Fighter - Skill selection


Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Laithoron wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Don't get me wrong - my objections are primarily aesthetic and if you want more skill points, then that's cool for your game. I don't really see the problem with fighters (and why just fighters, by the way?) having two skill points, but maybe that's just me.
Scroll back up and read my post if you'd like one answer to this... particularly since you've been arguing it would take away from other classes.

I think you slightly misunderstand my point. I agree that skill consolidation has an impact, and with the possibility Kirth raises that it hasn't actually been very well thought through (some skills are not equal to others, though arguably Use Rope always fell into the category). But my point is that the issue is somewhat besides the point in this context - a fighter simply does not require those skills to be effective as a fighter.

The notion that extra skill points gives them something to do outside combat is also a red herring, in my view - from a game perspective, rolling a few extra dice for skill checks is a bit "meh" - it takes a few seconds, and it rarely has much drama and rarely does anything much vital hinge on it, unlike combat. The out-of-combat stuff generally involves discussions between characters and players, roleplaying and so on. I understand that skills mediate to some extent how a character interacts with their environment, but they have no impact on what players actually do, which is sit around discussing what to do next. Nothing prevents a fighter player contributing to that, even if someone else ends up rolling the dice. So he might get to roll a few extra dice? I don't discount that there might be some sense of achievement or drama, but the difference would be marginal in my view.

To my mind, the wish for extra skill points, as I have said before, is about wanting the fighter to be what he isn't to some extent, and a discounting of the role of the player as opposed to the abilities of the character. I probably seem to be struggling against this more strenuously than is maybe the case in reality - I'm not really that bothered and if Jason has a change of heart it certainly would not ruin PF for me, though my opinion is fairly fixed after reading the discussions to date as to what I would prefer.

Liberty's Edge

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

The notion that extra skill points gives them something to do outside combat is also a red herring, in my view - from a game perspective, rolling a few extra dice for skill checks is a bit "meh" - it takes a few seconds, and it rarely has much drama and rarely does anything much vital hinge on it, unlike combat. The out-of-combat stuff generally involves discussions between characters and players, roleplaying and so on. I understand that skills mediate to some extent how a character interacts with their environment, but they have no impact on what players actually do, which is sit around discussing what to do next. Nothing prevents a fighter player contributing to that, even if someone else ends up rolling the dice. So he might get to roll a few extra dice? I don't discount that there might be some sense of achievement or drama, but the difference would be marginal in my view.

Different games, different players. I disagree with your observations. They are not true in our game (and have not been for the last several). We do use 4 skill points now, but we did not always. There were several times where the fighter character tried to contribute outside of combat before learning that it was not a good idea. The most eloquent and well-spoken player cannot play a fighter with a good diplomacy skill - and if he does, that would be all he does. The fighter then can't handle 'out of combat encounters' like a precipice that needs to be crossed. Since it seems the fighter character has a list of class skills that are impacted by Armor Check, there is often little point in putting ranks in 'classic skills' like Climb and Swim. The number of ranks may just offset the skill check penalty.

I like Fighter (and other classes) to have a role outside of combat, since the games I enjoy most have a lot of time that is spent that way. And not just 'discussing what to do next'. Trying to avoid a particular fight and solve the problem 'diplomatically' can be fun for everyone, but isn't if one person cannot contribute anything meaningfully.

I also like to approach it from the persepctive of what seems right? Forgetting about the 'rules' for a moment, let's look at a medieval knight. What could they do? Considering that they couldn't even read, normally?

They would usually have the ability to ride well, they would be able to hunt (Survival) and use falcons and hunting dogs (Handle Animal). They would be involved in furthering their family interests, so you would expect they would have knowledge (nobility and royalty). They are in charge of planning attacks against entrenched positions, so might have knowledge (engineering). Those would be the 'archetypal skills' one would think. Fighters cannot even get those. It is likely that most fighters have the archetypal skills and a few that are not as common among their cohort - like heal, or perception, or stealth, depending on what else they like to do and how they hunt, etc. So more skill points are also a requirement for simulationism.


DeadDMWalking wrote:
They would usually have the ability to ride well, they would be able to hunt (Survival) and use falcons and hunting dogs (Handle Animal). They would be involved in furthering their family interests, so you would expect they would have knowledge (nobility and royalty). They are in charge of planning attacks against entrenched positions, so might have knowledge (engineering). So more skill points are also a requirement for simulationism.

Either more points, or more consolidation. Dead DM, I know you're a big fan of myriad "micro-skills," 3.5e-style, and against most consolidation. That's OK -- you can ditch Pathfinder's consolidation, give more skill points, and play an excellent game, as many did with 3.5 -- but if Pathfinder's skill system is to be viable, some more consolidation (or at least expanded functions) is going to be needed.

If Handle Animal and Ride were combined, that's one less skill for your archetypical knight (and one more skill that might realistically compete with Perception for points). Because most of the nobility were martial figures, Knowledge (warfare) might encompass Knowledge (nobility), Knowledge (siege engineering), and Profession (soldier). Now the knight needs two skills, not four! If he's human (which we assume historical knights were), he's got +1 skill point/level for that, and another +1/level for favored class: he has twice as many skills as he "needs," without raising the base from 2 to 4. Either way will work.

The problem is that we're stuck in a hazy "in-between" limbo for the Beta, with some logical consolidation but most not (how many individual Knowledge and Perform skills do we still have?), which means some classes finally have enough points (the rogue) and others with still too few (the fighter).

Sovereign Court

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The notion that extra skill points gives them something to do outside combat is also a red herring, in my view - from a game perspective, rolling a few extra dice for skill checks is a bit "meh" - it takes a few seconds, and it rarely has much drama and rarely does anything much vital hinge on it, unlike combat.

I would beg to differ. Most of our best sessions have been roleplay sessions, or primarily roleplay sessions. Sessions consisting of mostly exploring can be lots of fun too. Skill checks can be as uninteresting as battle - if attention isn't paid toward making things exciting. But they can also be nervewracking and exciting!

Preventing fighters from having viable actions to take outside of combat either removes them from this portion of the game as an active contributor - or removes this portion of the game from DM's repertoire in deference to the fighter's player's enjoyment.

The out-of-combat stuff generally involves discussions between characters and players, roleplaying and so on. I understand that skills mediate to some extent how a character interacts with their environment, but they have no impact on what players actually do, which is sit around discussing what to do next. Nothing prevents a fighter player contributing to that, even if someone else ends up rolling the dice. So he might get to roll a few extra dice? I don't discount that there might be some sense of achievement or drama, but the difference would be marginal in my view.

Again, it depends on the game. Some groups don't allow you to contribute if your character can't contribute.

