The fighter is a generic fighting class and always has been. Attempting to make the fighter what it isn't, is in my opinion, redundant.
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.
I actually have tried giving more skill points to characters to encourage conceptual and non-combat skill proliferation. I want my players to always to feel that fluff is as valuable as crunch. However this has never resulted in the desired effect. What *does* occur is those extra skill points end up going to Tumbling, Spot/Notice, and other directly combat related skills that are the purview of other classes.
In my 25 years of experience as a DM, I have found that if a player really wants something conceptual for their character, if they really desire to have their fluff supported by crunch, that they will find a way to do so, even if limited by a conservative rules-set.
In this case, it's not even that difficult or constrictive for a fighter to do so while playing with a 2/level skill progression. Spending 10 skill points and 1-2 feats allows a Fighter still maintain parity in their combat role, while allowing individual tailored traits to shine.
What I take exception to is the attitude of entitlement that says the bar must be raised to 4/level and I am the one who must argue with my players if the bar is raised, must police and restrict them into not stealing other classes's thunder, rather than a dissenting GM simplying house-ruling the skill increase without a likely argument in his or her own group.
|
The fighter is a generic fighting class and always has been. Attempting to make the fighter what it isn't, is in my opinion, redundant.
I don't think redudndant means what you think it means. A redundant feature is one that does something that another feature already does. For example, giving a class a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and giving that same class a +6 enhancement bonus to strength renders the +4 'redundant'. It doesn't do anything, unless the +6 is 'eliminated' for some reason.
The fighter should be a generic fighting class. And any generic fighter has a little time that they use to develop and hone the skills they think are important (whether outside of combat or inside combat). To argue that a fighter spends every available moment on 'combat training' is beyond ridiculous. The rogue gains combat ability even though he has a large number of skills. Why isn't he spending all his time learning about how to maximize that damage (sneak attack)? Why does the ranger get 6 skill points when he has the same HD as the fighter and the same BAB?
|
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.
It is rather straw-manny. I don't think that all archetypes are covered by the RAW as it stands. For example, the Elric-type warrior isn't, though arguably he is a fighter/wizard or fighter/sorcerer. When I first heard about the 3e multiclassing rules (a while back) my immediate thought was how it would make certain archetypes (specifically Elric, as it happens) that were not very easily possible in 2e much easier in 3e. Multiclassing can be quite a good way of getting at an archetype. And again, what is actually wrong with multiclassing?
And a second point on multiclassing with a fighter. The fighter is incredibly easy to mulitclass with, simply because what you get with him at most levels is the same - +1 BAB and (maybe) a feat - instead of level-based class abilities. The modular nature of the class means it is very handy to dip in and out of. And from a real-world perspective, I see little wrong with that. If you pick up a sword and practice with it, or get some training, it isn't unreasonable to assume you could maybe consider taking some of a level of fighter.
The thing is I don't think any archetype that doesn't require skills is a worthwhile PC archetype. And sense the Fighter doesn't have enough class skills or skill points I don't believe it is a worthwhile class either. That's my opinion of course.
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.
I think it would be warranted for the "Educated Fighter" 1st level-only Feat to be included in the Core Rulebook, even though it is in the Campaign Setting (3.5 rules). It really does open up alot of options for players who want a more skillful Fighter, while penalizing them at 1st level, where their bonus Feat is their biggest advantage.
|
|
Hi there All,
As for fighters and their skill points. I think that their list of class skills is certainly up to debate, but the number of points they receive is probably pretty set.
ThoughtsJason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think it is time to put 4+ Int skills in as a minimum in the next Beta update, and give it some playtest time. If it's good, it should be apparent after the whole tribe gives it a try. And if it's not, it should be apparent after everyone gives it an honest try.
Snarky
This would also have the side benefit of allowing me to believe that the final product still has a chance of being 'better' than 3.5 considering the number of changes that I dislike.
Am I the only one who thinks that it's inane for one of the arguments to keep a PC class at 2 skill points is based around the assertion that's enough for them to accomplish mundane tasks? Funny, but I thought we were discussing the Fighter as part of an adventuring party that does non-mundane things such as combating dragons, saving kingdoms, and journeying to other planes of existence.
I was approaching the need for greater skill points from the notion that a PC class should remain relevant for level-appropriate challenges... not jobs for level 1 NPCs.
