However, this may alter the intended path to entering certain prestige classes that the designers assume will take longer to achieve and/or would involve a certain amount of multiclassing.
Yeah, but I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. A lot of prestige class skill/feat requirements are garbage. Every time I see Endurance listed as a requirement I want to kick a puppy.
However, this may alter the intended path to entering certain prestige classes that the designers assume will take longer to achieve and/or would involve a certain amount of multiclassing.Yeah, but I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. A lot of prestige class skill/feat requirements are garbage. Every time I see Endurance listed as a requirement I want to kick a puppy.
:: Sits a puppy down in front of Kuma, then opens a 3.5 DMG to the Dwarven Defender and waits ::
Perhaps, but for the record, the idea of needing (x-3)*2 ranks to meet a 3.0/3.5 prestige class's skill requirements (for non-class skills) may be gone. The rank requirements and rules in the Prestige Class Web Enhancement do not list that sort of requirement for non-class skills.That's because that rule is in the main beta book. Page 52, "Designer Notes: Prestige Skills".
Correct, but that was before any prestige classes rewritten for PFRPG were released, and applied specifically to handling conversions from 3.5.
You would not subtract 3 from the skill prerequisites listed in the Prestige Class supplement (as they have already been reduced). Whether you should still double that prerequisite to "finish" the conversion for someone with a non-class skill is in question. It is my belief that if that were the intent, the rule would have been specifically listed in the web enhancement.
That is my belief, however I could be wrong, or alternatively the rule could have been left out intentionally to provoke debate or additional playtesting of *both* possibilities.
Personally, doubling (while roughly equivalent to 3.5) seems wholly unnecessary under Pathfinder's skill system. A more appropriate mechanic, if any is needed, would be to require 3 higher if not a class skill.
Put another way, anyone meeting the 3.5 prereq's would have the same skill level as another. Under the pg. 52 ruling, most characters meeting the non-class skill prereq would have *vastly* more actual skill than one meeting it as a class skill (the break-even point being a skill that requires 3 ranks of course, doubled to 6). This seems very odd, and I think it was abandoned for that reason - but we have no solid proof either way.
If the Barbarian, who is probably the most focused on doing huge damage, and the least focused on defense or subtlety, and is proficient with medium armor has Acrobatics as a class skill. I see no reason the Fighter, which is the most general of the fighting classes...
A common misconception (which I touched on earlier). The fighter isn't general at all, he's one of the most focused and restricted classes in the game.
Sure, -within- his area of expertise (direct combat with weapons) he has great flexibility due to bonus feats, but nothing beyond that. None of a barbarian or ranger's wilderness savvy or maneuverability, none of a paladin's social prowess, etc. He's supposed to be the least skilled class in the game.
This is a "common misconception" because, when you say "fighter", such a broad range of archetypes comes to mind.
Really, I think it would be a better class if it were a bit more flexible, but I think the designers' intent is pretty clear. And when you think about it, if the fighter WASN'T around to play the dunce in terms of skillpoints, then rangers and barbarians wouldn't feel so skillzy by comparison.
(As for acrobatics, you're right that it can be used to block attacks and that the barbarian isn't supposed to be defensive, but I much prefer to look at it as a "maneuverability" thing rather than a "defensive" thing. Nine times out of ten, if you're rolling acrobatics, you're doing it to go somewhere that you otherwise couldn't.)
|
By general I mean that they lack a particular background as a combat class. Rangers get woodsy skills, Paladins get cleric-y benefits, Barbarians are border-line psychotic killing machines. These characters have a defining focus that the fighter lacks. Sure he gets weapon and armor. All the other combat classes get weapons, and they all get at least medium armor. The Cleric gets the same armor prficiencies as a fighter, and with racial weapon proficiencies and dieties favored weapons, they can have access to a decent number of marital weapons. By comparison to all the other mentioned charaters, the fighter lacks definition and direction. I think to mimic the wide range of fighting styles the skills list for fighters should be larger, and perhaps give the option of a list of bonus feats taken at first level (Like monks get) in addition to the existing bonus feat, this could include heavy armor proficiency for those who are gumnning for the armored tank style, but maybe point blank shot for those more likely to be archers, weapon finesse, for high dex , fast moving characters who will never wear heavy armor, etc. Maybe link those feats with a set of additional class skills. Sure heavy armored fighters will never use acrobatics, but fencer types and Wuxia types sure would.
|
I disagree. I don't think fighters should get anything remotely close to what Balance and Tumble were. Perhaps they do deserve the old Jump skill, but not Balance and Tumble.