And again, other classes all have roles both in combat and out of combat. Even the paladin, with the same number of skill points and even more reason to have low intelligence, has diplomacy as a class skill and a good reason to place points there! Why can't the fighter be thrown a small little bone here? Every class encroaches on his area of expertise - some completely overwhelm him.

Giving the fighters, as part of the base rules, the ability to just participate in non-combat encounters is, to me, very important. It increases the overall playability of the class; it doesn't introduce undue difficulty to 3.5 to 3.P conversion, because it's simple on a case by case basis, and can be ignored on the DM's side for mooks in a converted adventure without any real impact on mooks in combat; and it won't unbalance the class by making it too powerful.


I disagree with the [seeming] assertion that the Fighter's only usefulness (as a character) should come in combat. Every character class in the game is supposed to be useful in combat, it's their approaches that differ. For his part, the Fighter is the frontal assault or "tank" to the mage's artillery, the Cleric and Bard's support, the Rogue's surprise attack, etc. If there was any base class in the game that was completely useless as part of a combat group, people would be throwing up red flags all over the place that something was amiss.

On the flip-side, there is everything that is not combat. Just as all classes should be useful in a fight (after their own fashion), I maintain that all classes should have some relevance supported by the rules in non-combat scenarios. As a DM, I'll allow the creativity and passion a player puts into their social-interactions to modify their skill checks, but I would never take the stance that their actual stats don't matter. For one, that would allow the more confident players to dominate the game regardless of stats just like if I cared only for stats then the min-maxers would rule.

The basis of [at least] my argument on the Fighter's behalf, is to seek some sort of a balance in this area. As it stands, even more class skills really won't help a Fighter without the skill points to use on them. From my perspective, the versatile Fighter is unable to fulfill the party role I would expect of them outside of combat. In otherwords, I see a Fighter as a canny knight or an aspiring general more than an autistic killing machine.

The Exchange

DeadDMWalking wrote:
Different games, different players. I disagree with your observations.

As is your right, of course.

DeadDMWalking wrote:

They are not true in our game (and have not been for the last several). We do use 4 skill points now, but we did not always. There were several times where the fighter character tried to contribute outside of combat before learning that it was not a good idea. The most eloquent and well-spoken player cannot play a fighter with a good diplomacy skill - and if he does, that would be all he does. The fighter then can't handle 'out of combat encounters' like a precipice that needs to be crossed. Since it seems the fighter character has a list of class skills that are impacted by Armor Check, there is often little point in putting ranks in 'classic skills' like Climb and Swim. The number of ranks may just offset the skill check penalty.

I like Fighter (and other classes) to have a role outside of combat, since the games I enjoy most have a lot of time that is spent that way. And not just 'discussing what to do next'. Trying to avoid a particular fight and solve the problem 'diplomatically' can be fun for everyone, but isn't if one person cannot contribute anything meaningfully.

It normally boils down to one person rolling the dice. I simply do not agree that not possessing a skill = unable to contribute in any way, shape or form. Otherwise, is the rogue unbalanced in having too many skills and taking the fun away from everyone else?

DeadDMWalking wrote:
I also like to approach it from the persepctive of what seems right? Forgetting about the 'rules' for a moment, let's look at a medieval knight. What could they do? Considering that they couldn't even read, normally?

Who says they are actually a knight (most of whom could probably read if they were aristocrats, even in the middle ages)? It could be a highly trained man at arms - a bodyguard, trained to a high level in arms and armour, but not to spot things or talk nicely. And is the European medieval model even appropriate?

DeadDMWalking wrote:
They would usually have the ability to ride well

- I though fighters have Ride. Did that change in the PF Beta? -

DeadDMWalking wrote:
,they would be able to hunt (Survival)

- well, "hunting" in this context involved tearing round on horseback after animals that had already been channelled towards them by flunkies, not creeping about the woods with a bow, so I don't see that as Survival at all -

DeadDMWalking wrote:
and use falcons and hunting dogs (Handle Animal).

- Has this been taken away too? -

DeadDMWalking wrote:
They would be involved in furthering their family interests, so you would expect they would have knowledge (nobility and royalty).

- maybe, if they were aristocrats, but there is already a class for that, albeit not a very good one. Even an ordinary soldier might recognise a heraldic crest, but would they have deep knowledge of power politics, family trees and ettiquette? -

DeadDMWalking wrote:
They are in charge of planning attacks against entrenched positions, so might have knowledge (engineering).

- medieval siege engineers were, to my knowledge, specialists, more likely to be experts. And the skill is Craft (Siege Engineer), albeit in a non-SRD source (Heroes of Battle), and therefore perfectly available -

DeadDMWalking wrote:
Those would be the 'archetypal skills' one would think. Fighters cannot even get those. It is likely that most fighters have the archetypal skills and a few that are not as common among their cohort - like heal, or perception, or stealth, depending on what else they like to do and how they hunt, etc. So more skill points are also a requirement for simulationism.

Well, based on highly cultirally specific assumptions and maybe some late rule changes (sorry, I don't have my Beta with me). Maybe they would have passing knowledge of this stuff, but the rules are pretty explicit that skill ranks represent specialism and extraordinary ability, not passing familiarity.

And simulationism isn't really the point I am making. The rules stand as they are, and exist largely (if imperfectly) to provide balance. I accept that the fighter is a bit weak (and God, how many people love to reiterate it endlessly) but I maintain it is unlikely we would be having this conversation if the feats were right, and so people would be less down on the fighter than they are

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Craft (siege engineer)

In the PH/SRD, (siege engineer) is actually listed as a Profession skill.

On looking at the PF Beta, however, I notice that the list of sample Professions has been deleted from the skill list. Odd.


Laithoron wrote:
In otherwords, I see a Fighter as a canny knight or an aspiring general more than an autistic killing machine.

Haha... Awesome. Just... awesome.

Aside from being hilariously put, though, I think that nicely sums up the idea behind expanded class skills and skill points for the fighter. Because the fighter covers such a broad range of archetypes - from knight to general to duelist to bodyguard and on and on - a player needs some skill options in order to communicate the particular character he/she wants. And although simulationism is indeed a separate concern from game balance, that doesn't mean it's not important, and I don't think the two would really interfere with each other in this case.

Now, with the way skills work in the Beta (no more paying 2 points per rank for non-class skills), I'm less concerned about the fighter's actual class skill list. A fighter can still put ranks in Knowledge (nobility), for instance, and if he has a reasonable Int he'll be pretty good at it without the class skill +3. Not as good as the bard or wizard could be, but that may be OK.

