Christopher V Brady's page

You know, what... I was going to reply, but I'm tired of this discussion...

If you think weakening skills and making everyone (including Rogues) less competent is somehow a improvement for Rogues and that nerfing everything just so a poorly designed class can share their misery is good game design, then we have fundamentally different views on game design and simply can't agree.

Rogues suck. We should make them better, not worse. PF is already too much of a "D&D - Ultimate Caster Version".

I'm with you. I came here for good ideas and discussion, instead everyone is terrified that a class, any class, but currently the Rogue is somehow stepping on the true POWER of PFRPG again. And by 'True Power' I mean Caster supremacy.

I use "nerf" as "change that diminishes the power of something". Which is exactly what splitting skill points would do... Reduce the power and versatility of every class in the game (Rogues included... Casters not so much).

Therefore, a nerf.

And all these suggestions, nerf the limited utility of anything that doesn't use magic.

Man, why do you Pathfinder guys hate the Fighter so much? Did some Fighter player steal your girl or kill your dog or something?

Because obviously every single class needs Perception on it's class skill list? ;)

Not really, the only two types that tend to not get ambushed as much are Rogue and Fighter analogues.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Because martials are balanced like Pathfinder is Lord of the Rings and casters are balanced like Pathfinder is ancient mythology.

First, I don't want this to be a caster vs martial thread.

Too late, the moment you asked that question, that's the ONLY answer you will get. Simply because THAT'S what's the issue. There are two sets of balances.

And it's not so much versus as what rule systems that 3.x uses. The basic system in Combat, Exploration, Skills and Feats are all tied together and work for everything and everyone. From the Fighter to the Rogue to Monsters, Orcs and Giants and Dragons, everything in the Pathfinder RPG uses BAB, AC, CMD/CMB and Hit Points.

However, the moment you look at the magic section, you get well over one hundred new rule blocks that are mostly exclusionary, that scale up in power in terms of ability and damage (When a 20D6 damage Fireball which still means damage on a failed 'save' is considered a bad option, you know something's up with the scaling of power) and almost always function (Saving Throws are a resistance, not a Caster failure) that's a different power level all together. Even spells can bypass a lot of those basic mechanics and attack the non-scaling stats, like Strength or Constitution.

And worse, only a select few get access to the full capacity of Magic (both classes and monsters) it widens the power disparity even more.

So no. We cannot separate the fact that the game (and by game I mean D&D in general) has two separate mechanical systems that are at odds with each other.

I understand the LoTR thing, but LotR ends at level 6 or so... everything past that is way beyond the scope of that setting. A level 20 fighter, theoretically, is way beyond the scope of most high fantasy fiction in general.

The Level 20 Fighter isn't beyond the scope of most Fantasy Fiction, because all he does is attack maybe 5-10 times with x amount of seconds. Often at a penalty to do more damage (Power Attack is pretty much mandatory, because otherwise you're limited to Strength Bonus+Magic Weapon Bonus+Feats, which still does less than 30 points of damage on average per swing) and often the only attacks that can regularly connect out of the 5-10 swings are the first two. And rarely does he be able to fell a foe of 'lesser' power than he (unless the monster in question is level 4 or less, and even then, some monsters that's iffy. And this is a Level 20 Fighter against level 4. Unless Power Attack comes into play, and even then, the Fighter will miss more often, or do significantly less damage per blow.)

Most Fantasy Fiction Fighters slay most foes they face in one strike, and often faster than the Fantasy Fiction Wizard (whether Ally or Enemy) can cast. Either they are able to slay the Evil Wizard and save the Sacrifice, or if they Wizard is an ally, allows the Wizard to complete his spell by killing and slowing the oncoming army. They also often slay several tens of foes per minute this way. Most D&D Fighters never got to kill more than 1 per minute in the older editions.

All righty then. Here's what most people seem to think the issues with the Fighters are:

Versatility: In both weapon options and knowledge, Fighters tend to lack width/breadth. Various feats trap Fighters into a single weapon option to be 'capable'. The skill list and amount of available skill points are also anaemic, forcing the Fighter into the 80's Nerds vs. Jocks mentality of anyone physically capable must be a moron.