My main issue is the lumping of Jump along with Tumble/Balance. I love the new Acrobatics skill as I thought Tumble/Balance needed lumping, but by lumping Jump as well, they have denied the fighter an important movemement enabler... AND they have also removed one of the THREE strength-based skill they had! (fighters are down to only 2 STR skills: climb and swim; I used to put ranks in jump whenever I played a fighter)
With Jump, a fighter could clear obstacles and get where he needed. Quite important for a class who cannot cast fly (sor/wiz/druid), cannot move through undergrowth unhindered (ranger/druid), cannot thread air molecules (air walk - cleric), or walk on water (cleric/druid).
Acrobatics is great, and overall, I don't think it will be a hard fix to replace the jump skill if you play a fighter (flying boots and that's it), but it will somehow be missed... and it will somehow feel like "Athletics", lumping the three "climb, jump, swim" skills, would have been appropriate too.
There's also a nagging thought I have: shouldn't there be more STR skills out there? Somehow, I think there should be... I think there's a perception that skills are the antithesis of strength, that both concepts are mutually exclusive (i.e. picking a lock takes skill, but breaking a door down takes raw, brutal strength) But still, when I look at most athletes, which in majority use their strenght (muscles, stamina, etc.), it appears that there should be some kind of skill attributed to physical prowess... I wonder why "climbing" and "swimming" are the only STR skills, implying they're the only two physically demanding "D&D Activities" requiring STR (with the rest requiring a simple STR check, like breaking doors, bursting ropes, etc.
Edit: (late night ramblings continue) I've always felt there should be a "fighting" STR-based skill, allowing you to keep fighting past 5 rounds... if you fail, you're breathing hard and you gain the fatigue condition or something... to me, it seems ludicrous to have trained UFC Champs (Fighters) on one side of the battle map and weak bookworms on the other side (Wizards), with the bookworms keeping up just fine with no penalties whatsoever...
Couple things:
Rangers are focused at TWF or Ranged fighting.
Paladins are...well still sort of trash but good at fighting evil outsiders and undead.
Barbarians take a lot of hits but are good are doing lots of damage.
Clerics aren't even close, they had medium BAB.
Fighters, now, are freaking amazing. They can do all the things above if they want (ranged, twf, thf). With the amount of feats you get you can both a)specialize with a weapon and get very good with doing damage with it and b)take all the tactical CMB feats. Focus without costing you versatility! You also get more out of armor and are better at swinging the same weapons as everyone else. Because of this, because of the way that enemy AC curves, you should almost always be able to power attack for a decent amount and still hit.
PFRPG fighters are absolutely kings of combat and have nothing to complain about.
That said, yeah robbing them of jump was dumb and it's an easy houserule fix to decouple jump from Acrobatics.
:: Sits a puppy down in front of Kuma, then opens a 3.5 DMG to the Dwarven Defender and waits ::
GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
*punt*
...
I'm a cat person...
:: Sits a puppy down in front of Kuma, then opens a 3.5 DMG to the Dwarven Defender and waits ::GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
*punt*
...
I'm a cat person...
/standingovation
Your playing a modular character class RPG.
If your idea of a fighter happens to want to tumble and be agile, I suggest multi-classing with monk or rogue. Or simply play a rogue and call them a fighter. Easy to do, just don't take ranks in Disable Device. ;)
If you want acrobatics in pathfinder to be an inclass skill, well just take skill focus acrobatics and you will have even more long term then if it were just "inclass" and as a fighter one feat to do this isn't a high price at all.
