One of the things that kept bugging me under the 3.5 Ed. rules was the way Fighter characters were confined to one of very few archetypes. The main reason for that was the limited skill selection. I like what Paizo has done with the Fighter skills in PFRPG Beta, but I feel that it should be taken a step further.
Let's examine the Ftr class skills under the two rulesets.
3.5 Ed had: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str).
PRPG Beta currently has: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
I like how Paizo has added two Knowledge skills and Survival to the Fighter's class skill list. This is a great improvement, because it means that my Fighter - who, for example, is an ex-soldier - can now determine how to best storm a city because he can realistically know something about the way defenses are built. Also, he now knows his way around a dungeon or wilderness, and doesn't have to be led by the druid's (or rogue's) hand anymore. Fine so far.
However, the rest of the skill set is middling at best, in my experience. Ride? Handle Animal? Those are two very specific skills that will become relevant almost exclusively when you have a mounted fighter in your campaign (never happened in my games so far). Climb and Swim - those are usually handled via spells or left to the lightly-armored rogue characters. I'm not saying these skills should be dumped, because they do fit the fighter's 'image', but they aren't something that becomes relevant very often.
Instead, what is missing are skills that make the Fighter useful outside of a fight (yes, I realize that may sound like something of a contradiction. However, what this is about, IMO, isn't 'twisting around' the class, but rather keeping it a fun class to play even when there are no swords to be swung).
What the fighter is missing the most:
- Notice (Listen, Spot). Someone who is trained in the ways of war should be able to attentively take in his surroundings. It seems strange to me that a skill this essential would be 'left' as a cross-class skill.
- Diplomacy/Bluff. The standard 'Ftr.=Intimidate' equation seems dull to me; how come that the only way a Fighter can 'reasonably' influence talks with an NPC is by intimidating him? Even when you select his attributes in a way as to make him a suave, talkative person - you never will succeed because of cross-class limits. To make viable concepts beyond 'The Brute', I therefore would suggest an additional class feature at 1st level, which enables you to choose one of the three 'social' skills as your class skill, as to better reflect the archetype you are willing to play.
Here's hoping that this wasn't too long-winded with regards to adressing a relatively minor issue :) however, I feel that this change would positively increase the general playability of the fighter class.
I think the Fighter class should be exclusively focused on all things fighting. If you want to be good at other things as well, that is what multi-classing is for.
I completely agree that there are archetypes for warriors that would be good at diplomacy and/or notice, or a variety of other abilities.
But a Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Ranger, or even Fighter/Bard is better suited for building these characters.
There is also the archetype of the pure fighter and the guy who sticks to straight fighting gets a bit of an edge in the pure combat to the guy who has more rounded capabilities.
I'd even prefer Survival be thrown back out.
But Notice and Diplomacy do not belong in the pure martial superiority package.
I think heal should be added to the skill list of fighters. Every warrior should be trained to treat his own wounds. That would be also another step toward making fighters more independant from other classes. Four skill points per level would be nice, too.
Heal, while mechanically fairly useless
Heal is not as useless as it was under 3.X rules. In PRGP you can also treat deadly wounds (page 65). ;)
|
Heal, while mechanically fairly uselessHeal is not as useless as it was under 3.X rules. In PRGP you can also treat deadly wounds (page 65). ;)
The trouble with PFRPG Heal is that treating deadly wounds takes an hour, which is perhaps realisic but not at all functional in terms of being able to potentially substitute a Healer for a cleric.
This is a discussion that needs to wait for the Skills forum, though.
I think the Fighter class should be exclusively focused on all things fighting. If you want to be good at other things as well, that is what multi-classing is for.
I completely agree that there are archetypes for warriors that would be good at diplomacy and/or notice, or a variety of other abilities.
But a Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Ranger, or even Fighter/Bard is better suited for building these characters.
There is also the archetype of the pure fighter and the guy who sticks to straight fighting gets a bit of an edge in the pure combat to the guy who has more rounded capabilities.I'd even prefer Survival be thrown back out.
But Notice and Diplomacy do not belong in the pure martial superiority package.
I beg to differ. You have a Wizard who - clearly - can do other things than cast spells; in fact, Spellcraft and Knowledge are probably the skills in my campaign that see the most use. Same for most other character classes. These guys can do any concept they want to emulate, without having to multiclass. Telling the fighter "no, but you can't" isn't what I would consider good game design - either *all* classes should be forced to multiclass, or none of them should.
That isn't to say that multiclassing doesn't work, but take an example: You want to have a guy who knows more about life than soldiering. Why does he have to multiclass to Bard or Rogue (and gain abilities that are irrelevant for the concept: bardic music, trapfinding et al.), instead of just going straight Ftr and still being true to the concept?