Capability: Compared to classes that can heal, or has magic, The Fighter (and to a certain degree the Rogue) has a very limited shelf-life. For all of people claiming that Fighters can 'do it all day', the truth is they can't, and because Hit Points run out faster than with those who stay out of range, or can self-heal, they are often the first to fall.

(If there's more, please let me know and I'll add it to the list. Because I will not let a thread like this get shouted down yet again.)

So the question becomes: What can we do to bring those two options to the Fighter classes? Or at least closer to the other classes?

I just give fighters 4 skill points per level and add Adcrobatics, Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive to their skill list as a base house rule.

I'd also give Perception. How many times have you seen movies/trailers/shows in which the 'designated' Fighter type suddenly stop his comrades at a certain point, say something like 'it's too quiet' (something like, if not that exactly) and suddenly the bad guys try to ambush, but the Heroes are already alert because of Designated Fighter already knew?

Let us not forget that it makes all martial classes weaker compared to wizards who dont give a f$#$ about attacking more than once to begin with.

I think, and I could be wrong here, but I think that would be the goal. For whatever reason, Magic isn't powerful enough for the OP so they need to make it more important than before.

Well, seeing as I've been in the beta, pretty much since it's started... I think I can qualify for this.

Pro: It's a much simpler rules set, hearkening back to an earlier era of gaming.

Con: It's a much simpler rules set, hearkening back to an earlier era of gaming.

Which for some may be a deal breaker. It takes things from other D&D and derivative games, like the save system which is akin to the one used in Castles and Crusades (but not quite), it's a basic D20 higher the better at it's core. It's also pretty easy to house rule anything in and out of it, if to want, from the older or newer versions of D&D.

A few more pluses is the skill system, depending on the 'background' you can be all sorts of things from a wilderness guide to a guild thief to a healer to soldier, and without being limited to your class choice. So if you want to be a Soldier Cleric, go right ahead! Some backgrounds are better for some than others, but really, there's nothing holding you back other than you. Most of the Fighting Men get innate combat styles, and by Fighting Men I mean Fighter, Paladin and Ranger. And they get a choice of Duelist, Two Weapon, Two Handed, Defensive and Archery. The Barbarian doesn't get that, but it doesn't need it, really.

Also, each class gets at least two choices (in the playtest) as to what type of 'path' you want to follow. Wizards get something based on the school of magic (although are not limited in spell choice, get a cute trick based on their school), the Rogue had two (but it was the playtest, so not everything was there) Assassin and Thief, which had two separate styles to the five finger discount, the Paladin had Oaths, the Barbarian could have chosen to a Berserker or a Totem Warrior... Every class had a choice of play style.

The Feats system, I'm not too keen on, but I need to see what they do with it next month. But at in the basic system, every so often (typically level 4 or 5) a class gets to put a +1 in two stats or a +2 in one, or you could forego that and pick a feat instead, which had three or so special abilities that you get from the get go.

At the same time, it pretty much kills anything that 4e brought to the mix. Namely even a smidge of class balance. Because it goes back to the older style of D&D, it brings back the Caster and Caddies style of gameplay that 4e attempted to change. Which to me is it's biggest flaw.

The Non-caster classes get a few cute tricks as I pointed out, but Casters get new tricks with every single spell they pick up. However, on the plus side they do get some Cantrip/Orison level spells that do a decent amount of damage so that they never have to go back to fumbling with a dagger, dart or crossbow ever again. No more shooting yourself in the foot!

Now if you like magic that does everything better than any skill ever will, go for it. This is a great game, and even better, you can change it, because that's the entire idea behind it.

A few psionic classes also address WBL. The Soulknife and Aegis basically give you free gear, allowing the character the wiggle room in his WBL to purchase items that can shore up some weaknesses and/or provide mobility.

If I were to do it over again, a lot of static feats would receive some ability to scale. Power Attack, Skill Focus, and Toughness are all good examples of scaling feats. Stuff like Weapon Focus could have learned from its 4E counterpart, granting a few extra +1s along the way.

Actually, I'd also have made the Save Buff feats (Like Lightning Reflexes and the rest) scaling bonuses as well.

Also, one thing that drives me nuts about D&D, especially the 3.x derivatives is the singular focus into a weapon. Not a weapon type, but just one toy, like a Long Sword or a Great Axe. When in reality, most similar length swords are more or less used the same way.