Nonetheless, I too would still like to see some expansion to their class skills. The suggestions I've seen so far seem pretty good (though I'm not sure about Perception), so nothing to add there.

Their number of skill points is the much bigger concern, I think. With the current 2 per level, a fighter with average Intelligence can max out two or three skills at a given level. This has him choosing a small number of essential skills, with no room to flesh out his background or personality via some secondary skill choices. And yeah, skills aren't the only or even the best way to flesh out those things, but they help. I really think crunch should feed fluff whenever possible, and expanding their skill options would be a relatively painless way to make that happen.

(Incidentally, I'm among those who think all classes should get at least 4 skill points per level, for pretty much the same reasons as the fighter.)


Autism is not and should not ever be considered a synonym for being a one-trick pony. It is neither awesome nor hilarious.

Anyway, the fighter as portrayed in D&D is your generic professional warrior, with fighting skills up to his eyebrows and a certain amount of animal and athletic ability. If you want to make him into an engineer, a diplomat, watchman or any other archetype, that's what multi-classing and cross-class ranks are for.

Liberty's Edge

Laithoron wrote:

DeadDMWalking wrote:

They would usually have the ability to ride well

- I though fighters have Ride. Did that change in the PF Beta? -

DeadDMWalking wrote:
,they would be able to hunt (Survival)

- well, "hunting" in this context involved tearing round on horseback after animals that had already been channelled towards them by flunkies, not creeping about the woods with a bow, so I don't see that as Survival at all -

DeadDMWalking wrote:
and use falcons and hunting dogs (Handle Animal).

- Has this been taken away too? -

No they haven't been taken away; what DeadDM was indicating was that such proposed changes would provide enough points (diversity) to facilitate being skilled in many of those areas.

Robert


Arakhor wrote:
Autism is not and should not ever be considered a synonym for being a one-trick pony. It is neither awesome nor hilarious.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary's definition, I'll stand by my claim. The severity of the symptoms is rather poignant to the actual matter of debate.

Arakhor wrote:
Anyway, the fighter as portrayed in D&D is your generic professional warrior, with fighting skills up to his eyebrows and a certain amount of animal and athletic ability. If you want to make him into an engineer, a diplomat, watchman or any other archetype, that's what multi-classing and cross-class ranks are for.

I'll agree to disagree. I think that if something is to be considered as a base class (let alone a core base class), then it needs to be reasonably relevant both in and out of combat for a full 20-level progression. Right now, I'm of the opinion that the Fighter is not reasonably relevant outside of combat.

EDIT: Robert, I think your quote of DDMW might have gotten corrupted. It looks like you've quoted me when nothing in that quote was written by me.


I'll raise you the online DSM-IV diagnosis, but I'll agree to disagree too.

Liberty's Edge

Laithoron wrote:


EDIT: Robert, I think your quote of DDMW might have gotten corrupted. It looks like you've quoted me when nothing in that quote was written by me.

Apparently so - I don't know how that happened - I actually clicked on reply to a post by Aubre the Malformed - where he was responding to DeadDM.

Regardless - my points are still valid - and the comments i was addressind did show up appropriately.

Sorry that it appears I was misquoting you. I usually agree with what you have to say. (from my memory and experiences on here so far...)

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Arakhor wrote:
I'll raise you the online DSM-IV diagnosis, but I'll agree to disagree too.

You're right - its not a funny topic - but your link and Loths were both provided the one undisputed aspect of that disorder in comparing the fighter class without the possiblity of skills spent in social skills - and that is the aspect of Autism that inhibits one's ability to be socially adept and interractive which was being related to. That aspect of a person is what is universally delayed or disabled - and that was what the intent of the comparison was - so in that regard it was an accurate comparison - perhaps not a colorful one - but accurate.

Robert

The Exchange

Arakhor wrote:
Anyway, the fighter as portrayed in D&D is your generic professional warrior, with fighting skills up to his eyebrows and a certain amount of animal and athletic ability. If you want to make him into an engineer, a diplomat, watchman or any other archetype, that's what multi-classing and cross-class ranks are for.

That's the way I see it. Plus, having checked back to the beta most of the stuff people are saying that the fighter cannot do, he actually can. I suspect there are a lot of people here who haven't really played a fighter much, or at all, and are armchair-opining. Which is your right, of course, but the lack of factual accuracy is a bit telling. Plus, in the beta, the fighter also gets Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Knowledge (Engineering), which covers off some of DeadDM's comments too. On the quantum of skill points, well, I'm not really convinced it is a problem but likewise, games differ between players and DMs.

The Exchange

Jason Nelson wrote:

In the PH/SRD, (siege engineer) is actually listed as a Profession skill.

On looking at the PF Beta, however, I notice that the list of sample Professions has been deleted from the skill list. Odd.

Yes, my mistake. It's deletion, I think, doesn't indicate anything much - I doubt the list is exhaustive.

Liberty's Edge

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Plus, in the beta, the fighter also gets Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Knowledge (Engineering), which covers off some of DeadDM's comments too. On the quantum of skill points, well, I'm not really convinced it is a problem but likewise, games differ between players and DMs.

As was pointed out above, I was saying that the fighter doesn't have enough skill points to have enough ranks to matter in most of those skills. A highly intelligent fighter who passes up the hit point bonus for favored class and is a human comes close. But the 'average fighter' should have a fairly broad range of skills.

And even if we look at other cultures besides the medieval knight, we come to the same conclusion. The 'fighters' in any historical period, the warriors with the most knowledge of warfare, have a lot of abilities that are used outside of combat. More skill points are more important than more class skills.

The Exchange

And he might well know about this stuff - just not enough to warrant skill ranks in it. He still has a 50% chance, on average, to make DC 10 skill checks. This will be sufficient for day-to-day challenges.


I understand the arguments in favor of more skill points, but I'd like to add this warning to those who push for more skill points to support the argument that Fighters need more crunch to support their fluff of concepts.

Firstly, fighters do span a very wide range of archetypes, and I don't think anyone who has ever played a fighter will ever disagree that fighters are and should be role played as consummate professionals as opposed to the thugs that fall into the purview of the Warrior NPC class. The Fighter represents, after all, the knights, the mercenaries, the sappers, the engineers, cavalrymen, all the highly trained and talented soldiers that are the exceptions of warfare, not the norm. Achilles is an excellent archetype for the classic fighter, as would be Sir Gawain of Arthurian tales. However skilled at arms these men were, doesn't mean that they would necessarily be outstanding in other fields not directly related to war.

And to be frank, in addressing the argument of Heal being a skill directly related to soldering, I can most assuredly say with experience that most soldiers are only rudimentary trained in basic field dressing, which I would judge akin to maybe 1-5 ranks of the Heal skill at the very most.