YMMV, but that's the way I see things.
I agree with ByronD that fighters fight, and multi-classing should take care of additional skills. However, I also agree that truism should apply to other classes as well. If they want to learn how to fight, they should multi-class as fighter. However, the rogue, cleric, etc are all given enhanced fighting abilities.
A rogue should know about as much about swordplay as a fighter knows about picking locks.
So basically, a fighter's speciality gets spread to other classes without that same courtesy being given to him.
|
However, the rest of the skill set is middling at best, in my experience. Ride? Handle Animal? Those are two very specific skills that will become relevant almost exclusively when you have a mounted fighter in your campaign (never happened in my games so far).
Three campaign set in fatasy setting, three campaign with riding fighters.
Instead, what is missing are skills that make the Fighter useful outside of a fight (yes, I realize that may sound like something of a contradiction. However, what this is about, IMO, isn't 'twisting around' the class, but rather keeping it a fun class to play even when there are no swords to be swung).
Well, with the abolition of cross-class skill a fighter can virtually choose any skill, even those not normally "fighter-ish".
While I can agree with Perception added as class skill (same with Heal, though it's not a primary concern for me personally), I don't think Charisma-based skills (except Intimidate) are truly part of a fighter "package".
|
I know it's been said already that fighters will likely only get 2 skill points per level, but I would like plead the case for 4 skill points per level - and a slightly larger skill list - as well.
All a fighter can do is swing a weapon well, wear armor well, and gain access to some extra feats which don't scale well past about level 8.
Given that some of their best feats have also been changed in such a way as to make the feats nearly useless except as stepping stones to feats that don't stink, you are left with fighters with some better numbers....but still nothing to do out of combat.
He can't negotiate well, he can't lead well. He can bully. Great. He can't guard well, he can't learn well. He can climb and swim. He can't perform first aid well. And he can't even do these things in a mediocre manner, because he doesn't have skills to raise cross class ranks.
2 skill points per level is not a problem with backwards compatibility. You just pick two new skills the fighter has paid attention to in his career. Compared to the other retoolings (most of which I love!!!), this is a vanishingly small change. Well worth it and easily made simple for PCs. And it can be ignored or not in fighter conversions by the DM, as deemed appropriate.
Leaving the rule as is means that by default, fighters will have nothing to do out of combat. I want the default rules to be the best they can be. I know people may houserule the extra skill points in, but shouldn't the better rule be the default?
The skill point changes have made skill points a wonderfully easy system to use for high and low level characters now. The changes that have been made pave the way toward making this upgrade to fighters simple and easy to implement.
Please, please reconsider. Fighters are already the weakest and least fun class to play. Increasing versatility just a bit here makes them more enjoyable and customizable.
|
|
They cross class skill change has fixed the problem, a fighter with above average intelligence will, by higher levels, be able to make himself into a dipolmat or whatever through good skill and feat(since the fighter can actually afford to get skill focus or even the feat for extra skill points) selection.
|
|
They cross class skill change has fixed the problem, a fighter with above average intelligence will, by higher levels, be able to make himself into a dipolmat or whatever through good skill and feat(since the fighter can actually afford to get skill focus or even the feat for extra skill points) selection.
The cross class rules have fixed a big problem - complex skill point tabulation for cross classing high level characters - and a smaller one, lack of versatility in abilities over a character's career if they stick with a single class.
They haven't fixed the real fighter problem - lack of skill points.
A fighter can "not suck" at making cross class skill checks if he invests the points now. But that means he can't ride a horse or climb or initimidate or swim. Adding class skills to a fighter doesn't power him up - but it will increase his utility in non-combat situations - and greatly increase the fun of playing a fighter!
I beg to differ. You have a Wizard who - clearly - can do other things than cast spells; in fact, Spellcraft and Knowledge are probably the skills in my campaign that see the most use. Same for most other character classes. These guys can do any concept they want to emulate, without having to multiclass. Telling the fighter "no, but you can't" isn't what I would consider good game design - either *all* classes should be forced to multiclass, or none of them should.
Simple, to be able to do anything and everything, *all* classes should be forced to multiclass.
Your example is deeply flawed because you selected very archetypal skills as examples for the wizard, and yet you are comparing it to non-archetypal skills for the fighter.
If the wizard wants to track, he needs to multiclass. If the Wizard wants to be good at perception, he needs to multiclass. It isn't telling anyone "no you can't" to say otherwise and it is really lame arguement. When you use the *exact* same skills from your OP, the wizard is in the same boat for the same rational reasons.
All classes have things they can do and things they can't implicitly do.
The examples you choose for the wizard fit into the guy knowledable guy who controls magic through his smarts and studies archetype and therefore fit right into the single class basic. Just as Climb is in the pure fighter athletic guy archetype.