Will the beta character sheet look the same or is it slightly different for final? I've got some photoshopping to do. :)
There's also a nagging thought I have: shouldn't there be more STR skills out there? Somehow, I think there should be... I think there's a perception that skills are the antithesis of strength, that both concepts are mutually exclusive (i.e. picking a lock takes skill, but breaking a door down takes raw, brutal strength) But still, when I look at most athletes, which in majority use their strenght (muscles, stamina, etc.), it appears that there should be some kind of skill attributed to physical prowess... I wonder why "climbing" and "swimming" are the only STR skills, implying they're the only two physically demanding "D&D Activities" requiring STR (with the rest requiring a simple STR check, like breaking doors, bursting ropes, etc.
I don't see being able to train on brute strength. Either you have the strength or you don't. When the gnome wizard with 8 STR specializes in the skill Raw Power or whatever by maxing it out cross class, grabbing a feat or two that boosts it and is then "stronger" than an Ogre at mid to high levels, it just doesn't make sense anymore.
The better solution would be to double your STR modifier for these checks and set the DCs appropriately. The big problem with STR checks is that what seperates an average strength character from a really strong one starts at +5 at the most. It used to be +4 max for anyone who wasn't a Half-Orc or some monstrous race. Obviously this wouldn't apply to opposing checks. I can't count the number of times that whoever was DMing set a break DC for a fairly normal door at 20 or higher and was dumbfounded when the big strong barbarian couldn't bust through it for many rounds.
If you want acrobatics in pathfinder to be an inclass skill, well just take skill focus acrobatics and you will have even more long term then if it were just "inclass" and as a fighter one feat to do this isn't a high price at all.Your playing a modular character class RPG.
If your idea of a fighter happens to want to tumble and be agile, I suggest multi-classing with monk or rogue. Or simply play a rogue and call them a fighter. Easy to do, just don't take ranks in Disable Device. ;)
Nah, I still prefer "choose your own" over both these ideas.
Many athletic events do fall under "jumping" and "swimming".
Further, many things which should be defined by strength are actually set as constants in D&D. How far you can throw a javelin is a classic example.
And in many cases, strength helps up to a certain point but hurts beyond it. You have to be in excellent shape to be an olympic sprinter, but too much muscle mass is prohibitive. In D&D we abstract this away and assign movement rates independent of ability scores.
In fact, even for jumping and swimming you quickly reach a point where the extra weight weighs you down. "Strong man" competitions basically just consist of lifting or carrying things; "jumping", "climbing" and "swimming" aren't touched on because an incredibly strong person usually can't jump as far as a moderately strong person. But in D&D we abstract that away too.
Edit: (late night ramblings continue) I've always felt there should be a "fighting" STR-based skill,...
If you wanted to have a "fight duration" stat, just fix it at Str rounds of combat, or 2xStr. Anything past that takes a strength check, just like Con checks to keep running.
|
|
Hydro's got a good point... at some point, a beefy musclehead actually gets to jump LESS far than a lean athlete...
However, I'm thinking that "Run" should be a skill and not a feat...
I've toyed with this in the past for chasing down opponents. Opposed "speed" checks to see who could outpace who. Unfortunately it doesn't work well if you plan to use miniatures and I abandoned the idea. It seems a lot of folks around here don't use miniatures for their games, however, and it might be an interesting option for those who visualize the game in other ways.
The big problem with STR checks is that what seperates an average strength character from a really strong one starts at +5 at the most. It used to be +4 max for anyone who wasn't a Half-Orc or some monstrous race. Obviously this wouldn't apply to opposing checks. I can't count the number of times that whoever was DMing set a break DC for a fairly normal door at 20 or higher and was dumbfounded when the big strong barbarian couldn't bust through it for many rounds.
I've long felt that, while d20s are pretty, they're just too freaking big.
This doesn't just apply to strength checks. The game tells us that a character 5 levels ahead of you is in a completely different league, yet anything that they can do 100% of the time, you can do 75% of the time.
There are countless tasks in the real world at which a novice has no chance of success and an expert has no chance of failure. Yet, in D&D, you don't reach that point unless the expert's bonus is at least 20 points higher.