However I digress, I wanted to counter the argument that more crunch to support the fluff was *needed* to play a concept Fighter who had other skills besides those in the Class list. A Fighter has a vast number of feat slots, and can freely acquire skill-related feats such as Alertness, Deceitful, Magical Aptitude, Persuasive, Self-Sufficient (for all you would-be Healers out there), and of course Skill Focus. If he wishes to be highly skilled in his Class Skills and doesn't have enough skill points to max those skills out, there are feats such as Athletic, and Animal Affinity to help raise those numbers as well as the afore-mentioned Skill Focus. With a potential TWENTY-TWO feat slots in a career of levels 1-20, surely a Fighter can spare a handful of such feats to "Fill out concept"?

Furthermore, most of the above feats I've listed give greater bonuses for getting 10 or more ranks in the skill, usually bonuses between +4 to +6, or +5 to +10 if they have both a skill-related feat and a focus. Assuming a Fighter spends 10 actual skill points (one every other level), by the time he's done, he'll have a base value of +14 to +16 (or +20 with both a skill-related feat and a focus) in the desired skill. It's very possible to have even more with a good attribute or magical gear (usually relatively cheap, such as Eyes of the Eagle) that enhances his final skill modifier. A standard maxed skill will only have +23 base value at the highest levels, so we are only seeing a difference of 3-9 points, and this is comparing a human Fighter who spent 10 skill points out of a base thirty and two feats out of twenty-two. I think if the "concept" is important enough, then this is hardly a large sacrifice to endure to achieve scores that are not only "good" but in the benchmark of skill modifiers, outstandingly excellent.

Adding more skills points is not only not-needed but IMHO will not advance the desired result of more "Crunch To Fill Out The Fluff" either, as the typical player will simply look at the greater number of skill points he has at his disposal and simply spend those skill points into other mechanically advantageous skills that he might never have been able to consider before. A player who really wants to be good at a something can easily achieve that result by investing into the concept, and it works with the currently written rules. If a DM feels a player is genuine about helping a character fill out that concept, then the DM can reward the player with some "Concept-Only" bonus points, or just a flat circumstance bonus for that character when rolling the skill in question.

As mentioned prior, it's easy to add but not so easy to take away. Stuffing the genie back into the bottle after raising skill points for a niche possibility would be a mistake.

Scarab Sages

People didn't play Fighters for 20 levels in 3.5e. One of the reasons is the lack of skills. 2 levels of Rogue did wonders for that part of being a fighter.

Now, extra skills have been added to the fighter's skill list, excellent! This I like.But with 2+int SP no one is going to take them. I have problems with people taking knowledge skills with rogues! Which makes it hard for me a DM to design adventures using heavy knowledge skills.

Removing the x4 modifier ROBS the fighter of any chance at fleshing out a background. In 3.5 a 10int Fighter had 8 skill points...in PF he has 2. I don't care that the ranks even out because of the +3 for having a rank in those 2 skills. It makes for a dull, low level fighter. It's front-loading ability while taking away flexibility.

I do love the new system, except for first level.

Stop thinking of the fighter as a lowly foot-soldier. They are the elite, warriors are the lowly foot-soldier. Fighters deserve more skills. Skills are generally not used in combat, especially the ones the fighter has access to. Adding a few extra skills (4@ level 1 or 4+int) is NOT going to break the system, only make it better.

As far as using up skill focus and the other skill background feats, they don't normally get used, why make a fighter spend feats on them to make up for a lack of foresight by the WotC designers?


Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

People didn't play Fighters for 20 levels in 3.5e. One of the reasons is the lack of skills. 2 levels of Rogue did wonders for that part of being a fighter.

Now, extra skills have been added to the fighter's skill list, excellent! This I like.But with 2+int SP no one is going to take them. I have problems with people taking knowledge skills with rogues! Which makes it hard for me a DM to design adventures using heavy knowledge skills.

Removing the x4 modifier ROBS the fighter of any chance at fleshing out a background. In 3.5 a 10int Fighter had 8 skill points...in PF he has 2. I don't care that the ranks even out because of the +3 for having a rank in those 2 skills. It makes for a dull, low level fighter. It's front-loading ability while taking away flexibility.

I do love the new system, except for first level.

Stop thinking of the fighter as a lowly foot-soldier. They are the elite, warriors are the lowly foot-soldier. Fighters deserve more skills. Skills are generally not used in combat, especially the ones the fighter has access to. Adding a few extra skills (4@ level 1 or 4+int) is NOT going to break the system, only make it better.

As far as using up skill focus and the other skill background feats, they don't normally get used, why make a fighter spend feats on them to make up for a lack of foresight by the WotC designers?

Well, first off... in the group I am currently running in, I have a player who is running a pure class Fighter with the planned goal of 1-20, nothing but Fighter, and he is loving it. I've played alongside pure fighters as a player, and they've never complained about lack of skills.

I don't think I've ever been a proponent of the "fighter as lowly foot-soldier" attitude. If you read my post, I stated that they have always been portrayed in gamebooks and flavor as being elite fighting men and should be played that way. However, because the concepts of the class can span several flavors of professional soldier, the class as a whole needs to be easily tailored towards all sides of the spectrum, and not all concepts of Fighters will have a need or use for excessive skill points. Giving them the minimum needed for basic skill proficiency across the board and a surplus of feat slots to allow for the opportunity to spend feats that add to those skills is more than adequate.

As far as stating that those feats I mentioned "don't get used"; again I must disagree and offer rebuttal. I have run for and played with player characters that do take those feats. I submit that a fighter who really wants greater proficiency in concept skills should take those feats, instead of bringing everyone to the same "optimized" level.

The Exchange

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

People didn't play Fighters for 20 levels in 3.5e. One of the reasons is the lack of skills. 2 levels of Rogue did wonders for that part of being a fighter.

Now, extra skills have been added to the fighter's skill list, excellent! This I like.But with 2+int SP no one is going to take them. I have problems with people taking knowledge skills with rogues! Which makes it hard for me a DM to design adventures using heavy knowledge skills.

Removing the x4 modifier ROBS the fighter of any chance at fleshing out a background. In 3.5 a 10int Fighter had 8 skill points...in PF he has 2. I don't care that the ranks even out because of the +3 for having a rank in those 2 skills. It makes for a dull, low level fighter. It's front-loading ability while taking away flexibility.

I do love the new system, except for first level.

Stop thinking of the fighter as a lowly foot-soldier. They are the elite, warriors are the lowly foot-soldier. Fighters deserve more skills. Skills are generally not used in combat, especially the ones the fighter has access to. Adding a few extra skills (4@ level 1 or 4+int) is NOT going to break the system, only make it better.