It is great game design to protect classic archetypes and also allow them to be interwoven through multiclassing. Getting to free with skills and abilities tramples the identities to the games detriment.
|
|
I know it's been said already that fighters will likely only get 2 skill points per level, but I would like plead the case for 4 skill points per level - and a slightly larger skill list - as well.
I will staunchly support 4 skill points for a fighter. But I dont think they need a larger skill list.
All the skill list does is adds the trained +3 bonus.
The pathfinder rules allow a 1/1 skill point to cross-class skill ratio - so with an increase of skill points per level from 2 to 4, he can afford to put points in an atypical skill for a fighter - and with the exception of the +3 class skill bonus, he could theoretically be a healer, a diplomat, stealthy, or a scout without having to multi-class to be good.
Will he be as good as a rogue or cleric in those instances? No. But he would be competent and serviceable at it, and have something other than swinging a weapon to do.
Robert
Your example is deeply flawed because you selected very archetypal skills as examples for the wizard, and yet you are comparing it to non-archetypal skills for the fighter.
As I stated above, Notice and Survival (among others) *are* archetypal fighter skills for me. A fighter isn't just 'the athletic guy'. I'm sure there are a dozen other fantasy fighter archetypes in literature, and I think the rules should enable the player to replicate them, should he so desire. If you disagree, fine - but please, don't apply *your* preconceptions of a fighter to *my* posts. Views may differ, after all.
All classes have things they can do and things they can't implicitly do.
I think we're talking about different things, not just different viewpointss. I'm not advocating any class should stray from its archetype. I'm especially not suggesting any class should be able to do everything they choose without multiclassing. But, here's the thing:
Every other class has a class skill set that actually makes the class fun to play whether the party is in a fight or not. Clerics and Wizards can not only cast spells, they also have knowledge pertaining to their respective 'type' of magic. Druids and Barbarians can get along in the wild. Bards and rogues can gather information or swindle an innocent bystander. And fighters ... hey, fighters can bully the next guy. Or ride a horse. Yup, that sounds fun.
Sarcasm aside: All I'm saying is that playing a fighter out-of-combat isn't much fun in a mechanical sense. Sure, you can roleplay all you want, but this doesn't change the fact that there are hard rules that keep you from succeeding at certain tasks that make out-of-combat gameplay fun. The other classes all have their toys; let the fighter have his. The class won't be unbalanced by being given 2-3 more skill options, but the players' ability to have fun will increase.
And, finally: I would be able to get your point if I had suggested that 'all fighters be given Bluff as a class skill immediately, whether they want it or not!' or something similar. If you don't think a Fighter should be able to Spot or Notice or Survive in the wilderness? Well, that's fine - you are free to choose other skills. But, please, do respect other people's opinions even and especially when they differ from your preconceptions. Telling me my suggestions would 'trample the identity' of the game or its classes is neither objectively correct nor polite in any way.
|
|
Every other class has a class skill set that actually makes the class fun to play whether the party is in a fight or not. Clerics and Wizards can not only cast spells, they also have knowledge pertaining to their respective 'type' of magic. Druids and Barbarians can get along in the wild. Bards and rogues can gather information or swindle an innocent bystander. And fighters ... hey, fighters can bully the next guy. Or ride a horse. Yup, that sounds fun.
Sarcasm aside: All I'm saying is that playing a fighter out-of-combat isn't much fun in a mechanical sense. Sure, you can roleplay all you want, but this doesn't change the fact that there are hard rules that keep you from succeeding at certain tasks that make out-of-combat gameplay fun. The other classes all have their toys; let the fighter have his. The class won't be unbalanced by being given 2-3 more skill options, but the players' ability to have fun will increase.
And, finally: I would be able to get your point if I had suggested that 'all fighters be given Bluff as a class skill immediately, whether they want it or not!' or something similar. If you don't think a Fighter should be able to Spot or Notice or Survive in the wilderness? Well, that's fine - you are free to choose other skills. But, please, do respect other people's opinions even and especially when they differ from your preconceptions. Telling me my suggestions would 'trample the identity' of the game or its classes is neither objectively correct nor polite in any way.
The way I see it - if fighters are granted 4 skill points per level - which i would like to see, your fighter can still be a single-classed fighter and still have the flavor diversity that you speak of.
Like i said in a previous post - the only difference between a class and non-class skill is +3 to a trained skill.
A fighter that you want to be able to be a diplomat could train in diplomacy and use one of the fighters bazillion feats to choose Skill Focus Diplomacy, and can spend a second one on Persuasive to really make an impression.
My point is - that the fighters diversity comes from its feats - and someone wants to play a fighter that is a bit atypical of the core description, it can be designed. I dont think the standard skill list needs to be changed to facilitate this.