This is easier to ignore or abstract away for skill-based tasks than for strength-based ones, however. A goblin (bullrush mod -5) has a, let's see.. 3.75% chance of hitting an ogre (bullrush mod +9) and pushing him back 5-25 feet. That's better than a one-in-thirty shot, and when you picture it actually happening it's hilarious.
The first houserule I ever passed was that you use d6s rather than d20s for "brute strength" checks. This just barely makes it impossible for a goblin to bullrush a human alone (unless the human is a little on the scrawny side).
It also means that if average joe has a chance of kicking in the door, barbarian bob always kicks down the door.
Edit: (late night ramblings continue) I've always felt there should be a "fighting" STR-based skill,...
Why STR for a clearly endurance-based thing?
I don't think that "because STR should do more" is a valid response there, especially if you're going for realism.
|
Perhaps, but for the record, the idea of needing (x-3)*2 ranks to meet a 3.0/3.5 prestige class's skill requirements (for non-class skills) may be gone. The rank requirements and rules in the Prestige Class Web Enhancement do not list that sort of requirement for non-class skills.That's because that rule is in the main beta book. Page 52, "Designer Notes: Prestige Skills".Correct, but that was before any prestige classes rewritten for PFRPG were released, and applied specifically to handling conversions from 3.5.
You would not subtract 3 from the skill prerequisites listed in the Prestige Class supplement (as they have already been reduced). Whether you should still double that prerequisite to "finish" the conversion for someone with a non-class skill is in question. It is my belief that if that were the intent, the rule would have been specifically listed in the web enhancement.
That is my belief, however I could be wrong, or alternatively the rule could have been left out intentionally to provoke debate or additional playtesting of *both* possibilities.
Personally, doubling (while roughly equivalent to 3.5) seems wholly unnecessary under Pathfinder's skill system. A more appropriate mechanic, if any is needed, would be to require 3 higher if not a class skill.
Put another way, anyone meeting the 3.5 prereq's would have the same skill level as another. Under the pg. 52 ruling, most characters meeting the non-class skill prereq would have *vastly* more actual skill than one meeting it as a class skill (the break-even point being a skill that requires 3 ranks of course, doubled to 6). This seems very odd, and I think it was abandoned for that reason - but we have no solid proof either way.
Its likely that PFRPG prestige classes will have qualifiers based on the new skill system, but for backwards compatibality there wil still need to be the pg 52 formula.
Couple of points here.
1) Tumble is a FIGHTING skill. OUtside of combat, it has almost no function in the game...except perhaps as a backhand Perform skill. As a matter of fact, it is ONLY useful in combat, for the most part.
It allows you to move to places you normally couldn't get to. Some call this handsprings, cartwheels, and Jackie Chan. I call it fancy footwork, dazzling spins, and Zorro.
Secondly, this skill directly impacts your abiilty to fight defensively, and it doesn't even need a DC to do it.
By these strictures, Tumble is a core martial discipline, and should be on every Fighter's skill list, bar none. If he wants to wear heavy armor and not perform these manuvers, that's a build choice. If he's NOT in heavy armor, he should be able to do this, adjusting his fighting style to compensate.
2) I'm sure this all started because Barbs get Tumble. Tumble is a rigorous, disciplined skill, requiring intensive devotion, practice, and training. It's definitely not suitable for a Barbarian from a thematic point, especially given Rage. Can you picture some dainty gymnast executing a floor routine while in a frothing rage?? Tumbling would be as alien a skill to the survivalist-oriented savage culture as would perform (lute). Both would be simply amusements...everything else agility based should simply be a function of Dex scores.
3)As a note, how come barbarians can get immunity to fear, and Fighters get some paltry boost to their still sucky will saves?
4) Stop thinking of 'spending' a feat for a class skill as 'cheap'. Phrase it as "exchange one of his class features for a single skill" and suddenly it takes on the appropriate context. You are forcing him to pay for something that should be part of his default build. Weapon and armor proficiences are cheap and devalued, and something appropriate to swap for a skill. Feats are the building blocks of your character, not something you force characters to spend for what should be a core benefit.