The thing is, Pathfinder has done the wonderful thing of grouping up weapons into 'groups'. So for ME, I'm thinking of having the Weapon Focus family of feats work with those groups of weapons. So Weapon Focus (Heavy Blades) for example, as opposed to Weapon Focus (Longsword) and yes, it WOULD stack with the Fighter feature. Not to mention of doing the 4e thing and making the bonuses scale with level. Maybe even allowing for Damage die boosts ever 5-6 levels or something (Like at level 5 you do x2 damage with your weapons.) It's still no where near what the Wizard or Cleric can put out, but it'll allow for more 'heroic' play.

Here's the thing I want from a Fantasy game, I want the heroes to be able to take on up to 3 foes each. So a group of five heroes can handle 15 goons, like Hobgoblin troopers. Will they take damage and spend resources? OH YES! But this sort of combat should be the norm, in my opinion.

When you face a lieutenant level on the other hand, they should be a threat to the heroes one on one, so five lt. for five PCs. And Boss, well, that's where the five on one comes to play.

Christopher V Brady wrote:

Adam B. 135 wrote:

This is the Suggestions/ House Rules/ Homebrew forum. The Op posted a class based off the fighter and asked for feedback, not a debate on the power of fighters. This thread is heavily derailed and this kind of debate does not belong on this forum section.

I disagree, by nailing what the issues the Fighter has, we can then start with how to fix him.

Personally, like I said, the issue isn't so much the Fighter (although he does need some help) but rather the magic system, but if we can hammer down some of the things we can do to help the class, by pointing out flaws and mechanical issues, it's a great start.

The issue is that some people do not see these issues, simply because they've had them houseruled away, or don't play Fighters.

And for the record, this isn't the only place people complain about the lack of ability the class has. On at least three other forums deal with 3.x styled mechanics, the Fighter has been touted as the one needing the most help. So obviously there's an issue somewhere.

I understand the why, I just think it doesn't belong on this thread when we have multiple threads (some of which with over 70 pages) that cover this argument in more depth. Someone serious about rewriting the whole magic/martial rule set would probably want to look over at least one of those threads, and start a thread with the stated goal of "time to rewrite X, what are your suggestions?"

The issue there is the same thing as what's happening here, you'd get a lot of 'But there's nothing WRONG with Magic, you're just doing it wrong.' like we're getting here. And let's face it having to peruse multiple threads at over a hundred posts, and trying to get the good stuff...

Let's face it it's like panning for gold in a sewer. You'll have to sift through a lot of brown stuff to get a single nugget.

This is the Suggestions/ House Rules/ Homebrew forum. The Op posted a class based off the fighter and asked for feedback, not a debate on the power of fighters. This thread is heavily derailed and this kind of debate does not belong on this forum section.

I disagree, by nailing what the issues the Fighter has, we can then start with how to fix him.

Personally, like I said, the issue isn't so much the Fighter (although he does need some help) but rather the magic system, but if we can hammer down some of the things we can do to help the class, by pointing out flaws and mechanical issues, it's a great start.

The issue is that some people do not see these issues, simply because they've had them houseruled away, or don't play Fighters.

And for the record, this isn't the only place people complain about the lack of ability the class has. On at least three other forums deal with 3.x styled mechanics, the Fighter has been touted as the one needing the most help. So obviously there's an issue somewhere.

Blaeringr wrote:

<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:

With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.

A big misconception about armor...

It's obvious that wearing armor doesn't completely limit range of motion, nor does it prohibit things like running, doing jumping jacks, etc.

However, until we see a sprint race won by a sprinter in armor against a sprinter not in armor, I think it's reasonable to conclude that wearing armor "slows you down".

Actually no it doesn't. It's tiring, but it's designed to allow for the full range of motion, while protecting you. Because if you cannot move fast enough, or wide enough to block that blow, it can still kill you.

Armour, unlike the D&D construct, is designed to deflect and absorb damage. It's not an all or nothing deal that AC turned in into, it's more akin to DR. What it cannot turn away from you, it's there to lessen it. But hit it hard enough, and the damage will get through it and transfer directly to you.

And even scarier? You don't need to penetrate the armour, shake the body underneath hard enough, and you can break bones, shatter organs and concuss brains into death.

