+int skill per level is one of the most absurd things in this game, both mechanically and thematically.
Skill point inflation when people don't really use the ones they already have doesn't help. All you would see is more people finding ways to make Diplomacy and Perception class skills, and the main problem of overusing certain skills would still persist. Also, raising the number of skill points for one group and not another leads to increased friction. The players of rogues start demanding a higher BAB because they feel like their territory is being impinged upon. The players of the wizards would also likely demand more skill points, also being at 2 + Int, making the issues that people have with wizards already getting lots of skill points even worse. In the end, it may solve the immediate problem, but would create others and/or inflame already existing problems.
And the rogue fan will be right demanding more toys for rogues (they need them), I disagree about the BAB, rogue fixes should take a different route but whatever.
There are ways to keep swimming relevant at higher levels. For example, the party could go to a merfolk kingdom at the bottom of the ocean. Or they could travel to the Plane of Water to visit marids. These are the sorts of exciting adventures that are appropriate for mid-to-high level characters. Unfortunately, the fighter doesn't fare very well in these sorts of circumstances. It takes more than a really high swim modifier to breathe at the bottom of the ocean.
You can have exciting, level appropriate adventures on the material plane. You have to think less about individual encounters and more about the larger picture, which is where building reputations, making a name for yourself, and long term interaction with the NPCs and the world come into play. A swimming contest may not be all that exciting unto itself, but used to build a reputation and a base of support, it can be very rewarding. The key is to make sure as a DM you aren't focusing so much on individual encounters that you lose the bigger picture. If you keep sight of the bigger picture, it's much easier for both you and the players to find ways to keep things like swimming or climbing relevant.
And the rogue fan will be right demanding more toys for rogues (they need them), I disagree about the BAB, rogue fixes should take a different route but whatever.The problem with simply increasing the number of skill points is that by itself it doesn't really resolve any of the problems people have with skills, and in easing some of them, that solution simply makes others worse; as part of a more thorough revamp of how skill points are given out, it could work, but by itself, it's not worth itIt does solve a problem a lot of people have with fighters, he does not say anything about increasint the amount of skills for everyone but juust for the ones with 2+int.
A fighter with only 2+int skill per level is one of the most absurd things in this game, both mechanically and thematically.
Skill point inflation when people don't really use the ones they already have doesn't help. All you would see is more people finding ways to make Diplomacy and Perception class skills, and the main problem of overusing certain skills would still persist. Also, raising the number of skill points for one group and not another leads to increased friction. The players of rogues start demanding a higher BAB because they feel like their territory is being impinged upon. The players of the wizards would also likely demand more skill points, also being at 2 + Int, making the issues that people have with wizards already getting lots of skill points even worse. In the end, it may solve the immediate problem, but would create others and/or inflame already existing problems.
The point is that whatever the rogues demand, it creates an endless cycle that can get out of control very quickly. You can't just arbitrarily change one part of the system without adversely affecting something else, which is why I tend to keep house rules fairly limited despite the fact that there is a lot of stuff I would love to see done differently. In the end, it's easier to make informed decisions about what to change and how when the ultimate focus remains on how to best use what already exists. Something like allowing aid another with different skills is actually an interesting idea that if refined would make a very good house rule; it allows people to use what they already have a bit more without creating additional headaches. Simply increasing the numbers involved and nothing else is a big reason why a lot of people don't like 3.x/PF and for good reason; there's already a lot of unnecessary number inflation in the game causing a lot of problems, and adding to it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
There are ways to keep swimming relevant at higher levels. For example, the party could go to a merfolk kingdom at the bottom of the ocean. Or they could travel to the Plane of Water to visit marids. These are the sorts of exciting adventures that are appropriate for mid-to-high level characters. Unfortunately, the fighter doesn't fare very well in these sorts of circumstances. It takes more than a really high swim modifier to breathe at the bottom of the ocean.You can have exciting, level appropriate adventures on the material plane. You have to think less about individual encounters and more about the larger picture, which is where building reputations, making a name for yourself, and long term interaction with the NPCs and the world come into play. A swimming contest may not be all that exciting unto itself, but used to build a reputation and a base of support, it can be very rewarding. The key is to make sure as a DM you aren't focusing so much on individual encounters that you lose the bigger picture. If you keep sight of the bigger picture, it's much easier for both you and the players to find ways to keep things like swimming or climbing relevant.