5) For every person who says you can't Tumble in armor, there's another that says you can. A lot of it depends on relative physical ability (your average Fighter is in shape to rival and then exceed an Olympian) and how well the armor is constructed. Flexible armor, like chain, is probably going to be a weight-shifting mess to tumble in unless you strap it down. A tight suit of plate with modern steel is actually not that hard to move around in, the only thing you have to deal with is pure weight, which is dispersed entirely across the body.
6) On the role of Str vs the Jump skill and muscle mass, what you are seeing is the implications of the Run Skill, Fast Movement, and adding Dex to Jump vs. pure strength via a feat. The strongest men in the world specialized in lifting things, not jumping. They have sucky Dex scores cause they sacrificed them for their Strength builds. They don't blow feats on fast movement and Run.
This doesn't mean that strong men can't move fast. If you don't believe me, try to outsprint an average NFL lineman...those big guys can MOVE. A bear can actually outsprint a deer. Strong men are strong because they can move a lot of mass very quickly, i.e. they have Power. But! their strength to weight ratio tends to be poorer then high Dex, Lower Str builds who can add Dex to their jumping. It's the same effect that actually reduces the actual effect of massive Str in combat.
Mechanically, if I'm twice as strong as you from a 'lift max loads' point, I'm five points stronger...+2.5/+2.5. That's IT. If I can bench 50 tons, and you can bench 100 tons, that's all the edge you have. This is a showcase that pure strength doesn't always mean the ability to convey that strength into combat power...you do have to have speed, too.
===Aelryinth
Couple of points here.
1) Tumble is a FIGHTING skill. OUtside of combat, it has almost no function in the game...except perhaps as a backhand Perform skill. As a matter of fact, it is ONLY useful in combat, for the most part.
Are you aware of what "tumbling" actually means?
http://www.dictionary.net/tumblerThe ONLY reason that it has any application in combat whatsoever is that this is a pulp fantasy game, and in pulp fantasy, jesters and minstrels can cartwheel around the battlefield as easily as through a feasthall.
I feel a little silly making this observation, though, given that you clearly understand it already, judging by your swift flavor-oriented dismissal of tumbling barbarians (even though barbarians are more lightly armored than fighters, meaning that the crunch-centric ("they should get it because its useful") arguments of your first paragraph should be even more applicable here).
Edit: when I reread it, the last paragraph of my post came off as unintentionally dismissive. All I meant to say was that I seem to recall having a similar (unproductive) debate with you about whether fighters should get spot and listen; I get the impression that you just really like your fighters, and that's hard to argue with.
I don't usually like to get into this kind of "my experience" vs "your experience" thing because I don't feel it's that useful. But it's very true that plate armor is neither that heavy nor that restrictive. You can do cartwheels while wearing it.
It also helps if you know how to actually tumble before testing it.
I don't usually like to get into this kind of "my experience" vs "your experience" thing because I don't feel it's that useful. But it's very true that plate armor is neither that heavy nor that restrictive. You can do cartwheels while wearing it.
It also helps if you know how to actually tumble before testing it.
I'm not sure if we're thinking of the same plate armor. If it's the sort that late medieval knights wore, they couldn't get back onto their horses without help. If you've worn that s!!& and done cartwheels in it, you are a badass. =p
D&D stats for fullplate are extremely lenient; in reality, the only excuse for wearing that much metal was that you had a mount to carry you around. But, again, it's the pulp-fantasy thing.
If it's the sort that late medieval knights wore, they couldn't get back onto their horses without help.
Most people need help to get onto spirited warhorses even without armor.
It's a total myth that full plate made you barely able to move. It would have been nothing but a death trap if that were true and would never have lasted for centuries of warfare. Full plate is fully articulated and, while it obviously restricts range of movement, it's still quite possible to do basic tumbling tricks like cartwheels while wearing it.
A brief google search reveals that we probably aren't thinking of the same armor after all. My image of "fullplate" has always been a full suit of jousting armor (which is a lot more cumbersome than what you describe), but in hindsight I guess that's not very accurate. The "full plate" in the PHB only weighs 50 pounds.
This makes me want to reconsider the draconian rules for heavy armor in Iron Heroes.