Robert
|
Put me down in favor of the status quo.
Too many people want too many class skills for their favorite class and it detracts and dilutes from the other classes particular strengths and ultimately from the flavor of the game as a whole. Please remember that skill training represents _exceptional_ ability in the given skill, it is not about having or not having the skill. Just because the fighter does not have Perception as a class skill doesn't mean a fighter can't spot danger or is useless on guard duty -- it doesn't mean he doesn't have the skill. You can use Perception untrained, remember. A fighter, then, has a common but not inhibited ability to spot and search, and that's appropriate.
Bottom line, leave it alone. Thank you.
I wouldn't mind seeing Perception and Heal become class skills for them. Having only 2 skill points/level hurts a lot less when you can pick up more +3's from class skills here and there.
|
|
I wouldn't mind seeing Perception and Heal become class skills for them. Having only 2 skill points/level hurts a lot less when you can pick up more +3's from class skills here and there.
i would say 4 skills + int mod to fighters (but i will argue this with another 4 classes :P)
I would say the fighter needs Perception (why fighters would make the worst Bodyguards or sentries... while its one of their typical roles? normal fighters are unable to discover anything that is not in front of great plain... that is just ridiculous for most mercenaries or veteran soldiers)
Healing i would leave it as "cross-class" while its useful, not every warrior knows how to patch himself, many depends on their medic unit... Survival already solves parts of this need.
I think heal should be added to the skill list of fighters. Every warrior should be trained to treat his own wounds. That would be also another step toward making fighters more independant from other classes. Four skill points per level would be nice, too.
Absolutely. No one bleeds as much as a Fighter. In game terms, a Fighter who didn't know first aid would never live to level 3.
|
|
I would say the fighter needs Perception (why fighters would make the worst Bodyguards or sentries... while its one of their typical roles? normal fighters are unable to discover anything that is not in front of great plain... that is just ridiculous for most mercenaries or veteran soldiers)
I'm for adding more class skills if the limit stays 2+ int
I'm for keeping the same class skills if the limit increases to 4+ int.
For gods sakes stop with the argument that a fighter sucks at heal or notice on guard duty. This was true in 3.5 where you're limit was half of what the class skills were.
In pathfinder the difference between a maxed perception ranger and a max perception fighter is three. A Character with a class skill is only partially better at it now if you invest the ranks. But stop saying a fighter sucks at the skill because he doesn't, it's like arguing that the barbarian rage sucks because he can only use it once in a day at low levels. True in 3.5 not true in Pathfinder.
Now if you want to say that he doesn't have enough skill points to reasonably invest in a skill that is a valid arguement, but saying that he sucks at the skill because it isn't a class skill isn't.
|
|
Jason has said before in other posts that changing the skill points to "4 + Int" is not going to happen simply because of backwards compatibility (so what about Rage Points?) and the easy of house ruling a change. I think this is a mistake.
I agree though that the Fighter gets the least revamping in the Pathfinder RPG. Every other class has some access to his "toys" with no love returned. Would it be too much for a few skill points so that a battlefield commander is a viable build without cros-classing? Or an expanded list of skills so that a duelist/swashbuckler could be made without taking practically requiring a level of Rogue?
Also, we've got a Paizo precedent with the academy-trained fighter (or whatever it was called): trade the 1st level bonus feat for +2 skill points/level. Surely they don't want to supercede their own variant?
I believe that Fighters should get 4 + Int for skill points and should receive Heal and Perception as class skills. The extra skill points will allow players to create more well-rounded, interesting characters, and I believe that Heal and Perception fit the concept of a soldier or a warrior very well.
With Spot, Search and Listen being rolled into Perception now I too agree that it (perception) should be added to their class list.
I don't really agree that they need more skill points though. Would it be useful? Sure - but more is always useful. My 14 int rogue could use more skill points but it isn't really a need.
Fighters are not skill jockeys. They aren't supposed to be and shouldn't be forced into that mold.
If you want to be a jack-of-all trades with full BAB then be a Ranger.
Fighters are the guards, the mooks, the run-of-the-mill melee folk. They are good at their job but not remarkably good at other things. If you start broadening them too much then you start encroaching on the abilities of other classes- and in doing so you make those other classes worth less. (not worthless- but worth less than they are now).
Unsurprisingly a Fighter's abilities all focus on combat. If Melee combat isn't what you want your character to be distinctly focused on then the Fighter is probably not the class for you.
I don't mean this in sarcasm or as an off hand remark. You just need to take a look at each class for what they can do instead of trying to take a class that isn't something and forcing it into someone else's role.
-S
|
|
Jason has said before in other posts that changing the skill points to "4 + Int" is not going to happen simply because of backwards compatibility (so what about Rage Points?) and the easy of house ruling a change. I think this is a mistake.