As far as using up skill focus and the other skill background feats, they don't normally get used, why make a fighter spend feats on them to make up for a lack of foresight by the WotC designers?

Two levels of rogue to wonders to most characters, not only for skills but for getting sneak attack and evasion too. You could argue that many people ony take a few levels of rogue before nipping off to other classes, and call it a weakness of the rogue, but multiclassing is part of the game. People will also do it more often with martial characters because they suffer much less if they multiclass, as they don't suffer the lag in spell levels which a caster does. You could call that a fault of the spell system, as it makes multiclassing a poor option. You can say all sorts of things, in fact. It is a question of perspective.

The general in charge of thousands of troops may be a high level fighter. Or he might also have ranks in aristocrat (which has a good selection of skills) or expert, or even bard (Perform: Oratory). Or he may have Leadership and be delegating skill rolls to various experts. And he may have have a high INT, since he is a senior guy and hopefully there by merit. All quite compatible with 2 skill ranks.

In fact, I would suggest that the fighter class concentrates on personal combat, not the leading of men - that's tha paladin, maybe, or a multiclasses character. I think it is misleading to say that all fighters need to be "more" than fighters. A gladiator would be a fighter - what use would Knowledge (Engineering) be there? If he has a high INT for Combat Expertise and ends up with loads of skill points to allocate, many of which a pit fighter/gladiator type might not really be expected to have, that may clash with the concept. If you want skills, multiclass with bard or rogue or ranger - it's not an admission of defeat, just a character design choice.

Scarab Sages

So both of you think the +3 modifier is an adequate replacement for the loss of the x4 modifier?

I'm not actually asking for 4+int anymore, I'm only putting out the 4 skill points at first level in lieu of the x4 modifier. This would be an adequate replacement to me of the x4 modifier. Therefore the fighter would start with 6 skill points at level 1 with his lowly int of 10, Or 5 skill points if he was a failed rocket scientist with an 8 int. Even 2 bonus skill points would work.

The person playing the level 20 fighter, is that in PF or in 3.5?

And I know you were saying they are elite fighters, Aubrey has been arguing that they are just fighters.

I've been DMing 3.0 since it came out, and no one has ever taken a fighter to level 20, most had rogue 1 then levels of fighter...why? for the skill points, and the 1d6 sneak attack.

If this rule doesn't make it into Pathfinder, fine, I'll house-rule it.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
And he might well know about this stuff - just not enough to warrant skill ranks in it. He still has a 50% chance, on average, to make DC 10 skill checks. This will be sufficient for day-to-day challenges.

Could you list a few of those DC 10 skill checks?

What are you seeing as day to day challenges?

I am seeing:
Craft 5 or 10 for simple items like a spoon or pot,
DC 12 for a bow, and up from there. No chance of MW item
Diplomacy is 15 for indifferent and climbs from there
Disable device, simple lock is DC 20
Escape Artist is Binder's CMB+10, next lowest is DC 20
Handle Animal DC 10 to handle, DC to teach, DC 25 to Push
Heal DC 15 is the lowest
Sense Motive DC 15 is the lowest
Tumble is 15+BAB
Use Magic Device DC 20 is the lowest.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Asturysk wrote:
Furthermore, most of the above feats I've listed give greater bonuses for getting 10 or more ranks in the skill, usually bonuses between +4 to +6, or +5 to +10 if they have both a skill-related feat and a focus. Assuming a Fighter spends 10 actual skill points (one every other level), by the time he's done, he'll have a base value of +14 to +16 (or +20 with both a skill-related feat and a focus) in the desired skill. It's very possible to have even more with a good attribute or magical gear (usually relatively cheap, such as Eyes of the Eagle) that enhances his final skill modifier. A standard maxed skill will only have +23 base value at the highest levels, so we are only seeing a difference of 3-9 points, and this is comparing a human Fighter who spent 10 skill points out of a base thirty and two feats out of twenty-two. I think if the "concept" is important enough, then this is hardly a large sacrifice to endure to achieve scores that are not only "good" but in the benchmark of skill modifiers, outstandingly excellent.

Hmmm, I do believe that you need to look at your numbers again. You are comparing a fighter who has put not only ranks into a skill, but feats as well, to get your +14/+16/+20 number, but are not doing so for your +23 comparison of max skill.

If you had in the bonus from the feat, your are now talking about +27/+29/+33. So a difference of not +3 to +9, but +13.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Plus, having checked back to the beta most of the stuff people are saying that the fighter cannot do, he actually can. I suspect there are a lot of people here who haven't really played a fighter much, or at all, and are armchair-opining. Which is your right, of course, but the lack of factual accuracy is a bit telling. Plus, in the beta, the fighter also gets Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Knowledge (Engineering), which covers off some of DeadDM's comments too. On the quantum of skill points, well, I'm not really convinced it is a problem but likewise, games differ between players and DMs.

I have played many fighters, both as a player and a DM. I do not believe that a fighter is automatically outclassed by spellcasters.

However, I do believe that all classes should have a minimum of 4 skill ranks per level. It allows more diversity between characters.

A pirate/swashbuckler would need more than just 2 skill points

A dandy/intrigue in Absolom would need more, diplomacy, sense motive, knowledge royalty, tumble, stealth

An elite soldier (thinking commando here) should be in reach of characters (after all, they are are the heros). Those usually need a whole boat load of skills.

Why should a player that wants to play one of the above (or countless other options), be "forced" to take a rogue to do so (either full time, or for a few ranks)? One of the goals of Pathfinder is to encourage players to play core classes from 1 to 20....


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Personally, I would like to see Stealth and Perception to the fighter's class skills.

However, I would gladly not have that, if we could have 4 skill ranks per level. With the changes to skills that Pathfinder has introduced, there is much less of an issue if the skill you want is not a class skill.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

As for backward compatibility:

I do not think it is a problem, for the following reasons:

1) A DM will not need to redo any NPCs (or monster), as usually only the relevant skills are listed in the stat block.

2) Most NPCs are made to be killed, so a few extra skill ranks in craft, profession, knowledge, etc... will not make much of a difference.

3) Please note that if a DM finds that the skills are important, they are going to be redoing them anyways, to address the changes brought on by the skill consolidations. So a couple extra skill points for each level is a very minor issue.

Liberty's Edge

For those that argue that increasing the number of skill points for the fighter would not work well, I suggest trying it.

I know a lot of people have given the reasons why they support 4+. I know I have. I know I care very deeply. For me personally, this was of such importance that I do not plan to adapt to Pathfinder at the current time. The main reason is that I have tried it. It was far more beneficial than I expected. It makes the game better for everyone.