Speaking of fighter skills:
Why does a fighter have knowledge skills? Like Engineering? Or even Survival for that matter? I can't figure out how any normal fighter could pick up such knowledge. I kinda get the acrobatics argument, but all these various skills in the fighter class seem strange to me.
I'm thinking maybe some sort of 'variant' fighter class feature level might make a fair solution. As a rough idea, how about:
1st Level fighters may choose one of the following options:
Know your Enemy: You've spent years studying enemies of different races and species to. You gain Knowledge( Dungeoneering) and Knowledge (Local) as class skills.
Nimble Warrior: Your combat training incorporates quick movements and agility in melee. You gain Athletics as a class skill.
Wilderness Fighter: You have trained extensively in the wilds. You gain Knowledge (Nature) and Survival as class skills.
Just a thought.
Heavy Armor is still heavy armor, even if it's well-distributed. Ease of articulation helps you move around in it. The weight means you can't jump with it on, and that means you have difficulty getting on a big, solid horse that is huge and strong enough to tote around a man weighing 300 lbs with all that gear on him.
Pure jousting armor is likely even heavier then full plate, however. Full plate is designed to minimally restrict mobility...you can get up from the ground, jog, etc, especially if you've been working out for years to accomodate the extra weight (heh, weighed 180 in high school and 250 now...get me back to that physical shape/condition and I could learn to wear armor, no problem!)
As for Perception (Spot/Listen), there's probably no class that would be required to make Spot checks more then a Melee class. Their job is to be alert for threats of any sort...getting taken by suprise is a death sentence.
As for Knowledge skills, Siege Engineering is a hallmark of warriors, and warriors tend to focus heavy on history for military tales, let alone talk of fights against other fighters, and this would move right over to monsters and other foes. I can't really think of ANY reason not to give Fighters generic monsters knowledge...in any real world they'd know about their enemies. I mean,t he modern soldier today is supposed to know the look of all enemy equipment, troops, flags, etc...is recognizing monsters and what they can do and how to kill them really any different?
As for Tumbling's definition: Hey, you tumble arse over teakettle, I tumble around the long axis. We both do gut clenchings, kick out the feet, and instant stand. We both are nimble enough that hitting us on the defensive is a pain (I tend to go more side to side, and you tend to go more up and down, but we both stay on our feet). It's all in how you look at what the skill encompasses.
I'd say everyone who has ever seen Jackie Chan believes Fighters should have access to Tumble. Maybe he's supposed to be a Rogue, maybe a Monk...but every Fighter who doesn't slap on armor should be as good as any dancer with the footwork, and if they want to, be able to use the environment to their benefit. Penalizing them for learning to wear heavy armor by not allowing even access to the skill? Not good.
===Aelryinth
|
|
You guys are talking about the armor being a problem, and it is! The armor check penalty will surely make it so that even a trained professional won't be as good at tumbling. That doesn't mean that a fighter shouldn't get Tumble as a class skill. It just means they have a harder time doing it in full plate, for what that's worth.
Quick youtube search for doing acrobatics in armor:
Getting back up after falling of a horse. A roll. Cartwheel.
I'd say everyone who has ever seen Jackie Chan believes Fighters should have access to Tumble. Maybe he's supposed to be a Rogue, maybe a Monk...but every Fighter who doesn't slap on armor should be as good as any dancer with the footwork, and if they want to, be able to use the environment to their benefit. Penalizing them for learning to wear heavy armor by not allowing even access to the skill? Not good.
I would say Jackie Chan monk and sure as h*ll not a a fighter.
Penalizing fighters? They got feats so use them.Class skill = +3
Skill focus = +3. +6 at level 10 if you have 10 ranks in the skill.
Fighters have lots of feats. Take one and you rock.
SuperSheep has a point.
Either the +3 is a big deal or its not. If the +3 is a big deal then giving it to a class is a big deal.
If it's not a big deal, then it doesn't matter if they get it or not. They can always take it, they'll just have 3 less than the people who do.
...unless you take skill focus :-)
..but what I don't get is why don't rangers get acrobatics as a class skill.