This only works from level 1 to 6. 1 to 8 tops. At that point, no swimming contest are not something that can be rewarding. At level 9 you hit Teleport and Plane Shift, so for adventures past that the Material Plane and swimming contest aren't much a thing next to killing the evil king and taking over his kingdom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that whatever the rogues demand, it creates an endless cycle that can get out of control very quickly. You can't just arbitrarily change one part of the system without adversely affecting something else, which is why I tend to keep house rules fairly limited despite the fact that there is a lot of stuff I would love to see done differently. In the end, it's easier to make informed decisions about what to change and how when the ultimate focus remains on how to best use what already exists. Something like allowing aid another with different skills is actually an interesting idea that if refined would make a very good house rule; it allows people to use what they already have a bit more without creating additional headaches. Simply increasing the numbers involved and nothing else is a big reason why a lot of people don't like 3.x/PF and for good reason; there's already a lot of unnecessary number inflation in the game causing a lot of problems, and adding to it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
1) It seems unreasonable to me to fix something because it might disrupt something else only in the worst case escenario. it is like saying "Better to not fix this in the fighter because then we will have to fix that in the rogues", I would prefer if both get fixed, but then one gimped class is better than 2 gimped classes.
2) It is not arbitraly, it is a very reasonable houserule.
This only works from level 1 to 6. 1 to 8 tops. At that point, no swimming contest are not something that can be rewarding. At level 9 you hit Teleport and Plane Shift, so for adventures past that the Material Plane and swimming contest aren't much a thing next to killing the evil king and taking over his kingdom.
Challenging a marid or a merfolk to a swimming contest and winning would be quite satisfying, at least to me. And not everyone wants to or can be the new king; being the king's champion could still involve challenging the top warriors from other kingdoms and accepting challenges in return that could still be rewarding and fun. You can always find reasons to make it work as long as both the DM and the player try. Later on, it may take some help from other players to make it happen, but that isn't a bad thing as it allows them to contribute to the scene just as much as you are; you still get your chance to roll the dice on something you are good at in order to help the party, rather than having to roll on something the bard or wizard is good at, and that is the key. The idea isn't how to make the fighter so that they can solo a social encounter; it's how to make the fighter an active participant that can shape and be part of that encounter. The former is going to be nigh impossible, and not all that desirable to boot; the latter is quite possible with the resources already available to the fighter.
sunshadow: you are making the slippery slope argument/fallacy here. Just because you give a buff to one class, doesn't mean you have to buff all of them (even though, for the rogue it'd actually make sense).
Depends on the table; some tables may be perfectly happy stopping there, others wouldn't. You certainly couldn't bake into the core rules, as I guarantee that it would open a huge can of worms. In the end, it's not an automatic route to disaster, but there are better ways to solve the problem that avoid that potential problem entirely.
Challenging a marid or a merfolk to a swimming contest and winning would be quite satisfying, at least to me.
If you can enjoy winning a swimming contest, more power to you. If I was GMing and had a player whose character concept was based around being an amazing swimmer, I'd try to include situations where their amazing swimming ability mattered. I'd also try to include other scenarios where their character can shine (or at least contribute competently), so they don't get stuck in an Aquaman role---good at one very narrow thing, but hopelessly useless for anything else. Because ultimately, what matters at the end of the day is that the people playing the game have fun. Poorly balanced rules may add to my workload as a GM, but they don't completely negate the possibility of fun.
The thing is, I don't think someone should have to learn to get their satisfaction from swimming contests in order to happily play a fighter.
If it ALWAYS comes down to a roll, then why bother doing any role playing at all? I know this seems like a difficult concept for you to understand, but try answering that one.Because of circumstance bonuses. The GM can't apply any if you don't put in any effort.
Or the GM may not even let you make the attempt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I guess the OP's problem is solved, so we can just use this thread for good old fashioned conversation now? I guess that already happened. Anyway:
If you keep sight of the bigger picture, it's much easier for both you and the players to find ways to keep things like swimming or climbing relevant.
Swimming or climbing (particularly the former, there are plenty of aquatic monsters and more than a few pirate campaigns) may potentially remain relevant well into the higher levels. The Swim or Climb skills? Much less commonly so, in my experience. The skills are badly designed and investing in them will not offer capabilities to match or even approach the capabilities offered by other means of dealing with water/heights (such as shapechanging for example).