While those of us who feel that 2+Int is insufficient for PC classes can certainly houserule this in our own games, that doesn't do much good to anyone playing in the Pathfinder Society, or any other sort of organized RAW-only play.
Of course, that doesn't even touch upon the distaste I have for hearing the "just house-rule it" mantra during a playtest designed to correct widely-regarded shortcomings of our roleplaying operating system.
/rant
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The fighter is a generic fighting class and always has been. Attempting to make the fighter what it isn't, is in my opinion, redundant.I don't think redudndant means what you think it means. A redundant feature is one that does something that another feature already does. For example, giving a class a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and giving that same class a +6 enhancement bonus to strength renders the +4 'redundant'. It doesn't do anything, unless the +6 is 'eliminated' for some reason.
The fighter should be a generic fighting class. And any generic fighter has a little time that they use to develop and hone the skills they think are important (whether outside of combat or inside combat). To argue that a fighter spends every available moment on 'combat training' is beyond ridiculous. The rogue gains combat ability even though he has a large number of skills. Why isn't he spending all his time learning about how to maximize that damage (sneak attack)? Why does the ranger get 6 skill points when he has the same HD as the fighter and the same BAB?
Actually, this is a good point.
I would actually suggest bumping the fighter (and keeping the barbarian) to d12 hit dice. They are the two purely martial non-casters.
The two 'specialist' non-casters (monk/rogue) both get d8.
Sorcerers, wizards, bards, and rangers all got hit point increases to go with Paizo's concept of "hit die congruent to BAB" but I can certainly see Ftr/Brb being distinct from Pal/Rgr, just with spellcasting alone.
If Pathfinder were to include a new base PC class that was an arcane fighter/partial caster type (I guess along the lines of the hexblade, but less full of suck) along the Rgr/Pal model, I would say stick them at d10 also.
Ftr and Brb are pure combat. Give em both a d12!
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks that it's inane for one of the arguments to keep a PC class at 2 skill points is based around the assertion that's enough for them to accomplish mundane tasks? Funny, but I thought we were discussing the Fighter as part of an adventuring party that does non-mundane things such as combating dragons, saving kingdoms, and journeying to other planes of existence.
I was approaching the need for greater skill points from the notion that a PC class should remain relevant for level-appropriate challenges... not jobs for level 1 NPCs.
I think the point was that they were described as being unable to hunt, ride, know stuff, etc. I suggested they might well have such abilities, but not to world class standard. They are world class fighters - the best at it (or should be). Not world class debaters, bluffers, spotters, and so on. Other classes have that.
While those of us who feel that 2+Int is insufficient for PC classes can certainly houserule this in our own games, that doesn't do much good to anyone playing in the Pathfinder Society, or any other sort of organized RAW-only play.
Of course, that doesn't even touch upon the distaste I have for hearing the "just house-rule it" mantra during a playtest designed to correct widely-regarded shortcomings of our roleplaying operating system.
/rant
I can't comment on the organised play thing, since I haven't done it. Is it the case that people shy away from fighter because of skills? As for the house-rule thing - I think you over-state how widely this view is held. Given the relatively narrow range of participants in this debate, I suspect most people don't really care either way, though I may be wrong in that. Certainly, where I have discussed it with others it isn't seen as a big problem.
|
|
The fighter is a generic fighting class and always has been. Attempting to make the fighter what it isn't, is in my opinion, redundant.I don't think redudndant means what you think it means. A redundant feature is one that does something that another feature already does. For example, giving a class a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and giving that same class a +6 enhancement bonus to strength renders the +4 'redundant'. It doesn't do anything, unless the +6 is 'eliminated' for some reason.
The fighter should be a generic fighting class. And any generic fighter has a little time that they use to develop and hone the skills they think are important (whether outside of combat or inside combat). To argue that a fighter spends every available moment on 'combat training' is beyond ridiculous. The rogue gains combat ability even though he has a large number of skills. Why isn't he spending all his time learning about how to maximize that damage (sneak attack)? Why does the ranger get 6 skill points when he has the same HD as the fighter and the same BAB?
Actually, this is a good point.
I would actually suggest bumping the fighter (and keeping the barbarian) to d12 hit dice. They are the two purely martial non-casters.
