Please Give Fighters Perception and Stealth

[Shady]

Our group decided with 3.5 that all classes would have spot as class skills. Our reasoning was that PC's were by their very nature paranoid and where less than 5% of the world’s population (i.e. special). Also at mid to high levels a low to mid level rogue could pull off a near TPK if he would just wait till a non "spot" class is on watch duty.

Now with the class skill just giving a +3 to the skill this is not that big of a deal.

What is going to restrict the Fighter more is the lack of skill points 2+Int. As it stands right now a Fighter needs strength for damage, constitution for HPs, a good wisdom and dexterity to help in saves. That leaves charisma and intelligence for his lower stats. If you want to have a fighter good at skills just up the skill points to 3 or 4+Int but then what is the drawback to having good toe to toe fighting prowess AND having a lot of skills?

[JRM]

Brit O wrote:

Spotting advantageous terrain hardly requires a perception check. I think we're looking at it as two different types of skills.

I think of perception as being a skilled that means you've trained yourself to pick out the really small clues. A footprint in leaves, the barely audible breathing of someone trying to hide, the almost perfect invisibility of a foe as it shifts when he moves.

You seem to think of perception as being a marker for all types of spotting and listening. Medieval era people weren't ridiculously keen on the whole ambushing tactics and stuff. Sure some may have used it but as a whole they kept lining up. I'm not talking about duels, I'm talking about medieval era wars with Knights and commanders and such.

Perception under the Pathfinder Alpha rules does cover all types of spotting and listening, not just picking out 'really small clues' like you say. Read the skill description - it says the skill can be used to spot "enemies far away" and includes perception modifiers for noticing battles and armies. It's a general skill for sensing things.

Furthermore, judging the lie of the land and it's military advantages is not such a trivial feat as you seem to think - there may be blindspots in hollows, soft ground that would slow the attackers, hidden paths, weakspots in walls or hedges and all manner of other opportunities to exploit. Noticing them may well require a skill roll, and what skill other than Perception is appropriate?

Also, I doubt you've got any historical legs to stand on in asserting there wasn't much "ambushing tactics and stuff" in medieval fighting. There were war-torn and lawless areas filled with brigands, marauders and robber-barons. If I recall correctly the Scots were particularly keen on bushwacking their enemies, so would presumably be alert for the threat. I don't want all Caledonians to be rangers so they're not easy to ambush.

Brit O wrote:

There are magical boosting items that grant Blindsense and see ivisibility, neither of which I consider that expensive especially when you consider charges per day items.

And as for evening the playing field, if a Fighter vs an invisible Rogue is an even playing field I weep for all the Rogues who don't want every character to need a wand of invisibility just to do his job.

There aren't any magical items that grant blindsense in the SRD, just a couple of intelligent object with blindsense. There aren't any spells in Pathfinder that give a fighter blindsense, so no charged items either.

You're the one whose previous post said that fighters would get see invisibility and blindsense, not I. A fighter is almost helpless to spot an invisible foe without such powers, and with them it just returns circumstances to how they'd be if neither side had the magic.

[Argamae]

I would chime in with those in disfavour of Fighters getting PERCEPTION and STEALTH as class skills. This is still a class system (as opposed to a skill system) and as such it facilitates class "roles", no matter how non-typical a player portrays his or her character.
Also, I find it rather useless and contra-productive to cite "real world situations" and all that as proof that fighters would be crippled and what not if they don't have access to PERCEPTION or STEALTH. Firstly, because a "soldier" in the real world is not necessarily a "fighter" but more often than not a combination of classes, depending on his service branch and battlefield role. And a "guard" is not necessarily a fighter, either. For much the same reasons. So all this comparing is actually for naught.
Someone said that we shouldn't forget that we are talking about a game here - and should think along those lines. I wholeheartedly agree.

Also, since this is a heroic fantasy game, I am in favour of removing PERCEPTION from the Commoner npc class.

For those who are still unhappy with all this should find multiclassing the answer to their problems.

I actually found Mosaic's idea of opening a thread dealing with "minimal class skills" very intriguing. Reducing class skills to an absolute minimum is a good thought. If no one else is doing it, I just might open up a thread myself.

[Brit O]

JRM wrote:

Perception under the Pathfinder Alpha rules does cover all types of spotting and listening, not just picking out 'really small clues' like you say. Read the skill description - it says the skill can be used to spot "enemies far away" and includes perception modifiers for noticing battles and armies. It's a general skill for sensing things.

Furthermore, judging the lie of the land and it's military advantages is not such a trivial feat as you seem to think - there may be blindspots in hollows, soft ground that would slow the attackers, hidden paths, weakspots in walls or hedges and all manner of other opportunities to exploit. Noticing them may well require a skill roll, and what skill other than Perception is appropriate?

What I meant was do you ask for spot checks to notice that the building they're standing next to is a bar? Do you ask for spot checks to see the enemy charing their way?

I only ask for Spot checks when things are hidden, or have a chance of being overlooked. When it comes to things that are hidden Rogues and Rangers have better training at being aware of these tiny signs thats something is there.

The 'really small clues' I was talking about is when a Rogue is hiding behind a crate, I'm assuming he isn't just standing there going "i'm hiding." he's actually flat against the back of the crate with his arms and legs pulled in as close as possible. Rogues and Rangers spot either bits of body parts sticking up over the edges, or the dust marks of where the Rogue skittered to get into position. These details seems over the head of a class that I expect to represent Knights, Gladiators, or Brutes.

As for the historical references, perhaps I'm not as well versed as you are, but brigands, marauders and robber-barons seems more roguish than fighter. As for the Caledonians, with the new Pathfinder skill system they're only a -3 modifier behind an equal level rogue. Give them Skill Focus(Perception) and they're fine.