A racial swim speed, starting at CR 1/3, offers far more than 20 ranks of Swim does. It's also available starting at 1st level spells.
Swim and Climb aren't even a fair example of the limited skills that are available to the fighter, because they don't come close to the (low) bar set by the other choices.
Challenging a marid or a merfolk to a swimming contest and winning would be quite satisfying, at least to me.If you can enjoy winning a swimming contest, more power to you. If I was GMing and had a player whose character concept was based around being an amazing swimmer, I'd try to include situations where their amazing swimming ability mattered. I'd also try to include other scenarios where their character can shine (or at least contribute competently), so they don't get stuck in an Aquaman role---good at one very narrow thing, but hopelessly useless for anything else. Because ultimately, what matters at the end of the day is that the people playing the game have fun. Poorly balanced rules may add to my workload as a GM, but they don't completely negate the possibility of fun.
The thing is, I don't think someone should have to learn to get their satisfaction from swimming contests in order to happily play a fighter.
That's just one example. Any decently built character should be able to pull two or three such things out of their hats with a little creativity. In the end, the typical fighter has access to things that can be fun and allow them to participate; they may not be obvious at first glance, but they are there. They will never be primarily role playing type characters, but they don't have to sit out just because they have a low charisma either. They do require a bit more work outside of combat, and this is true even if you ignore dice rolls completely or give them more skill points.
Well, I guess the OP's problem is solved, so we can just use this thread for good old fashioned conversation now? I guess that already happened. Anyway:
If you keep sight of the bigger picture, it's much easier for both you and the players to find ways to keep things like swimming or climbing relevant.Swimming or climbing (particularly the former, there are plenty of aquatic monsters and more than a few pirate campaigns) may potentially remain relevant well into the higher levels. The Swim or Climb skills? Much less commonly so, in my experience. The skills are badly designed and investing in them will not offer capabilities to match or even approach the capabilities offered by other means of dealing with water/heights (such as shapechanging for example).
A racial swim speed, starting at CR 1/3, offers far more than 20 ranks of Swim does. It's also available starting at 1st level spells.
Swim and Climb aren't even a fair example of the limited skills that are available to the fighter, because they don't come close to the (low) bar set by the other choices.
So go with Craft, Handle Animal, Profession, Ride, or Survival, all of which class skills of the fighter. Grab a trait that gives you Knowledge or Acrobatics or some other skill as a class skill. Don't be afraid to use combat maneuvers and unarmed combat to simulate wrestling and boxing and similar things. There are lots of options available; find one or two that works for that character and that campaign and have fun with them. The key is to break away from the "everyone has to roll Diplomacy all the time" mode; the precise details of how you do it are less important. Some people may prefer the strength or dexterity based skills simply because they feed of their high stats; others will prefer to use something like profession or knowledge and rely on skill points to counteract a comparatively low stat in order to use something more commonly used and understood.
So you are of the opinion that Fighters are little mongrels hiding in the corner trying not to get in the way of grown up talk until it's time to get wet, wrestle, or kill someone?
Sounds fun an enjoyable to me!
Whatever, I give up. If you can't look at the fighter's skill list or use traits and find something both enjoyable and useful, that's on you. It's quite clear that a lot of people here simply hate fighters and are looking for excuses to support that hate. They aren't perfect, but they aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't perfect, but they aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be.
You're right, they're worse.
The core rulebook doesn't say that when you die you are incapable of taking any actions, either. Lots of things aren't in it. I am merely giving my opinion on the mental facilities of various intelligence scores by examples - hardly "hard and fast" really.Oh, well that's disappointing. The way you were stating your interpretations as if they were the facts of the game, or as if they were common knowledge that Zhayne and I just didn't possess confused me.
I apologise if I sometimes come across as patronizing in these debates, it is a weakness of mine I will admit. That said, I'm not the only one.
But by all means if you feel that a character with an int, wis, and cha of 7 in each score should be role-played as a witty, intellectual, and fashionable individual
Then if I am saying people should make an effort to role-play the character to the limits their ability scores represent, what exactly ARE you arguing, if you are saying I am wrong to do this?