The two 'specialist' non-casters (monk/rogue) both get d8.
Sorcerers, wizards, bards, and rangers all got hit point increases to go with Paizo's concept of "hit die congruent to BAB" but I can certainly see Ftr/Brb being distinct from Pal/Rgr, just with spellcasting alone.
If Pathfinder were to include a new base PC class that was an arcane fighter/partial caster type (I guess along the lines of the hexblade, but less full of suck) along the Rgr/Pal model, I would say stick them at d10 also.
Ftr and Brb are pure combat. Give em both a d12!
I like this idea too.
I'm certainly not opposed to fighters having d12s for HD and I'm not opposed to them having either 2 or 4 skill points. I just believe that the fighter is a generic class and always has been. Remember 2nd Edition? Fighters got weapon specialisation and rangers and paladins got special powers - even by the somewhat inflexible standards of 2nd Edition, the fighter was boring.
I don't think that fighters need anything else and I am opposed to altering the rules to provide wish-fulfilment where it isn't necessary.
The pathfinder fighter is great all it needs is 4 skill points per level and it works for many concepts. But 2 skills have always kinda crippled him and shoehorned the fighter into a very narrow spot.And the new system cripples them far more then 3.5 did and skill focues does not help unless it gives them more skills..did they change that?
The fighter as an archetype should cover a large area from war collage trained to farmer who learned to use his paw's sword. From the well informed knight to the dashing swashbuckler.From the archer to the heavy armored infantrymen.
The Pathfinder fighter does must this it does need more skills. 4 would bring them inline with the barbarian who got a huge boost with rage points anyhow.
The skill list itself could use expanding to include.Diplomacy, heal,perception and maybe stealth.
The fighter is not the grunt common soldier thats the warrior npc classe. They should have enough skills to round them out sure you can take skill fouces every 3 levels but that wastes your feats and still puts you way behind your level in skills
Another thing as someone else pointed out this is a playtest why cant 4 skills be tested? If a house rule is so common that 1 out of 4 players have used or know someone that uses it thats a sign that there may indeed be an issue there.
|
|
Another thing as someone else pointed out this is a playtest why cant 4 skills be tested? If a house rule is so common that 1 out of 4 players have used or know someone that uses it thats a sign that there may indeed be an issue there.
i have used it on the past and i have found it works well, it gives characters a bit more to work on their character, either to get something of their background or giving them more flexibility...
actually i almost choose the figthter for one of our games because i did love what pathfidner and paizo did for him... but i needed more skills for the concept i had on mind so i took the Ranger... which the only thing i would besing from there isfavored enemy and the combat style of archery.
|
|
The WARRIOR is a generic fighter...The Fighter is meant to be the elite. A fighter would lead warriors into battle. Their feats make them better, and class skills make them more fun...class skills don't really affect combat, except for Acrobatics. An Armored fighter still isn't going to be very acrobatic if he's in full plate...
2+int without x4 at first level is just, in my not so humble opinion, ridiculous...I can't make a 3.5 fighter backwards compatible with 2 skill points...instead of 8 skill points.
The skill list itself could use expanding to include.Diplomacy, heal,perception and maybe stealth.
So this souped-up fighter that you want has first aid training and is a leader of men - add Diplomacy and Heal. Fine, but why do you also want Perception and Stealth? If you want a commando, multiclass as a rogue!
The skill list itself could use expanding to include.Diplomacy, heal,perception and maybe stealth.So this souped-up fighter that you want has first aid training and is a leader of men - add Diplomacy and Heal. Fine, but why do you also want Perception and Stealth? If you want a commando, multiclass as a rogue!
eh it's not souped up really its un pigeon holeing him. I'll grant ya stealth the more I think of it the more I think it should stay cross skill.
Perception is a common soldier skill, spot anyhow. At the very lest heal and perception should be class skills as they are a common soldier skilL.
Adding 2 skills isnt much. There list has always been small and there 1 less then 3.5 anyhow. If they were giving 4 skills a level with the new cross skill rules adding more skills would not really be an issue if they had the ability to take skills
I think that Heal and Perception are perhaps the least intrusive skills you could add to them, yes, but if the fighter is going to have his skill points increased, I'd want all the 2-a-level classes to be increased.