I agree though that the Fighter gets the least revamping in the Pathfinder RPG. Every other class has some access to his "toys" with no love returned. Would it be too much for a few skill points so that a battlefield commander is a viable build without cros-classing? Or an expanded list of skills so that a duelist/swashbuckler could be made without taking practically requiring a level of Rogue?
I keep seeing 'backwards compatibility' raised as a defense whenever a minor change that makes sense is mentioned. Giving Fighters 4+int skill points does NOTHING to ruin backwards compatibility. Hell, when 3.0 changed to 3.5, several classes gained extra skill points with no problems at all. Jeez, changing the skill system and bumping hit dice were more drastic changes than the concept of a fighter with an extra couple of skill points.
Note: I am in favor of 4+Int skill points, since Pathfinder has removed the need for the extra class skills thanks to the 'fixed' skill system. A fighter can heal and perceive things, but he will never be as good as those classes devoted to the task. Otherwise rogues would never be able to sneak past a guard.
What the fighter is missing the most:
- Notice (Listen, Spot). Someone who is trained in the ways of war should be able to attentively take in his surroundings. It seems strange to me that a skill this essential would be 'left' as a cross-class skill.
You know, for a while I was thinking the same thing but then I got to looking at who gets Perception as a class skill:
* Barbarian - Raw animalistic senses* Bard - Jack of all trades, stealthy, sometimes a rogue replacement
* Druid - Primal & at one with nature
* Monk - Highly attuned with self and surroundings
* Ranger - Specializes in stealth & detection
* Rogue - Specializes in stealth & detection
So all of the classes that get Perception as a class skill are pretty specialized to begin with (or in the bard's case are meant to be skill masters). However, let's now look at which classes get Stealth as a class skill:
* Bard - Skill master/ rogue stand-in
* Monk - They're practically ninjas
* Ranger - They're trained to infiltrate and hunt
* Rogue - They're trained to break and enter, and attack unseen
While I agree that the Fighter should have more range in their skill choices (i.e. more skill points), I disagree that they should have some sort of innate advantage at detecting classes specifically trained in stealth. If anything, guard duty entails more patience, intimidation, and communication (with supervisors, other guards, knowing who their relief/backup is) than a particularly sharp eye.
They are already on equal footing with noticing all of the other classes and have plenty of combat feats to allow the use of a general feat for Skill Focus: Perception to be a fairly trivial issue. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the reason the Fighter class is employed so frequently is due to their versatility rather than specialization! As frequently as they gain feats, it is much easier to quickly train a fighter for a new role (by taking a feat) than it is to retask a more specialized class.
As for Diplomacy?
The whole "good cop/ bad cop" routine is a perfect example of using the aid another action. Diplomacy shouldn't really be needed as a class skill since even with a lower diplomacy score (without the +3 class boost to Intimidate), they are essentially getting a suspect to go along with them rather than having to deal with the Intimidator. Remember, the Aid Another action only has a DC of 10.
I'd rule that this would be a situation where such a use of the Intimidate check could become indifferent or friendly towards the "good cop", even if they become unfriendly or hostile towards the "bad cop".
Totally true stuffOkay you have me totally converted, I don't want a fighter getting more class skills. I just want 4+int skills for the fighter.
You and me both. I don't see this happening as Jason is dead set that this among all the changes is the one thing that brakes backward capability? But am gonna fight the good fight anyhow...sigh
I will staunchly support 4 skill points for a fighter. But I dont think they need a larger skill list.
All the skill list does is adds the trained +3 bonus.
The pathfinder rules allow a 1/1 skill point to cross-class skill ratio - so with an increase of skill points per level from 2 to 4, he can afford to put points in an atypical skill for a fighter - and with the exception of the +3 class skill bonus, he could theoretically be a healer, a diplomat, stealthy, or a scout without having to multi-class to be good.
Converted too. Under PRPG cross-class skill new rules, four skill points per level would be sufficient. So no more skills on the skill list.
Laithoron: You have a point. However, I disagree with the following statement...
While I agree that the Fighter should have more range in their skill choices (i.e. more skill points), I disagree that they should have some sort of innate advantage at detecting classes specifically trained in stealth. If anything, guard duty entails more patience, intimidation, and communication (with supervisors, other guards, knowing who their relief/backup is) than a particularly sharp eye.
... because Notice (Listen/Spot) isn't just used to detect stealthy characters. Spot the enemy general on the battlefield. Spot a dragon approaching in the distance. How is that not the fighter's turf?
Anyways, here's hoping that this whole discussion will have sparked a thought process, and that whatever changes Paizo applies to the fighter, they will be for the better :).
Laithoron: You have a point. However, I disagree with the following statement...