I cannot stand the thought of a new game system that does not correct this travesty. I am convinced that if anyone gives it a genuine shot, they will love it as a DM and their fighter players will love it as well. They will not be 'better than the other classes'. The rogue, ranger, and wizard will all have more useful skills more often - but the fighter won't feel like they're completely useless all the time.

It is hard to argue against play experience with opinion only.


I was in my local gaming store today looking through the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book, and I could have swore that I saw the fighter in there having 4 skill points per level. Could someone please verify that I wasn't seeing things? Contemplating buying the book perhaps, but I just can't tear myself away from the original Greyhawk setting.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I will be allowing fighters in my campaign 4 skill points per level regardless of what the final decision is. I've been playing it that way for over a year now and my players have enjoyed it that way. It has definitely enhanced the class without stepping on any other class' toes or making the fighter class overpowered.

Liberty's Edge

anthony Valente wrote:
I was in my local gaming store today looking through the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book, and I could have swore that I saw the fighter in there having 4 skill points per level. Could someone please verify that I wasn't seeing things?

It's a 3.5 book, but yes, the PCCS includes a fighter variant that exchanges their first level feat for 4 skill points per level for the entirety of the class.

It's at best an iffy swap, frankly, but if you plan to stick with fighter for more than three levels, it might be worth it.


Shisumo wrote:

It's a 3.5 book, but yes, the PCCS includes a fighter variant that exchanges their first level feat for 4 skill points per level for the entirety of the class.

It's at best an iffy swap, frankly, but if you plan to stick with fighter for more than three levels, it might be worth it.

Ahh. Thank you. It is a tempting book to get BTW.


Mistwalker wrote:
Asturysk wrote:
Furthermore, most of the above feats I've listed give greater bonuses for getting 10 or more ranks in the skill, usually bonuses between +4 to +6, or +5 to +10 if they have both a skill-related feat and a focus. Assuming a Fighter spends 10 actual skill points (one every other level), by the time he's done, he'll have a base value of +14 to +16 (or +20 with both a skill-related feat and a focus) in the desired skill. It's very possible to have even more with a good attribute or magical gear (usually relatively cheap, such as Eyes of the Eagle) that enhances his final skill modifier. A standard maxed skill will only have +23 base value at the highest levels, so we are only seeing a difference of 3-9 points, and this is comparing a human Fighter who spent 10 skill points out of a base thirty and two feats out of twenty-two. I think if the "concept" is important enough, then this is hardly a large sacrifice to endure to achieve scores that are not only "good" but in the benchmark of skill modifiers, outstandingly excellent.

Hmmm, I do believe that you need to look at your numbers again. You are comparing a fighter who has put not only ranks into a skill, but feats as well, to get your +14/+16/+20 number, but are not doing so for your +23 comparison of max skill.

If you had in the bonus from the feat, your are now talking about +27/+29/+33. So a difference of not +3 to +9, but +13.

There is nothing wrong with my numbers. I was pointing out how a Fighter had the feats to spare to achieve this result, whereas another class with more skill points but only the standard 11 feats would be likely to not utilize those feats to raise their skill ranks. The original complaint about Fighters was in comparison with baseline ranks of other classes. In any case the final skill modifier results I quoted are still well into the range of what I'd call highly skilled or a master in regards to benchmarks. And remember my example assumes that Fighter will only put 10 actual skill points into a skill, rather than the maximum +23. My point still stands, it's a fallacy to claim that a fighter cannot possibly spread his existing 2/level skill points and achieve qualified skill ranks.


DeadDMWalking wrote:

For those that argue that increasing the number of skill points for the fighter would not work well, I suggest trying it.

I know a lot of people have given the reasons why they support 4+. I know I have. I know I care very deeply. For me personally, this was of such importance that I do not plan to adapt to Pathfinder at the current time. The main reason is that I have tried it. It was far more beneficial than I expected. It makes the game better for everyone.

I cannot stand the thought of a new game system that does not correct this travesty. I am convinced that if anyone gives it a genuine shot, they will love it as a DM and their fighter players will love it as well. They will not be 'better than the other classes'. The rogue, ranger, and wizard will all have more useful skills more often - but the fighter won't feel like they're completely useless all the time.

It is hard to argue against play experience with opinion only.

I am not making the argument that it would not be beneficial to player characters, I am certain that it would make many players happy. It would however force DM's who disagreed with this to "argue down" against the printed rules if this was adopted. In reality I say there is no problem with 2/level. It's easy to raise the bar as a home rule, but nigh-impossible to lower it. Bottom line, as a GM you will almost never run into any players arguing with you if you choose to raise the skill points per level to 4. However you will almost certainly run into argumentative players if you tried to lower a printed 4/level back down to 2/level.

This discussion period and playtest isn't just about the players and giving them "More, more, more!" It's about setting a benchmark that GM's can also easily implement with as little conversion, arguments, and difficulties as possible.

The Exchange

Mistwalker wrote:

What are you seeing as day to day challenges?

I am seeing:
Craft 5 or 10 for simple items like a spoon or pot,
DC 12 for a bow, and up from there. No chance of MW item
Diplomacy is 15 for indifferent and climbs from there
Disable device, simple lock is DC 20
Escape Artist is Binder's CMB+10, next lowest is DC 20
Handle Animal DC 10 to handle, DC to teach, DC 25 to Push
Heal DC 15 is the lowest
Sense Motive DC 15 is the lowest
Tumble is 15+BAB
Use Magic Device DC 20 is the lowest.

Few of those are day to day challenges, which is my point. How good are you at escaping from being tied up? How good are you at lock picking? That is the benchmark I was talking about - sufficiently mundane to be generally not worth rolling for, mundane knowledge you have a vague awareness of. A fighter might know about fighter-y stuff described above - he just might not be much good at it.

The whole argument to me seems to be about character optimisation. People do not want to have to chose between being a fighter and having lots of skills. The way I see it, it goes with the territory. No one much is suggesting that it will have much mechanical impact on the fighter, so it is more a desire to pick and mix. If you really want a skillful fighter, get a high INT - of course, he might not be so good at fighting then, but that is your choice.

The Exchange

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

So both of you think the +3 modifier is an adequate replacement for the loss of the x4 modifier?

I'm not actually asking for 4+int anymore, I'm only putting out the 4 skill points at first level in lieu of the x4 modifier. This would be an adequate replacement to me of the x4 modifier. Therefore the fighter would start with 6 skill points at level 1 with his lowly int of 10, Or 5 skill points if he was a failed rocket scientist with an 8 int. Even 2 bonus skill points would work.

The person playing the level 20 fighter, is that in PF or in 3.5?