I think that Heal and Perception are perhaps the least intrusive skills you could add to them, yes, but if the fighter is going to have his skill points increased, I'd want all the 2-a-level classes to be increased.
I do believe that most of us in the 4 skill camp do agree with that. We would like to see all classes have a minimum of 4 skill ranks per level.
Concentrating on the fighter right now, as it one of the classes up for discussion.
|
I think that Heal and Perception are perhaps the least intrusive skills you could add to them, yes, but if the fighter is going to have his skill points increased, I'd want all the 2-a-level classes to be increased.I do believe that most of us in the 4 skill camp do agree with that. We would like to see all classes have a minimum of 4 skill ranks per level.
Concentrating on the fighter right now, as it one of the classes up for discussion.
Actually I've been giving this a lot of thought, and I could care less whether or not full caster get a boost, they don't need a skill boost in the slightest, it's the two martial classes that don't have full spellcasting that need the skills, fighter and paladin. That's really it.
|
|
I think that Heal and Perception are perhaps the least intrusive skills you could add to them, yes, but if the fighter is going to have his skill points increased, I'd want all the 2-a-level classes to be increased.
Most of us who have been lobbying for 4 skill points per level for the fighter have indicated that it should be done for all such classes. I can see not granting that to a wizard - since his onus on INT will already more than make up for it, but that's not to say that I'd cry 'foul' if it was increased.
As for heal and or Perception added to the list - I dont think they're appropriate to be added to the list as class skills. Putting points towards it will only net a loss of -3 from classes that are more innately attuned to such training. So long as the number of points per level are increased it will afford the fighter the opportunity to at least be proficient in these areas.
Robert
|
|
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.
This to me sounds awfully silly. What are the "day-to-day" activities taht skills are suppose to help out with within the parameters of the game, that you're talking about??? If you're not referring to the actual skills described in the game - then what are skill points for??? It sounds to me that you're referring to normal things that ALL characters do - not just fighters; and furthermore, whats the point of really keeping track of those during the game?
Are you implying that since a fighter can tie his shoes as well as a ranger, and cook his food as well as a wizard and pick his nose as well as a barbarian, that it discludes him from needing more skill points?
Skill points within the parameters of the game are used for non-day-to-day activities that challenge heroes and adventurers; since most of us are capable of doing these normal active daily living activities, its not even worth mentioning; nor does it make for a very valid arguement for why the fighter is good to go on skills.
Robert
Ok we’re not at skills for everyone so I’ll couch my response in terms of the Fighter.
The 2 initial skill points in pathfinder (whose rolls gain a +3 bonus if they’re spent on class skills) does equal the 8 points from 3.5 but only if you spend them in class skills. If you spend them in non-class skills then you come up pretty short.
** Suggestion 1 **
So we can add more skills points (possibly to classes beyond Fighter) or maybe we could say “Level 1 characters are considered trained in all of their associated class skills”. That way the +3 bonus applies to every skill on their list and it ONLY applies to the original class a multi-class (or prestige class heavy) character starts in.
That means the Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger would end up with 30, 27, and 39 virtual skill points. Sort of overkill (and worse for Bards and Rogues) but at least that way the classes with very few skill points per level would have some skill use breadth.
** Suggestion 2 **
As to actual number of skills, if we look at the classes with the fewest and most ‘unique’ class skills (meaning I only counted a single Knowledge skill per class), Wizards get 7 unique skills and Rogues get 20 unique skills. Now looking at the number of skills an ‘average’ member of class gets at each level (meaning I’m not adding any extra skill points for a high INT), the Wizard gets 2 skill points and the Rogue gets 8 skill points.
Now I’ll make a HUGE assumption here (Yes, even bigger than saying the average Wizard has an INT of 10 or 11) and say that all classes should be equally knowledgeable in their class related skills. Using the 2 and 8 skill points per level and 7 and 20 unique skills, Wizards are designed to master 2/7 or 28.6% of their skills and Rogues are designed to master 8/20 or 40% of their skills. So Rogues are designed to master a greater percentage of their class knowledge pool than Wizards.
Ok, I can already hear keyboards clacking in response. To head it off, Yes I agree that it’s more important for a Wizard to master spells than all but one or two of their class skills. So at this point I’ll switch away from Wizards and use the class with the next fewest unique skills. We can pick from Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, or Sorcerer.