While I agree that the Fighter should have more range in their skill choices (i.e. more skill points), I disagree that they should have some sort of innate advantage at detecting classes specifically trained in stealth. If anything, guard duty entails more patience, intimidation, and communication (with supervisors, other guards, knowing who their relief/backup is) than a particularly sharp eye.... because Notice (Listen/Spot) isn't just used to detect stealthy characters. Spot the enemy general on the battlefield. Spot a dragon approaching in the distance. How is that not the fighter's turf?
Not sure if that is sarcasm, but while you might not have come out and said it, many have argued Fighters should get Perception based around the notion of performing guard duty. As far as spotting a dragon, I'd say that's any adventurer's job if they want to keep on having a livelihood. ;)
As for picking an enemy commander out of an army, that would have more to do with knowing where to look (based off of knowledge of military command structure/formations) than just looking at an army and saying, "Oh look, I just picked out a general's epaulettes from 10,000 enemies from 1000 yards out!"
Now I could see a fighter or paladin having an edge in a Knowledge skill pertinent to military formations and telling an commando/ranger/assassin, "Look for the enemy commander in this area. Expect them to be wearing this sort of insignia..." However, I don't see why a general-purpose class should have a +3 bonus in it over classes that are focused (pun intended) on scouting/attunement.
Simply put, there's a good reason why the special forces are the ones who carry out such missions. To give a non-scouting class such an ability merely undermines those classes who are designed for that role.
Anyways, here's hoping that this whole discussion will have sparked a thought process, and that whatever changes Paizo applies to the fighter, they will be for the better :).
Aye, a good conversation. I think some good cases have been made for a skill point increase at the very least. :)
|
Simply put, there's a good reason why the special forces are the ones who carry out such missions. To give a non-scouting class such an ability merely undermines those classes who are designed for that role.
I agree with this. A martial skill monkey is a ranger, which could be considered special forces and good at the spotting and so on. A fighter is the guy who holds the line at the centre of the battlefield and isn't looking in the distance but at the guy who is standing next to him and trying to kill him. A typical guard isn't a sophisticated security specialist, but a bored guy with a spear who may or may not be paying attention (and who it should be relatively easy for a competent party to sneak up on or past).
Personally I have little problem with the fighter skill list or the number of points they have, though if I had free reign I would add Healing. The skills issue doen't really affect the core competency of a fighter - fighting - but instead that is down to a lack of good high level fighter feats (the subject of an entirely different thread).
|
|
Personally I have little problem with the fighter skill list or the number of points they have, though if I had free reign I would add Healing. The skills issue doen't really affect the core competency of a fighter - fighting - but instead that is down to a lack of good high level fighter feats (the subject of an entirely different thread).
You are very correct - adding skills doesn't help the core competency of the fighter. I think the issue is, the core competency of the fighter is encroached upon by every other class - sneak attack, favored enemy bonuses, smite, spells that improve combat capabilities, inspire courage, transmutation spells to turn wizards into giant constructs of crushing doom, wild shape. But outside of his core competency, the fighter has....intimidate.
I would like more skill points to give him out of combat options other than roleplay. Roleplaying is great, but difficult for beginning gamers trying to wrap their heads aroudn the rules. Giving Knowledge (Tactics) or Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty) would fit well with the concept, and give them a little more out of combat utility. 4 skill points per level would give the fighter the same number of skill points as monks, barbarians and druids. It's not going to overpower them. It's not goign to encroach on the rogue or bard's skill monkey status. It will give them rules based out of combat abilities that make them more fun over more types of encounters and more levels.
|
|
I would like more skill points to give him out of combat options other than roleplay. Roleplaying is great, but difficult for beginning gamers trying to wrap their heads aroudn the rules. Giving Knowledge (Tactics) or Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty) would fit well with the concept, and give them a little more out of combat utility. 4 skill points per level would give the fighter the same number of skill points as monks, barbarians and druids. It's not going to overpower them. It's not goign to encroach on the rogue or bard's skill monkey status. It will give them rules based out of combat abilities that make them more fun over more types of encounters and more levels.
Regardless - although many of us feel that 4 skill points is appropriate, Jason has already posted a few times on other similar threads - that increasing the skill points is not going to happen.
His reasoning is sound. He said it's very easy to 'house rule' more skills (4) for those who want it - but it's hard to house rule less if he were to increase it, and people are still playing the 3.5 modules etc that only use 2.
In other words - backwards compatibility in this instance is that previously published works such as the current Adventure Paths all have 2. If he would be changing the rule to 4, all he NPCs etc in all those books would need to be changed for everyone instead of just those of us who want them.
On the flip side, if his new adventure paths were written with 4 to be congruent with the rule change, and someone playing 3.5 wanted to run the module, they would have to remove skills - which is much harder to do.