You guys are talking about the armor being a problem, and it is! The armor check penalty will surely make it so that even a trained professional won't be as good at tumbling. That doesn't mean that a fighter shouldn't get Tumble as a class skill. It just means they have a harder time doing it in full plate, for what that's worth.
and they get armor training. Let's see how that turn out in the final.
You guys are talking about the armor being a problem, and it is! The armor check penalty will surely make it so that even a trained professional won't be as good at tumbling. That doesn't mean that a fighter shouldn't get Tumble as a class skill. It just means they have a harder time doing it in full plate, for what that's worth.and they get armor training. Let's see how that turn out in the final.
Armor training was one of the things that really made a difference for the class, I hope they didn't nerf it in the final.
I think that fighters should get acrobatics as a class skill, the fast, nimble duellist is an archtype which, if covered by a base class, should be a fighter. At least, I wouldn't mind the fighter gaining the bonuses for combat uses of acrobatics, such as tumbiling, but leaving the penalty for other uses, such as reducing falling damage.
I think that fighters should get acrobatics as a class skill, the fast, nimble duellist is an archtype which, if covered by a base class, should be a fighter. At least, I wouldn't mind the fighter gaining the bonuses for combat uses of acrobatics, such as tumbiling, but leaving the penalty for other uses, such as reducing falling damage.
And if you want to play a duelist typ fighter. Pick up the duelist.
The duelist’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Acrobatics (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Perception (Wis), Perform (Cha), and Sense Motive (Wis).
yes they get Acrobatics. They also get Sense Motive so no one can feint you in battle and you get Perception so no one kan sneak uop on you ...they get 4 skill points per level. Nice? Yes nice. AND FULL BAB!
Or pick one level Rogue, Bard, Barbarian or Monk.
This stuff is getting old. We had this debate during the Beta playtest.
This stuff is getting old.
The idea of other people determining what your character spent time studying growing up? I know, man! That's why I'm not going to use those rules any more, and am advocating that others do the same. Some fighters might be real curious about history or arcana or picking locks or even *gasp* doing a barrel roll.
And if you want to play a duelist typ fighter. Pick up the duelist.
Is a fair response, but it's not a conceapt that's avalible from level one. The fighter is meant to cover a range of combat orientated archtypes. The duellist prestige class might be a good way to enchance a mobility based fighter, but the sad truth is that unless it's a base class it's never going to be somthing avalible from level one otherwise.
Besides, a heavily armoured fighter will get a high penalty to acrobatics anyway, which could do more than cancel out any class bonus, so only lightly armoured fighters will really see the benifit anyway.
Or pick one level Rogue, Bard, Barbarian or Monk.
This however, I do feel isn't as good a point. If I want a fighter, I'll play a fighter. If I want a rogue, I'll play a rogue. If I want a lightly armoured fighter, I'll play a fighter with good dexterity and light armour. I wouldn't consider a rogue a combat class due to the distinct lack of High BAB and weapon proficencies.
|
|
It really sounds what most people in this thread really want to do is simply dump defined classes altogether and go with the Generic classes presented in Unearthed Arcana and here in the SRD
It might be a start. I think what people are really asking for here are a return of some "kit classes", like from 2e.
I wouldn't consider a rogue a combat class due to the distinct lack of High BAB and weapon proficencies.
Your loss, mate.
Fighter/rogues are badasses, and what they lose in core competence they easily make up for in opportunistic nastiness. Sneak-attack is a beautiful thing when combined with TWF-feats and a higher attack bonus, to say nothing of the various rogue powers. And, of course, access to the tumble class skill. :)
The multiclassing rules are there for a reason.
|
|
If I want a lightly armoured fighter, I'll play a fighter with good dexterity and light armour. I wouldn't consider a rogue a combat class due to the distinct lack of High BAB and weapon proficencies.
This is why I like playing Rangers. They're nearly exactly what I'm looking for in combat, armor, and abilities.
However, I once played a Rogue TWF that put the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger in our group to shame in terms of damage and abilities. His versality was much greater in combat than anyone expected. We were low-level, however, and the difference between BAB at low level is negligible at best.
Why don't fighters have acrobatics?
'cause in PRPG final, they've been given "Athletics" which is STR based and has the climb, swim and jump skills rolled into one.