The point of armour is a back up defensive system. It's there in case your skill with your weapon has failed you. It's there to give you a second chance to kill your enemy, nothing more. And if it restricts you in any way, then it gets redesigned until it doesn't. Because that's what humans do. It don't work? Fix it until it does, or discard it if we can't figure out a way to.

I like that you based your choice off of something other than "this class is more powerful than the power limit I've arbitrarily decided is acceptable", Christopher.

It's because I've read WAAAAAAY too many Fantasy Novels growing up, and while mechanically some classes in PFRPG (and D&D) are (at least I believe are) grossly overpowered, they're still within the theme most Western Fantasy stories. The only class that isn't as well represented is the Cleric, which is mostly a D&D construct, but like I said, the Priest is a common archetype, even if very few stories make him/her to be good, or especially magically trained.

The Monk on the other hand has one singular focus, and that' 'Punch People INNA FACE! BOOYAH!'. Most players don't actually care that the Monk class has other powers, all they want or know of the Monk is the Punching for JUSTICE part. Which frankly, can be done better elsewhere.

It's a bad class to me not because of the mechanics (that can be changed, even D&D magic can be changed, there's been how many editions of D&D and derivative out by now? At least 20? And many of them have changes) but because of what it represents. And I don't mean the 'Faux-Asian' thing it assumes by default (the barehanded fighting monk is a purely Eastern thing, you find various versions of it in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet and most of the other nations in that region.) It's the strict focus into one thing, not even a niche, but ONE single idea.

And a Fantasy game should allow you to make as many things as an archetype allows. The Fighting Man covers the Knight, the Talented Peasant Hero, the Strongest Bare Fisted Brawler, the Professional Mercenary (or just Hero for Hire) among others. Monk is not.

This is my issue with it. System and mechanics can be changed, preconceived notions about a 'class' is much harder to.

I completed -- somewhat -- the first draft of a conversion of the Dragonborn race from 4e.

Check it out here:
Dragonborn Racial Conversion

Um, D&DN (AKA 5th) will have the Dragonborn in the Player's Handbook which will be coming out in August (8th is the earliest I know of) which will have a lot of the powers changed to reflect the older D&D systems, including 3.x which is the precursor to Pathfinder.

You may want to hold off, take a look, take what you want, discard what you don't, and it'd be easier than trying to modify the late, lamented 4e rules.

Just a suggestion. But then I approve of house rules.

I tend to think that people who think the Fighter's flaws aren't a big deal tend to confuse teamwork with life support. I don't want every class to be the best at everything, but I want them to be self-sufficient. The Fighter is the least self-sufficient class in the game, even less so than the Rogue. I made the comment in another thread about how the Fighter is probably the only class...

Or are huge Wizard/Magic user fans.

Because Ssalarn, you nailed the Fighter's problem: Lack of self-sufficiency. Just about every other class gets some to some degree, whether it's in Magic, skills or skill based powers (like the Bard's Bardic Knowledge, that's a skill based power.) But the Fighter simply gets feats, a lot of which are kind of useless at higher levels. A flat bonus gets outpaced fast in a few levels, so anything that doesn't scale is really a trap (like Monte Cook wanted, there's an interview somewhere on the net where he talks about his goals for D&D 3e.)

And doing damage at higher levels is useless and pointless, because there are more methods (mainly magic) in which you can shut down an encounter faster.

I'm curious to see what various GM's who have different amounts of time of experience. I'm guessing newer GM's might have different opinions than more veteran ones.

The Monk (Well, the limited concept classes in general. Like the Barbarian as well, but... Let's focus on this one.)

The problem with the Monk is it's concept and execution. It sucks mechanically too. It's a low armour, medium hit die front line fighter, that's a recipe for disaster.

Worse is that unlike the other classes, it's very focused. It's got a single schtick. You punch people in the face. That's it. Most of the other classes, at least the basic four have a lot more leeway.

The Fighter can be a Knight, the professional Mercenary, the talented Farmboy, the Tribal Warrior (no, Barbarians do not fit that, not all tribal societies are made up of people with anger management issues) among many, many more.

The Wizard has a MINIMUM of 9 separate options, all of which corresponds into the various Schools. Necromancer (the perennial favourite), Oracle (Diviners), Enchantress, Conjurers... And a tenth category the 'generalist'.