And I know you were saying they are elite fighters, Aubrey has been arguing that they are just fighters.

I've been DMing 3.0 since it came out, and no one has ever taken a fighter to level 20, most had rogue 1 then levels of fighter...why? for the skill points, and the 1d6 sneak attack.

If this rule doesn't make it into Pathfinder, fine, I'll house-rule it.

Cool on the house-ruling thing - I think this is something which falls more properly into that realm, since I don't think four skill points of two makes a huge difference to a fighter. On the "just" a fighter thing, I understand that the fighter should be, and is, better than the warrior - i.e. that he is an elite combatant. My issue with the 2 v 4 thing is that it seems to me that people are not happy "just" being a fighter, but also want stealth, perception and witty repartie. Now that is fair enough, but the rules already accommodate that through multiclassing.

The Exchange

Mistwalker wrote:

However, I do believe that all classes should have a minimum of 4 skill ranks per level. It allows more diversity between characters.

A pirate/swashbuckler would need more than just 2 skill points

Fighter/rogue

Mistwalker wrote:
A dandy/intrigue in Absolom would need more, diplomacy, sense motive, knowledge royalty, tumble, stealth

Fighter/rogue or fighter/bard

Mistwalker wrote:
An elite soldier (thinking commando here) should be in reach of characters (after all, they are are the heros). Those usually need a whole boat load of skills.

Ranger or fighter/rogue

Mistwalker wrote:
Why should a player that wants to play one of the above (or countless other options), be "forced" to take a rogue to do so (either full time, or for a few ranks)? One of the goals of Pathfinder is to encourage players to play core classes from 1 to 20....

It is a class-based system, which inevitably falls into archetypes. What, exactly, is so bad about multiclassing? People seem to think it is an admission of defeat. To some extent I blame WotC and then new core classes, many of which don't cover much ground that a multiclassed character could not, with a few exceptions (like the warlock). One of the great strengths of the game is the absolute flexibility that multiclassing provides. Why is it suddenly a problem that, if you want a slightly unusual concept that isn't covered precisely by the classes, you need to start tailoring the classes rather than accepting that some elements are covered by one class, another by a second, and then combining things though multiclassing? Multiclassing works much better for martial characters than it does for spellcasters, certainly.

Liberty's Edge

Asturysk wrote:
I am not making the argument that it would not be beneficial to player characters, I am certain that it would make many players happy... It's about setting a benchmark that GM's can also easily implement with as little conversion, arguments, and difficulties as possible.

If it makes the players happy, and it does not significantly increase the power level in the game, why should a DM not choose the 4 per level? Why should that not be the benchmark?

If 4 is superior and everyone enjoys the game more, why would a DM argue it down to 2 if the rules say 4?

@Aubrey -
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that a Fighter should be a viable character from 1st to 20th level. I think it can and should be used as a 'multi-class' class as well, since sometimes a concept is better suited to a combination of two or more different base classes. But the fighter as written lacks the flexibility to cover several broad 'fighter archetypes' due to a severe lack of skills. Pretty much any 'multi-classing' starts causing problems. First of all, a Fighter concept pretty much needs a good BAB. Multi-classing into a 3/4 BAB class pretty much means you're not a fighter compared to a 'straight fighter'. All the full BAB classes that have more skills (Barbarian, Ranger) come with a lot of 'extra junk' that doesn't fit the concept. Having a base class that has the flexibility to cover the broad archetypes that fit into the category 'fighter' is important to me.

Since in playtest it was found to be surprisingly good, I don't understand your opposition. I understand you think it is unnecessary, and I understand that you think that multi-classing should be used to make fighters viable, but I still don't understand why you wouldn't want someone to be a fighter for 20 levels and be able to do something outside of combat. But I guess I don't have to understand it to continue to disagree with it.


Another thing is the rogue dip many DM thinks is a big problem is not common at all if no class has under 4 skills. Dipping into another class should be for many reasons none of which are skills.

Now many here have said the new +3 skill rule fixes that well it does and it does not. Not having to pay 2 points for a cross skill is great but having 2 skills and it just doesn't help you to much.

The main issue I have is that well the skills where given so randomly .
I can see a rouge and bard having 8 and 6. Maybe even a ranger having 6.
However the druid and barbarian no more need the 4 then say the fighter and cleric. Yet they have enuff skills to make a concept work.

If I have to dip into rogue just to gain enough skills to make a basic archtype work them something is wrong.Moving the min skills to 4 does not hurt any one who now has 4/6/8 skills and only makes the 2 skills a level useful And workable without dipping into a class they don't want to play.

Sovereign Court

I will quote myself from above since people are assigning interesting motives of power gaming to the PCs to those of us arguing for 4 skill points / level:

Jess Door wrote:

Skills dictate out of combat (as well as some in combat) skills. Therefore, the limited nature of class skills available to the fighter, and very few skill points available for distribution, along with the changes in skills which upgraded the utility of skill points for every class except fighter, puts him even farther behind the curve.

Here's the essence of the issue:

Every class has some combat utility, even the wizard through transmutation spells. But the fighter's main concentration is not only diluted among all his fellow adventurers, he has no allowances for mediocre performance in out of combat utility - and in fact, people are proposing that he use his class abilities - feats for combat - in order to gain mediocre out of combat utility! Is anyone suggesting that a cleric that wades into battle give up turning...or spellcasting? Is anyone suggesting that a rogue give up skill points in order to gain sneak attack damage?

Fighters lost skills with the loss of jump as a class skill, have a class that encourages low intelligence scores, and receive very low skill points too. I am willing to leave the class skill list as is (I might personally prefer some tweaking, but the skill changes have made cross classing much less painful, so that's not too bad), but the low number of skill points combined with the existence of skill rules in the first place prevents fighters from having any out of combat utility.

As I said above, this isn't a backwards compatibility issue - individual pcs are easy, given the wonderful work already done to improve the skill system, to update. Just choose two skills and max. Simple. Leagues of fighters in an adventure offer two easy conversion options for DMs - max out two extra skills in the group - or ignore the extra skill points, assuming they're in something for outside of combat, like Diplomacy or Craft(baskets).

Besides, anyone that enjoys fighter enough to play him despite the repeated kicks in the teeth he gets from D&D rules mechanics can hardly be called a powergamer!