Then if I am saying people should make an effort to role-play the character to the limits their ability scores represent, what exactly ARE you arguing, if you are saying I am wrong to do this?But by all means if you feel that a character with an int, wis, and cha of 7 in each score should be role-played as a witty, intellectual, and fashionable individual
1. I'm not saying your wrong.
And if your DM simply allows the player's ideas and mannerisms to be the only thing that determines the success of a character's roleplaying interaction then you are forgetting that it's an RPG.
I'm of the opinion that every single number on your character sheet should have some meaning. Do you want your character to have been a professional soldier in their backstory? Better put down at least 1 rank of Profession (Soldier) on your character sheet. Does your fighter have lots of ranks of Knowledge (Arcana)? Maybe he's very interested in learning about the weaknesses of mages that always seem to smack him around.
2. I've already said what is being argued.
That someone with 7 Intelligence isn't that much dumber than the average human with, assuming 3d6, 10.5 intelligence.
To elaborate on it: That an adventurer with 7 intelligence isn't at a Forest Gump level of stupid, and the player shouldn't be forced to play it that way. It's certainly slow, but I don't even know how smart a 10 intelligence peasant with no formal education is actually supposed to be. That's all there is to it.
The secret of Pathfinder is that something being a class skill isn't prescriptive to that character being the party's expert of that skill. This isn't 3.5, where if something wasn't a class skill, putting 20 skill points into q cross-class skill only got you 10 ranks. Any fighter can still get a base +20 to Perception, Stealth, or any knowledge they want.At high levels, the difference between a class skill and a non-class skill is small. The +3 is dwarfed by ranks, ability modifiers, item bonuses, etc. But at low levels, it is quite a difference. In 3.5, you could have +2 to a cross class skill at 1st level. In Pathfinder, that's only +1. It's not until 4th level that the cross class skill bonus is higher in Pathfinder than 3.5.
Never saw this post, and now seeing it, I suddenly have urge to reply for some reason. The +3 is important at low levels, but it's only equal in importance to ability score focus, which grows in importance as the game goes along. This is true in 3.5, too, but as levels increase, the importance of something being a class skill does, too.
E.G. a Gunslinger can be just as good at stealth and disable device as any other mundane class due to a high dex focus, even though those aren't class skilsl.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
So, if you optimize exclusively for combat, it's the system's fault that you feel useless outside of combat? Shenanigans.
Related to this, A int 7 ranger who spend all his class features into combat have more out of combat utility than a int 14 fighter who spend some feats for out of combat stuffs.
I've got a group with a druid, a magus, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue.
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?
Have them put ranks into profession(engineering)! And then get creative. (who gives a rat's arse if other classes can do it better? Are they? and are they in the group?)
Watch out for your rogue player though...
There are a lot of personal axes to grind on this. I think we're all talking past each other at this point.
What is the fighter meant to be doing except stacking bonuses and
trying to maximize a swing with things like Power Attack/Deadly Shot
and critical feats? Take Skill Focus (Diplomacy) for the jollies?
I'm actually trying to rewrite the fighter. I'm pretty sure that that is still a fighter while still not being useless outside of combat.
HINT: Part of my fix is to make their class list smaller and to remove the flat bonus they got to hit and damage from weapon training.
How can you break balls on a Fighter who "optimized for combat?"
It is named FIGHTER, has no class abilities that are relevant out of
combat and has the worst skill points and skill list in the game.Like, what else is he supposed to do? The player
class should be more than fighting but encompass the entirety
of War and be called the Warrior. The generic NPC class should be called
the Fighter. Warriors should have Extraordinary abilities like the Barbarian has in place of or in addition to his feats.
These things should provide out of combat utility and scale.What is the fighter meant to be doing except stacking bonuses and
trying to maximize a swing with things like Power Attack/Deadly Shot
and critical feats? Take Skill Focus (Diplomacy) for the jollies?
You can take other feats than combat feats as a fighter. You can even have as much skill points as a monk.
Moreover, the fighter doesn't have to take a specific skill besides perception, so he can fill in blanks for the party just fine.
For example, in a standard Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter, he could take Survival just fine, and be a huge bump to the group in wilderness parts.
He could have taken one or two knowledge if your profane caster is a sorcerer instead of a wizard.
Actually, the fighter is free to take any skill he wants, while other characters are intended to have some skills : rogues have to take about 8 or 9 skills to do their job, a wizard is likely to have pretty much every knowledge, a druid is likely to have knowledge nature/survival/perception/handle animal before accounting for skills useful for wildshape, etc...