So we’ll pick the Fighter (see it really DOES tie into this thread). With 2 per level and 9 unique skills, the Fighter is designed to master 2/9 or 22.2% of their skills.
Hrmm, barely over half of what the Rogue is designed to master. So let's standardize skill mastery across all the classes. We have 3 choices (just like public schools):
- We target mastery at the lowest level
- We target mastery at the highest level
- We target mastery at some point in between
Realizing that swinging low or high will likely affect the most classes (but won't conflict with the typical public school strategy), we’ll pick a point in between. Combining the fewest and most and averaging we get [(2 + 8)/(9 + 20)]/2 or 34.5%. To make the math easier (hopefully) we’ll say that every class should be designed so that an ‘average’ member should master 35% of their skills.
Since this is the Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger forum their new numbers would be…
- Barbarian: 10 x 0.35 = 3.5, which rounds up to 4 and is EQUAL to what they have now.
- Fighter: 9 x 0.35 = 3.15, which rounds down to 3 and is one MORE than they have now.
- Ranger: 13 x 0.35 = 4.55, which rounds up to 5 and is one LESS than they have now.
Looking towards the future, the number of skill points for the other classes come out as:
- One Less: Rogue
- Equal: Bard, Druid, Wizard
- One More: Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer
Therefore, 2 classes would lose a skill point, 4 classes would stay the same, and 5 classes would pick up a skill point. By picking some point in between, 7 classes would change. Picking the lowest would also cause 7 classes to change (all of them at least one point LESS). Picking the highest would cause 9 classes to change (1 of them one point LESS and 8 of them at least one point MORE).
Sorry, this ended up longer than I intended.
Cheers
I want to throw in my vote for adding Heal to the Fighter's list. Was just playing a Fighter and thinking, "It's awfully silly that as a soldier, I was never trained to give First Aid."
'Specially since Wisdom isn't commonly a high stat for Fighters (yes, I know YOUR fighter had a high wisdom because...) so they're not going to do it well untrained.
I can also see the argument for Perception -- I always felt sorry for those town guards whose job it was to detect the stealthy thief and didn't even have the class skill to do it well.
I'd probably leave Stealth and Diplomacy out of it; those strike me as neat for very specific builds, but not suiting the general flavor of "fighter. A fighter taking those seems more likely to just take them as crossclass or multiclass to get them with another class.
And even though JB has said increasing # of skills is unlikely, I like the argument for at least one more.
The 2 initial skill points in pathfinder (whose rolls gain a +3 bonus if they’re spent on class skills) does equal the 8 points from 3.5 but only if you spend them in class skills. If you spend them in non-class skills then you come up pretty short.
By 20th level, you actually end up pretty far ahead in Pathfinder if you buy x-class skills: 20 ranks, as opposed to 10 + (1.5 at 1st for those extra points) = 11.5. If you stick with class skills, you're potentially way ahead in Pathfinder at 2nd level: +4 each to four different skills, as opposed to +4 to two and only +1 to two more.
- Fighter: 9 x 0.35 = 3.15, which rounds down to 3 and is one MORE than they have now.
Or we could simply keep the same number of skill points, REDUCE their number of class skills, and end up with a percentage better than the rogue's. "% of class skills mastered" is not necessarily a useful statistic; look at the Expert, who could conceivably master any skill there is, but have 6 points/level -- a very low % by that rating. Do they therefore suck at skills? On the contrary.
Indeed, I'll go so far as to say that the fighter's list of class skills should be reduced -- but by further consolidation, not by outright deletion. I'd like Handle Animal + Ride to mirror Open Lock + Disable Device. Both are equally "unrealistic," but the former benefits the fighter primarily, whereas the latter benefits mostly the rogue. Likewise for Climb + Swim + Jump, with respect to Listen + Spot + Search.
In this manner, (a) low skill point classes suddenly find they have enough; and (b) Perception stops being 3x better than any other skill. Roll Knowledge (arcana) into Spellcraft. The sorcerer will thank you for it. Merge Knowledge (tactics), Profession (siege engineer), etc. into a single Knowledge (warfare) skill. The fighter will thank you for it. Roll Knowledge (nature) into Survival. The druid will thank you for it. Alternatively, separate everything back out to the way it was in 3.5, or even further, and give more skill points.