That all being said - I think this thread has been a good meeting of the minds between us players who do consider 4 to be the appropriate amount, and our conversations has converted many that 4 skills in a 1/1 cross-class skill point cost system would work just fine - without having to add new class skills to the list; so that when the final product is released, we can pretty much unanimously make the same house rule pretty consistently in many circles.
Robert
Part of the problem, I think, is with the fact that the skills are now greatly out of whack with one another. Perception is worth more than any other two skills put together. Everyone wants it maxed out, and then they just take other skills with whatever points are left over. If skills consolidation made other skills equally viable, a fighter could max out, say, Perception and Warfare , then 2 skill points/level would be enough to make him the most useful character in any battlefield situation. Alternatively, if he could get Swim and Climb and Jump for 1 skill point instead of 2-3, that would make 2/level a lot more palatable.
But that's discussion that will have to wait for the Skills section to open up.
|
|
Regardless - although many of us feel that 4 skill points is appropriate, Jason has already posted a few times on other similar threads - that increasing the skill points is not going to happen.His reasoning is sound. He said it's very easy to 'house rule' more skills (4) for those who want it - but it's hard to house rule less if he were to increase it, and people are still playing the 3.5 modules etc that only use 2.
In other words - backwards compatibility in this instance is that previously published works such as the current Adventure Paths all have 2. If he would be changing the rule to 4, all he NPCs etc in all those books would need to be changed for everyone instead of just those of us who want them.
I know he's said that, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop stating my preference. He is more than able to ignore us on this topic - hence clearly titled topics - to aid in the ignoring process as necessary. :)
The issue is the fighter has serious problems and could use serious help, and fixing fighter feats will make him viable in combat, but he needs something else so he's not too much a one trick pony. Nobody would play rogues if all they did was skills - no enhanced combat ability at all. One of the reasons clerics are so powerful in 3.0 and 3.5 is because no one wanted to play them in previous versions because all they did was heal. This is a fundamental problem with the fighter class, except in games with only in combat play.
As for backwards compatibility, this I don't understand at all. It is extremely simple to add two skills to PCs being converted - or even important NPCs. Since these skills are for out of combat utility, ignore it for low level fighter types as desired - and add it as desired as well. Just add their level in ranks. Simple, easy - and only necessary for a small subsection of NPC fighters in an adventure path.
|
|
The issue is the fighter has serious problems and could use serious help, and fixing fighter feats will make him viable in combat, but he needs something else so he's not too much a one trick pony. Nobody would play rogues if all they did was skills - no enhanced combat ability at all. One of the reasons clerics are so powerful in 3.0 and 3.5 is because no one wanted to play them in previous versions because all they did was heal. This is a fundamental problem with the fighter class, except in games with only in combat play.
While I don't disagree - I did discuss how to make this possible - if a player is interested in playing a fighter that is more "non-combat" oriented with some of the things he can do, use some of those exorbitant number of feats they get and use them for skill focuses, and some of those skills like Persuasive etc that increases two skills.
Obviously such a fighter would be less optimized when it comes to combat since he's expending some feats in more cosmopolitan areas - but that is art imitating life. Usually someone who does branch out their fields of study will have slightly less potential in the combative realm in comparison to a career fighter/soldier.
Robert
|
|
While I don't disagree - I did discuss how to make this possible - if a player is interested in playing a fighter that is more "non-combat" oriented with some of the things he can do, use some of those exorbitant number of feats they get and use them for skill focuses, and some of those skills like Persuasive etc that increases two skills.
Obviously such a fighter would be less optimized when it comes to combat since he's expending some feats in more cosmopolitan areas - but that is art imitating life. Usually someone who does branch out their fields of study will have slightly less potential in the combative realm in comparison to a career fighter/soldier.
But a rogue does not give up skill points to take sneak attack, a cleric doesn't give up turning to cast self-buffs and whallop those that offend his god, and a druid doesn't give up spellcasting to wild-shape.
It's unbalancing to force the fighter to give up class abilities meant to improve his combat ability to be mediocre at out of combat abilities.
I think the end result of refusing to upgrade to 4 skill points per level will be that fighters are again the 2-4 level dip class for feats. Really awesome combat feats, and a total revamp of how feats work to remove extended suboptimal feat chains from the fighter might invalidate this to a certain extent....but it may not.
I will be respectful. I will post in clearly marked threads in order to avoid offending or disturbing or distracting the design team. But I can't give up the fight to make fighters a fun choice for players to take all the way to 20 until the book goes to the publisher.
Merely to add more wood to the fires, I shall add my 2 coppers worth.