Clerics has as many archetypes as there are Gods you can dream up. Witch Hunters, the Fire and Brimstone Battlepreacher, the Knight Hospitaller, all viable and more.

And Rogues? Well, what do you want to play? A parkour specialist? A cat burglar? A begger/pick pocket? A trained 'government' assassin? SOLD!

Even Paladins and Rangers and Bards have a slightly less, but still wide group of options.

But the Monk? It punches things. And it's Faux-Asian. Often in a setting that won't have any Asian influence.

It's like that kid when you were 14 years old, who wants to play a Ninja. It doesn't matter what setting your playing, or what world idea, he wants to play a NINJA! It has to be Japanese, it has to have a Katana, and it has to be a SUPER MARTIAL ARTS ASSASSIN!

That is the Monk. Even the Barbarian who is pretty singularly focused, at least the Barby has the ability to be in any setting (Yes, there are various world wide, real life, tribal societies that had their 'elite' or scary warriors that had, literally, anger management issues. In Africa, South America...) despite it's limited focus.

As someone who was in the DDN playtest and liking what I saw... I'm going to use both. Together.

Both games (as well as other editions of D&D) have some good ideas, and for the most part can be made to be modified to work together.

And given that you don't really need that many books at the end of the day, I plan on using as many of the books and mash them up together as I can.

I don't have a favourite edition, and it's AWESOME!

Reaper's Kiss: Using a two-handed weapon isn't a feat prerequisite, it should say in the benefit line: If you miss while wielding a weapon with two hands (or something like that).

Fair enough, I'll change it to reflect that.

I'd increase the prereqs on that to BAB +3, or else you're killing goblins hit or miss at level 1. Otherwise seems fine. Maybe require it to at least hit their touch AC though, since automatic damage is fairly rare in Pathfinder.

Why? Since when are Goblins supposed to be a threat one on one?

For the record, I believe that Fighters (and Paladins and Barbarians, maybe Rangers too) should be consistent damage dealers. You go to Rogue for burst/alpha strikes, and Wizards for AoE control. And Clerics are there for support (whether that means healing, buffing or doing some damage on their own, they're there to help the party in some way.)

miss damage seems like it might work if you implemented a different AC system based on either DR or armor hp. Regardless, I think you probably want this feat line to require weapon focus, or probably weapon training -- otherwise it's a little strong.

How so? I mean, at medium to high levels magic allows you to stop time, summon massive storms of lightning or fire, and this is not including the instant fight enders, like Sleep.

Heck, rather than a feat option you could work this into an archetype pretty easily, and that would lay to rest some of the other concerns about how strong this is early game.

I'm more worried about late game. How useful this would be at that point. Look low levels are enough of a challenge for all the classes, anything that gives them an edge (Sneak Attack, spells and maybe weapon damage) is a plus.

I'd also include something in the description which says you have to actually be using power attack for the ability to work. Perhaps a "power attack damage on miss" ability instead of str damage.

No. That's not the point. The point is consistent damage at all times for the Great Weapon warrior (Barby, Pally and Fight -Rangers tend to go Bow or Two Weapons-) Two Weapon users have and gain a boatload of extra attacks, that's how they do their consistent damage. A shield wielder is there for defence, not damage.

Since I can't seem to edit my main post, here they are with the changes:

Reaper's Kiss (Combat)

You swing your great weapon so hard, so fast that even a miss does something.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, Power Attack

Benefit: If you miss your target while wielding a two handed weapon, you still do your strength bonus in damage.

Special: It still qualifies as a miss for the purpose of feats that trigger on hits or damage.

Improved Reaper's Kiss (Combat)

Your mastery of your own body and skill with two handed weaponry allows you do more, even when everyone else thinks you missed.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6, Power Attack

Benefit: If you miss your target while wielding a two handed weapon, you now do double your strength bonus in damage.

Special: It still qualifies as a miss for the purpose of feats that trigger on hits or damage.

CVB wrote:

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

You know what. Nvm. I can't really figure out a good fix.

Because the problem is not the Fighter. The problem is the game's 'Magic' system. Once you have a mechanism that's 100% effective, and never fails (Saving throws are resist attempts) then it becomes the go to tool.

I don't think the consistently fun portion of the game is the problem.

And do you know why the Magic system is fun? Because it's consistent AND it provides more that 'I hit him with mah AXE!'.