The fighter is not one of the best classes, but saying he is useless out of combat is going too far I believe.
How can you break balls on a Fighter who "optimized for combat?"
It is named FIGHTER, has no class abilities that are relevant out of
combat and has the worst skill points and skill list in the game.Like, what else is he supposed to do? The player
class should be more than fighting but encompass the entirety
of War and be called the Warrior. The generic NPC class should be called
the Fighter. Warriors should have Extraordinary abilities like the Barbarian has in place of or in addition to his feats.
These things should provide out of combat utility and scale.What is the fighter meant to be doing except stacking bonuses and
trying to maximize a swing with things like Power Attack/Deadly Shot
and critical feats? Take Skill Focus (Diplomacy) for the jollies?You can take other feats than combat feats as a fighter. You can even have as much skill points as a monk.
Moreover, the fighter doesn't have to take a specific skill besides perception, so he can fill in blanks for the party just fine.
For example, in a standard Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter, he could take Survival just fine, and be a huge bump to the group in wilderness parts.
He could have taken one or two knowledge if your profane caster is a sorcerer instead of a wizard.Actually, the fighter is free to take any skill he wants, while other characters are intended to have some skills : rogues have to take about 8 or 9 skills to do their job, a wizard is likely to have pretty much every knowledge, a druid is likely to have knowledge nature/survival/perception/handle animal before accounting for skills useful for wildshape, etc...
The fighter is not one of the best classes, but saying he is useless out of combat is going too far I believe.
1) Half his feats are COMBAT ONLY feats. I mean, that SCREAMS "OPTIMIZE ME FOR COMBAT!" Additionally, the fighter's biggest advantage is the ability to get certain feats faster than other classes because he can move through the feat chain faster (due to his obnoxious number of feats). The thing is, if the fighter keeps stopping along the way to take Skill Focus (Basketweaving) or whatever (assuming he is not actully taking SF to get Eldritch Heritage (Abyssal) to get the mad Str Buff.) then he is actually going to be no better than the ranger when it comes to feats. This will make the fighter player quite sad when his guy is barely better (if not worse) than the Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian AT THE ONE DAMN THING HE IS SUPPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT.
2) Sure he can fill in blanks... He just is not going to be any good at them due to poor modifiers AND no having a very good skill list. So he is going to end up pretty mediocre.
3) Really? The rogue does not NEED 8-9 skills. If you are talking as if every rogue is the classic sneaky trap rogue, then all you need for the "classic" is Perception, Disable Device, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Escape Artist, and Stealth. That still leaves 3+Int Mod, which is STILL A LOT more than a fighter can begin to compare to. The Wizard tends to have knowledge skills because nobody else does. Additionally, the knowledge skills people care about is Planes, Arcane, Nature, Dungeoneering, Local, and Religion. If you have a cleric, chances are they have Religion and or planes. Wizards tend to have easily upwards of 20 int even from the get go, netting them 7 skills.
3) Really? The rogue does not NEED 8-9 skills. If you are talking as if every rogue is the classic sneaky trap rogue, then all you need for the "classic" is Perception, Disable Device, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Escape Artist, and Stealth. That still leaves 3+Int Mod, which is STILL A LOT more than a fighter can begin to compare to.
You forgot Disguise, Bluff and possibly Climb and/or UMD, accounting for a non-face rogue.
INT is not their main stat either, which net them a total of 8 to 10 skill points per level (not THAT impressive when you need 8 to 10 to do your job).
The basic human fighter with 13 INT has 4 skill points per level (with favored bonus in HP), which means he has 3 skill points per level he can put where he wants to.
A wizard is likely to take most knowledge (at least 6), Spellcraft, Perception (at least for his familiar), a bit of Linguistics and a bit of Fly, and possibly other (disguise and stealth comes to my mind). His INT is welcome to fill in his "skill role".
A druid is likely to have low INT, and need to have Knowledge NAture, Handle animal and Survival to do its skill role. And he is likely to want Perception, Stealth, Fly and many other when he is Wildshaping.
A cleric is likely to have low INT, and need Spellcraft, Perception, Knowledge(religion) and Knowledge (planes) to do the minimum, and possibly many other including the face skills (notably Sense motive).