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Fighter/rogue

Fighter/rogue or fighter/bard
Ranger or fighter/rogue

It is a class-based system, which inevitably falls into archetypes. What, exactly, is so bad about multiclassing? People seem to think it is an admission of defeat. To some extent I blame WotC and then new core classes, many of which don't cover much ground that a multiclassed character could not, with a few exceptions (like the warlock). One of the great strengths of the game is the absolute flexibility that multiclassing provides. Why is it suddenly a problem that, if you want a slightly unusual concept that isn't covered precisely by the classes, you need to start tailoring the classes rather than accepting that some elements are covered by one class, another by a second, and then combining things though multiclassing? Multiclassing works much better for martial characters than it does for spellcasters, certainly.

I am not saying that multiclassing is bad.

I am saying that it shouldn't be necessary for someone who wants to play a fighter thru to 20th level to have to multiclass to be able to do much of anything out of combat.

I am under the impression that one of the goals of Pathfinder is to make it attractive for players to play a core class all the way, without feeling the need to multiclass or to take a prestige class. So, in that case, I do not see the problem with increasing skills to 4 points per level.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
since I don't think four skill points of two makes a huge difference to a fighter.

Then why the determined opposition to the idea?


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Few of those are day to day challenges, which is my point. How good are you at escaping from being tied up? How good are you at lock picking? That is the benchmark I was talking about - sufficiently mundane to be generally not worth rolling for, mundane knowledge you have a vague awareness of. A fighter might know about fighter-y stuff described above - he just might not be much good at it.

To pick a lock, the simplest one to pick is a DC 20. No where near your day to day challenges of DC 10.

Escaping from being tied up is the Binder's CMB+10, next lowest is DC 20.
Again, much higher than your DC 10.

From where I am sitting, it looks like the fighter can't do much out of combat if they do not have the needed skills.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Asturysk wrote:


I am not making the argument that it would not be beneficial to player characters, I am certain that it would make many players happy. It would however force DM's who disagreed with this to "argue down" against the printed rules if this was adopted. In reality I say there is no problem with 2/level. It's easy to raise the bar as a home rule, but nigh-impossible to lower it. Bottom line, as a GM you will almost never run into any players arguing with you if you choose to raise the skill points per level to 4. However you will almost certainly run into argumentative players if you tried to lower a printed 4/level back down to 2/level.

This discussion period and playtest isn't just about the players and giving them "More, more, more!" It's about setting a benchmark that GM's can also easily implement with as little conversion, arguments, and difficulties as possible.

Out of curiosity, why would you want to lower the bar to 2, if the core rule was 4?

This isn't about giving the players more, more, more. It is about what several of us see as an imbalance, and wishing to correct it.

The change from 2 to 4 skill ranks per level will have a very small effect on combat, if any at all (most skills for fighters are not used in combat), which is where the fighter is supposed to excel. It will have an effect out of combat, where a lot of fighters have little to do.

The Exchange

DeadDMWalking wrote:

@Aubrey -

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that a Fighter should be a viable character from 1st to 20th level. I think it can and should be used as a 'multi-class' class as well, since sometimes a concept is better suited to a combination of two or more different base classes. But the fighter as written lacks the flexibility to cover several broad 'fighter archetypes' due to a severe lack of skills. Pretty much any 'multi-classing' starts causing problems. First of all, a Fighter concept pretty much needs a good BAB. Multi-classing into a 3/4 BAB class pretty much means you're not a fighter compared to a 'straight fighter'. All the full BAB classes that have more skills (Barbarian, Ranger) come with a lot of 'extra junk' that doesn't fit the concept. Having a base class that has the flexibility to cover the broad archetypes that fit into the category 'fighter' is important to me.

Since in playtest it was found to be surprisingly good, I don't understand your opposition. I understand you think it is unnecessary, and I understand that you think that multi-classing should be used to make fighters viable, but I still don't understand why you wouldn't want someone to be a fighter for 20 levels and be able to do something outside of combat. But I guess I don't have to understand it to continue to disagree with it.

Sure - and thanks for the discussion. I'm not really trying to convert anyone (I don't think I'm succeeding anyway) but simply debating the point. I guess I have yet to be converted myself. And I'm not certainly dissing your experience as a player and DM - it's just than mine suggests that the problem, if there is one, is not great enough to warrant a change.

The Exchange

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Another thing is the rogue dip many DM thinks is a big problem is not common at all if no class has under 4 skills. Dipping into another class should be for many reasons none of which are skills. they have enuff skills to make a concept work.

If I have to dip into rogue just to gain enough skills to make a basic archtype work them something is wrong.Moving the min skills to 4 does not hurt any one who now has 4/6/8 skills and only makes the 2 skills a level useful And workable without dipping into a class they don't want to play.

I agree with your first point. As I hope I pointed out above, I see some archetypes as being multiclass concepts, rather than specific classes.

The Exchange

Mistwalker wrote:

To pick a lock, the simplest one to pick is a DC 20. No where near your day to day challenges of DC 10.

Escaping from being tied up is the Binder's CMB+10, next lowest is DC 20.
Again, much higher than your DC 10.

From where I am sitting, it looks like the fighter can't do much out of combat if they do not have the needed skills.

Why would a fighter expect to receive training as an escapologist of a lock picker. I hear what you are saying, but these are not things a typical warrior trained to fight a straightforward enemy would face. Lock picking and escapology are mainly the realm of the rogue.

The point I was making is tha day-to-day does not happen in a dungeon or adventure setting. We are saying that a fighter should be able to ride and hune - he can! But he will never be as good at it as a ranger (well, maybe the riding, but not the hunting). He can ride around with his chums on a day out, hawking and so on, and probably hold his own. If his life depended on it? Less so. Hence my comment on DC 10. No, it isn't challenging. But then most people don't have do-or-die situations on a day-to-day basis, and so are able to function. A rank in a skill represents special training and expertise. I really would not expect a fighter to have any real expertise in the skills you mentioned a few posts above. It is not his realm of competence (and, more pertinently, it is someone else's). He does have expertise in skills connected with fighting and soldiering.

The Exchange

Mistwalker wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
since I don't think four skill points of two makes a huge difference to a fighter.
Then why the determined opposition to the idea?

It's not determined opposition. It's just that no one has really presented an argument I find compelling to make me change my mind. And I still think the issue with fighters is the availability of decent feats, not how many skill points they get.


I don't see any fighter archetype that requires skills requiring multiclassing as being a good thing. Now I realize that might sound rather strawmanny, but my point is that the Fighter class should not require multiclassing to make it worthwhile.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
And I still think the issue with fighters is the availability of decent feats, not how many skill points they get.

Well, that and the fact that one (1) of your zillions of feats gives you a better class skill selection and 4 skill points/level forever, if we're using Pathfinder campaign setting rules. And if the 1st level bonus feat is too important to pass up on, let your players trade their Tower Shield Proficiency for it instead. Or give it as a bonus feat.

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger / Fighter - Skill selection All Messageboards