I've seen both the Aegis and the soulknife from Ultimate Psionics. They don't have "spells" or powers, and are effective martials.

That's a matter of reflavouring the text.

The answers are out there, it's just difficult to make "completely mundane" flavor and mechanics work out.

I agree, but at that point it stops being D&D, which is the basis for Pathfinder.

As you point out to Petty Alchemy, Magic bypasses the main combat mechanic to determine success and defeat: Damage. A lot of spells end the fight long before damage ever gets rolled.

So my argument is that until that part of the rules gets in line with the rest of them, the non-casters in general will never be as 'fun' or as 'interesting'.

How to go about doing this? Well, honestly, you got me.

One thing about great weapons is that you pick them because you want to do a lot of damage. Let someone else try to hit more often, or be more defensive, when you hit, you aim to put the target down hard and FAST.

Not to mention that all weapon styles (even 'duellist', man I HATE one weapon, floppy hand. Modern Fencing is a SPORT, designed for one on one competition, not actual combat, because you rarely face a single foe...) should have their own feat trees, not just Two Weapon Fighting, so without further ado.

(For the record, this is not designed to fix anything, just add options. This is also free to use by anyone, should they wish to. And yes, I'm copying this from the D&DN playtest, just changing it to a feat.)

Reaper's Kiss (Combat)

You swing your great weapon so hard, so fast that even a miss does something.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, Power Attack, using a two handed weapon

Benefit: If you miss your target, you still do your strength bonus in damage.

Special: It still qualifies as a miss for the purpose of feats that trigger on hits or damage.

Improved Reaper's Kiss (Combat)

Your mastery of your own body and skill with two handed weaponry allows you do more, even when everyone else thinks you missed.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6, Power Attack, using a two handed weapon

Benefit: If you miss your target, you now do double your strength bonus in damage.

Special: It still qualifies as a miss for the purpose of feats that trigger on hits or damage.

You know what. Nvm. I can't really figure out a good fix.

Because the problem is not the Fighter. The problem is the game's 'Magic' system. Once you have a mechanism that's 100% effective, and never fails (Saving throws are resist attempts) then it becomes the go to tool.

Now, first up, I'm on the fence for 4e, I also know very little of how it works outside the few tidbits, so nothing I'm going to suggest is going to try and incorporate anything of the sort.

First up, let's pick on the Races. Drop the racial free martial weapons. They're going to cause silly issues like in the Half-Orc case of being able to Sneak Attack with a Greataxe. They were a bad idea for elves in 3.0, they remain a bad idea. It especially hurts the human and half-elf races due to the fact that they don't have any such weapons

However, one GOOD thing about 3.5 is how you have exotic weapons that are considered martial for the races. Like the Dwarves and their Urgrosh, or the Orcish Double Axe (So I happen to like my fantasy weapons in a fantasy game, sue me.) Why not keep pushing those? Give Elves the Double bladed sword, and such. My only thing is that I don't know what to give the halflings, or just give them a +1 with slings and thrown weapons.

Step Two: Classes. And I'm speaking as a MASSIVE, MASSIVE fighter fan, but I think some of the armour feats are going overboard. Now, I'm FIRMLY in the camp that the casters need to be taken down a peg or two, but I'm not sure I like the direction the Fighter is compensating with... Time will tell.

Step Three: Feats. One thing in 3.x that has always bothered me is that feats are often underpowered and lame. Seriously, who uses Great Cleave at high levels? The odds of taking down something that STILL gives out XP at level 10 in one blow is VERY, VERY tiny.

However, The Complete Warrior, along with the Book of Iron Might, by Mike Mearls under the Monte Cook imprint, gave us good examples as to what can be achieved. And I'd recommend taking a look at them and stealing... Er, adapting some of them. The Tactical Feats from CW as well as the Fighting Style one's from BoIM have a lot of potential.

Step Four: Skills. This is a step in the right direction. But 2+Int skills at first level is just plain painful for some classes. Especially since certain ones (Barbarian) it doesn't make much sense. In fact I'd be tempted to swap that class with with Fighter, and give the Wizard +4 skills because they are supposed to be 'scholars'. Or so the popular perception of them goes.

Other than that, I'd have to see how it works out before saying anything on it.

I want to know about everything...