I could go on like this for almost all classes : the only one that doesn't have skills he is intended to take is the fighter, freeing him to take what he wants to.
1) Half his feats are COMBAT ONLY feats. I mean, that SCREAMS "OPTIMIZE ME FOR COMBAT!" Additionally, the fighter's biggest advantage is the ability to get certain feats faster than other classes because he can move through the feat chain faster (due to his obnoxious number of feats). The thing is, if the fighter keeps stopping along the way to take Skill Focus (Basketweaving) or whatever (assuming he is not actully taking SF to get Eldritch Heritage (Abyssal) to get the mad Str Buff.) then he is actually going to be no better than the ranger when it comes to feats. This will make the fighter player quite sad when his guy is barely better (if not worse) than the Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian AT THE ONE DAMN THING HE IS SUPPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT.
Uh, Fighters aren't meant to beat Barbarians, Paladins, or Rangers when they are benefiting from their spike damage. Fighters are meant to be the martial that is always good in a fight. Put the Paladin up against a non-smite target, and his biggest damage spike will be taken away (though he's still good). Put a Ranger up against a non-favored enemy and he has the same issue as the Paladin. Barbarians eventually do run out of rage, or may be fatigued.
Fighters, conversely, still get their feats and weapon training against any enemy, all day long. The fighter's only limited use ability is his HP and that's what healers are for.
Granted, yes, Barbarians effectively have limitless Rage because most parties stop pushing forward long before the Barbarian runs out (at least at middle levels and later). Paladins are also arguably the best tanks in the game. But none of that means the Fighter isn't a good fighter. He's not supposed to be the best, he's supposed to be consistent.
If a Fighter gets hit with a Ray of Exhaustion, or Waves of Fatigue, or didn't get enough sleep and is fatigued/exhausted; he fights on.
If the Fighter is up against elementals or hordes of evil enemies, each a valid target for smite; he fights on.
If the Fighter is up against a wide variety of enemies; he fights on.
In every situation, the Fighter can always be expected to perform the same, whether he's fighting angels, demons, devils, elementals, humans, dragons, it doesn't matter. He always performs at his best, and always performs well.
The standing issue of many people running 15-minute work days for parties means the Fighter never really has a chance to shine with his consistency. If the Wizard runs out of spells "Let's rest"; if the Cleric runs out of channels "Let's rest"; If the Paladin runs out of Smite "Let's rest". Limited use abilities are supposed to be powerful, but balanced by their limit. But with parties resting all the time to recharge them, effectively turning 'limited use' to 'always on' makes those powerful, but limited abilities, extremely broken. For a martial anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Half his feats are COMBAT ONLY feats. I mean, that SCREAMS "OPTIMIZE ME FOR COMBAT!" Additionally, the fighter's biggest advantage is the ability to get certain feats faster than other classes because he can move through the feat chain faster (due to his obnoxious number of feats). The thing is, if the fighter keeps stopping along the way to take Skill Focus (Basketweaving) or whatever (assuming he is not actully taking SF to get Eldritch Heritage (Abyssal) to get the mad Str Buff.) then he is actually going to be no better than the ranger when it comes to feats. This will make the fighter player quite sad when his guy is barely better (if not worse) than the Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian AT THE ONE DAMN THING HE IS SUPPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT.Uh, Fighters aren't meant to beat Barbarians, Paladins, or Rangers when they are benefiting from their spike damage. Fighters are meant to be the martial that is always good in a fight. Put the Paladin up against a non-smite target, and his biggest damage spike will be taken away (though he's still good). Put a Ranger up against a non-favored enemy and he has the same issue as the Paladin. Barbarians eventually do run out of rage, or may be fatigued.
Fighters, conversely, still get their feats and weapon training against any enemy, all day long. The fighter's only limited use ability is his HP and that's what healers are for.
Granted, yes, Barbarians effectively have limitless Rage because most parties stop pushing forward long before the Barbarian runs out (at least at middle levels and later). Paladins are also arguably the best tanks in the game. But none of that means the Fighter isn't a good fighter. He's not supposed to be the best, he's supposed to be consistent.
If a Fighter gets hit with a Ray of Exhaustion, or Waves of Fatigue, or didn't get enough sleep and is fatigued/exhausted; he fights on.
If the Fighter is up against elementals or hordes of evil enemies, each a valid target for smite; he fights on.