The pfrpg skill sets for the fighter are very good, BUT, I must declare with GREAT passion a need for some other personal skill beyond int. I play the fighter almost to the exclusion of other classes and I have in the past been greatly miffed that the classes with the skill sets to raise and lead great armys, were not fighters. In the historical sense do you feel that William Wallace, George Washington, Patton, or many other could only swing a sword or shoot a rifle? And althuogh I know that we can multi-class, I am strongly against that simply to gain skill sets i feel should be core to the class. Again, just the humble ramblings of your local sword swinger.
I have to say the 4 skills per level does stop alot of rogue skill dipping. I never knew that was an issue before talking to folks online as I have used not less then 4 skill per class since 2000. Adding 4 does indeed make fighter players more likely to well do things that do not involve hitting people with pointy sticks.
And I think the backward compatibility issue is weak really. With rage points, bards with real ability, different domain powers, oth level spells at will, school powers, bloodlines and other goodies 2 skill points per level does not brake backward compatibility.
If even fighters, the traditional "what's a skill and how do I use it" class, get 4 skill points per level, the wizard, cleric and sorcerer should definitely get 4 per level as well.
If even fighters, the traditional "what's a skill and how do I use it" class, get 4 skill points per level, the wizard, cleric and sorcerer should definitely get 4 per level as well.
HERE HERE!!
If even fighters, the traditional "what's a skill and how do I use it" class, get 4 skill points per level, the wizard, cleric and sorcerer should definitely get 4 per level as well.
That was strenuously argued for during the alpha test, but no clear indication was given why sorcerers and clerics really need those skills -- I mean, what would they use them for? Granted, Acrobatics would be a nice draw for sorcerers, to make them mobile artillery platforms, but that's hardly an iconic choice.
And wizards, with their high Int, end up with as many or more skills as/than most rogues anyway -- I'd be very much against giving them more on top of that!
Kinda side track here but I have been pro min of 4 skill points all the way. let me ask you this.
Why do barbarians and druids need 4 while fighters ans clerics only need 2?
|
If even fighters, the traditional "what's a skill and how do I use it" class, get 4 skill points per level, the wizard, cleric and sorcerer should definitely get 4 per level as well.HERE HERE!!
Yes, I, too, definitely think that *ALL* the classes should get min. 4 skill points per level.
And I think that Perception would be a good addition to the fighter's skill list (one of the iconic fantasy stereotypes being an alert guardsman, after all), but I know that Jason has said that there are reasons why they chose not to do it. :(
|
|
You are very correct - adding skills doesn't help the core competency of the fighter. I think the issue is, the core competency of the fighter is encroached upon by every other class - sneak attack, favored enemy bonuses, smite, spells that improve combat capabilities, inspire courage, transmutation spells to turn wizards into giant constructs of crushing doom, wild shape. But outside of his core competency, the fighter has....intimidate.
I would like more skill points to give him out of combat options other than roleplay. Roleplaying is great, but difficult for beginning gamers trying to wrap their heads aroudn the rules. Giving Knowledge (Tactics) or Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty) would fit well with the concept, and give them a little more out of combat utility. 4 skill points per level would give the fighter the same number of skill points as monks, barbarians and druids. It's not going to overpower them. It's not goign to encroach on the rogue or bard's skill monkey status. It will give them rules based out of combat abilities that make them more fun over more types of encounters and more levels.
I hear that a lot, but I don't really get it - the fighter is what he is, and he does a hell of a lot more in 3e than he ever did in 1e and 2e. The guy hits people - it's his job. The feat-based nature of what they do should be interestingly modular but it isn't because the high-level feats don't exist. While I agree that a few more skill points would not actually impact on him much balance-wise, I still can't help thinking that people want the fighter to be something other than what he is - a guy who hits people. Skills seem irrelevant to me for that. It might be nice, but if it really doesn't matter that much then it might be better to focus on the feats rather than the skills to get most leverage from the mental effort. If the feats were fixed, we might not be worried about the skills.
Wizards having more skills than rogues? Oh, don't be silly. They'd have to have Int 22 (to the Rogue's Int 10) just to draw even!
Besides which, please explain how the book-learners and the religious educators are less skilled than the killing machine?
|
I'm also a proponent of 4+int skills for all characters with 2+int, to offset the loss of the x4 at first level...
I want Ride added to Fighter's skills...a fighter should be able to ride...WELL
Unless background traits will eventually allow you to select new class skills based upon background, then certain skills need to be added.
Wow, just a guy who hits people, that sounds so exciting...why would I want my guy who hits people to be able to do stuff out of combat...hmm...let me think...OH so my guy who hits people is more than a Guy who hits people...especially when out of combat...
A Guy who hits people should just be the Warrior...A Fighter should be more...it's a PLAYER CHARACTER CLASS, not a non-player class...