[...and PDK went back to his wishful thinking...]
That actually makes a great deal of sense.
I have kind of been scratching my head over jump getting rolled into acrobatics as it concerns mount and animal companions. How does one represent a mount in the game that is a great jumper? I'm having trouble with the notion of a war horse with acrobatics.
A climbing horse doesn't thrill me either, but I find the athletics concept to be more rational.
If I want a lightly armoured fighter, I'll play a fighter with good dexterity and light armour. I wouldn't consider a rogue a combat class due to the distinct lack of High BAB and weapon proficencies.This is why I like playing Rangers. They're nearly exactly what I'm looking for in combat, armor, and abilities.
However, I once played a Rogue TWF that put the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger in our group to shame in terms of damage and abilities. His versality was much greater in combat than anyone expected. We were low-level, however, and the difference between BAB at low level is negligible at best.
I must concur. We have a fighter1/rogue4 swashbuckler type in our adult group who is quite lethal.
I have played a Dwarven ranger rouge who was a very effective ambush fighter as well as doing well in a stand up fight if there is someone to flank with.
I've also played a human fighter2/barbarian2/ranger10 who was the parties primary melee fighter, and he filled the role quite effectively.
I can see the argument for acrobatics being a fighter skill, but I just don't see a one or two level dip into rogue as being that odious.
|
|
Is a fair response, but it's not a conceapt that's avalible from level one. The fighter is meant to cover a range of combat orientated archtypes. The duellist prestige class might be a good way to enchance a mobility based fighter, but the sad truth is that unless it's a base class it's never going to be somthing avalible from level one otherwise.
And if you want to play a duelist typ fighter. Pick up the duelist.
Since I'm playing a duelist type fighter in a PbP on these very boards at the moment, who has been a duelist type since level one (we've reached level 3, though I took an unplanned detour into wizard, and will likely be heading for eldritch knight eventually), I'm going to have to disagree. A human or half-elf fighter can have Weapon Finesse, Skill Focus (Acrobatics) and your choice of Combat Expertise, Dodge or Weapon Focus (rapier) all at 1st level, along with the highest Dex you can reasonably expect for your chargen system; with things like Weapon Specialization and weapon training (light blades) on the horizon, there's plenty of things to do all along as well. heck, if you can squeeze out at least a 13 Strength, you can even use the new Power Attack! -1 attack for +2 damage? Yes please!
Honestly, acrobatics being a class skill for barbarians only further reinforces something I've thought was a problem for a long time - with a small dash of reflavoring, barbarians make better swashbucklers than fighters do. Reflavor Rage as something like heedless/reckless offense (and possibly use the whirling frenzy variant from Unearthed Arcana), and you're pretty much good to go. You've got more skill points, allowing for a more skilled fighter, you don't have the wasteful heavy armor proficiency, you're faster than most people, and you're remarkably buff. And now, you've got Acrobatics, which the fighter doesn't have. So if you want to build a swashbuckler, go with barbarian, not fighter. All you have to do is reflavor the class a bit, and it works remarkably well.
It's a little sad.
Since I'm playing a duelist type fighter in a PbP on these very boards at the moment, who has been a duelist type since level one (we've reached level 3, though I took an unplanned detour into wizard, and will likely be heading for eldritch knight eventually), I'm going to have to disagree. A human or half-elf fighter can have Weapon Finesse, Skill Focus (Acrobatics) and your choice of Combat Expertise, Dodge or Weapon Focus (rapier) all at 1st level, along with the highest Dex you can reasonably expect for your chargen system; with things like Weapon Specialization and weapon training (light blades) on the horizon, there's plenty of things to do all along as well. heck, if you can squeeze out at least a 13 Strength, you can even use the new Power Attack! -1 attack for +2 damage? Yes please!Is a fair response, but it's not a conceapt that's avalible from level one. The fighter is meant to cover a range of combat orientated archtypes. The duellist prestige class might be a good way to enchance a mobility based fighter, but the sad truth is that unless it's a base class it's never going to be somthing avalible from level one otherwise.
And if you want to play a duelist typ fighter. Pick up the duelist.
Good Points,...as always.