If the Fighter is up...
Except being 'consistent' and 'able to go all day long' is worth crap in a team game. After the casters have spent their spells and the barbarian and bard spend their rounds, and the monk spent their ki, and the pally is out of lay on hands/smites, the fighter and the rogue have three options:
1- Keep going alone and die against any level appropriate encounter.2- Drag the party with them so they can all die while the fighter uses the enemy distraction to kill the enemies and feel good about his bad carrer choice at the cost of everybody else.
3- Rest with the team.
Well there is a fourth... Go alone and face ridiculously weak opponents and be coddled by the DM so the player can feel special.
Except being 'consistent' and 'able to go all day long' is worth crap in a team game. After the casters have spent their spells and the barbarian and bard spend their rounds, and the monk spent their ki, and the pally is out of lay on hands/smites, the fighter and the rogue have three options:
1- Keep going alone and die against any level appropriate encounter.
2- Drag the party with them so they can all die while the fighter uses the enemy distraction to kill the enemies and feel good about his bad carrer choice at the cost of everybody else.
3- Rest with the team.
Well there is a fourth... Go alone and face ridiculously weak opponents and be coddled by the DM so the player can feel special.
Asumming the DM let the party rest.
Except being 'consistent' and 'able to go all day long' is worth crap in a team game. After the casters have spent their spells and the barbarian and bard spend their rounds, and the monk spent their ki, and the pally is out of lay on hands/smites, the fighter and the rogue have three options:This will make the fighter player quite sad when his guy is barely better (if not worse) than the Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian AT THE ONE DAMN THING HE IS SUPPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT.Uh, Fighters aren't meant to beat Barbarians, Paladins, or Rangers when they are benefiting from their spike damage. Fighters are meant to be the martial that is always good in a fight.
Hence the whole '15-minute work day' bit at the end of my post. At low-levels, especially, classes like Fighters should shine because of the fact those limited use classes run out faster. Call me crazy, but when I play a caster, I don't sling all of my spells every chance I get because I know the day is longer than that. Spells should be cast 'as needed' instead of 'because I can'. Sometimes, simple buffs are all you need, especially if they're long lasting ones.
The point being, if the group is resting every chance they get to recharge abilities because they might run out, then of course the consistent classes like Fighters are going to be over-shadowed. It's part of the reason why some people think that Magus' or Alchemists are so broken, because they can nova every fight, then retreat and rest up, and do it again.
In these situations, even Barbarians are going to feel underpowered when you got a guy critting a 10d6 Shocking Grasp every other round, or a guy throwing out 7 bombs each doing multiple status effects and damage, or another guy smiting a every foe he encounters.
1. I'm not saying your wrong.Then if I am saying people should make an effort to role-play the character to the limits their ability scores represent, what exactly ARE you arguing, if you are saying I am wrong to do this?But by all means if you feel that a character with an int, wis, and cha of 7 in each score should be role-played as a witty, intellectual, and fashionable individual
Cool.
And if your DM simply allows the player's ideas and mannerisms to be the only thing that determines the success of a character's roleplaying interaction then you are forgetting that it's an RPG.I'm of the opinion that every single number on your character sheet should have some meaning. Do you want your character to have been a professional soldier in their backstory? Better put down at least 1 rank of Profession (Soldier) on your character sheet. Does your fighter have lots of ranks of Knowledge (Arcana)? Maybe he's very interested in learning about the weaknesses of mages that always seem to smack him around.
2. I've already said what is being argued.
That someone with 7 Intelligence isn't that much dumber than the average human with, assuming 3d6, 10.5 intelligence.To elaborate on it: That an adventurer with 7 intelligence isn't at a Forest Gump level of stupid, and the player shouldn't be forced to play it that way. It's certainly slow, but I don't even know how smart a 10 intelligence peasant with no formal education is actually supposed to be. That's all there is to it.
Forrest Gump had an IQ of 75, and I think someone came back with 7 Int being on the bell-curve for IQ85. According to the original D&D (we're talking 1st ed here) IQ is roughly 10x Int score, which would make it IQ 70. Either way, pretty close on the mark.
And I will add, no one is "forcing" anyone to play a certain way - I'd in fact like to know why a player would expect to play a tactical genius if they gave their character an intelligence of 8 and put their sole skill-rank into Intimidate.