stuff
Skill focus.
Fightershave
feats
use them or play something else. If there is a class that should be screaming "We don't have acrobatics it's not fair" it's the ranger.
I'm personally thinking about doing something perhaps a bit unorthodox.. Both keep the acrobatics as is but also have climb and swim bundled up with... jump! And have that whole package be based on str, naturally.. Dunno how it will work in actual play, and maybe it's silly to have the same skill work off two different ability-scores...
stuffSkill focus.
Fighters
have
feats
use them or play something else. If there is a class that should be screaming "We don't have acrobatics it's not fair" it's the ranger.
Totally and wholeheartedly agree with that ranger part, and the other stuff as well, to a certain degree...
Skill focus, huh?
Why give the rogue all those skill points? I mean, after all, they could just make Skill Focus a feat they can take with their every-other-level-rogue-talents.
Why should a fighter have to, effectively, give up one of their (few and far between) class features just to compare in a skill that's appropriate. And you didn't even really successfully argue against my point, which was that the barbarian more closely models what I'd expect from a swashbuckler than the fighter does.
Fighters actually LOST something from skill consolidation in Pathfinder, while Rogues, the class with the MOST skills, gained a whole lot (unless they were social based rogues, who still have all their skills separated). How is that fair? Fighters have extremely few skill points, and they actually took away one of their most useful class skills (at least at low levels).
FWIW, I'm removing Jump from the Acrobatics skill and melding it with Climb into what I'm calling the Athletics skill. It'll allow fighters and other combat classes to save a few skill points on the movement skills. I've never had too much of a problem with tumble not being a fighter class skill, because I don't have a problem with multiclassing, but there's a hell of a lot of DMs out there who'd be up in arms about the "munchkinny" fighters with a level or two of rogue. What I'm most annoyed by is that they took jump away from fighters, but decided to give acrobatics to barbarians, which is somehting that doesn't entirely make sense to me.
[...]
Why should a fighter have to, effectively, give up one of their (few and far between) class features just to compare in a skill that's appropriate. And you didn't even really successfully argue against my point, which was that the barbarian more closely models what I'd expect from a swashbuckler than the fighter does.
If you go swashbuckler you probaly play human or half-elf. Both got bonus feats at level 1. So you don't use a class feature...come to think of it. You can't use the fighter bonus feat to pick skill focus.
With armor training and skill focus a dex fighter will be better at Acrobatics than any rogue or barbarian.FWIW, I'm removing Jump from the Acrobatics skill and melding it with Climb into what I'm calling the Athletics skill. It'll allow fighters and other combat classes to save a few skill points on the movement skills.
sounds good.
What I'm most annoyed by is that they took jump away from fighters, but decided to give acrobatics to barbarians, which is somehting that doesn't entirely make sense to me.
Agree it's a bit strange, but barbarians usually use medium armor and fighters usually go for heavy. I guess they created the classes out of the usual stereotypes.
If armor training in the final reduces ACP then a fighter will be better at using acrobatics than a barbarian, even though Acrobatics isn't a class skill to fighters.Fighters have never been about skills. But they did gain som new good class skills, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (engineering) and Survival.
What's fair and not? I don't know. But I don't think this is a big issue.
[...]I've never had too much of a problem with tumble not being a fighter class skill[..]
well jump was a pretty pointless skill. I guess that's way it was removed. You can still add skill points to arobatics and jump. it's not that hard to beat the DC.
stuffSkill focus.
Fighters
have
feats
use them or play something else.
This sort of "frikin deal with it" assertion contributes nothing to the thread.
Yes, fighters can spend a resource to get +3 to acrobatics. Other classes get +3 to acrobatics for free.
|
stuffSkill focus.
Fighters
have
feats
use them or play something else.This sort of "frikin deal with it" assertion contributes nothing to the thread.
Yes, fighters can spend a resource to get +3 to acrobatics. Other classes get +3 to acrobatics for free.
Actually, it's a pretty valid point. Fighters get so many feats specifically so they can be built in many different ways, and using one for Skill focus seems like a perfect answer to me.
As for 'Other classes get +3 for free'. So? It's not like Fighter is the only class without Acrobatics as a class skill. It's not even the only melee class that doesn't get it. It would make a lot more sense to me if Rangers had Acrobatics, but they don't.
Actually, it's a pretty valid point.
You mean as a counterpoint to "fighters should get it for free"? No, I do not think that "they can spend a feat for it" is a very strong counterpoint.
Suppose someone wanted to take shield proficiency away from fighters. Would "they can still take a feat for it" justify that decision by itself?
(Edit: I'm not saying it isn't relevant at all, but to someone who thinks they should be trained in tumbling by default, the fact that they can spend a feat for it isn't much of an argument by itself)
"Rangers need it more" isn't a valid counterpoint either. Isn't it possible that they should both get it?
And, for the record, I'm in the "Fighters are a narrow class by design" camp (with dalliances among the "just multiclass" camp). Just saying, I don't think those are valid points. Especially the whole "just deal with it" attitude.
|
|
Actually, it's a pretty valid point.You mean as a counterpoint to "fighters should get it for free"? No, I do not think that "they can spend a feat for it" is a very strong counterpoint.
Suppose someone wanted to take shield proficiency away from fighters. Would "they can still take a feat for it" justify that decision by itself?
(Edit: I'm not saying it isn't relevant at all, but to someone who thinks they should be trained in tumbling by default, the fact that they can spend a feat for it isn't much of an argument by itself)
"Rangers need it more" isn't a valid counterpoint either. Isn't it possible that they should both get it?
And, for the record, I'm in the "Fighters are a narrow class by design" camp (with dalliances among the "just multiclass" camp). Just saying, I don't think those are valid points. Especially the whole "just deal with it" attitude.
I need clarification, we talking about Fighters not having Tumble ability, which is what the thread is/was about and to that point I am fine and say, 'spend the feat'.
Or are we talking about Fighters no longer having Jump, in which case I am in more of an agreement, but still don't see it as an 'Ah, hell Fighters are just screwed now' thing.
stuff
Agree
Actually, it's a pretty valid point.You mean as a counterpoint to "fighters should get it for free"? No, I do not think that "they can spend a feat for it" is a very strong counterpoint.
Suppose someone wanted to take shield proficiency away from fighters. Would "they can still take a feat for it" justify that decision by itself?
(Edit: I'm not saying it isn't relevant at all, but to someone who thinks they should be trained in tumbling by default, the fact that they can spend a feat for it isn't much of an argument by itself)
"Rangers need it more" isn't a valid counterpoint either. Isn't it possible that they should both get it?
And, for the record, I'm in the "Fighters are a narrow class by design" camp (with dalliances among the "just multiclass" camp). Just saying, I don't think those are valid points. Especially the whole "just deal with it" attitude.
I need clarification, we talking about Fighters not having Tumble ability, which is what the thread is/was about and to that point I am fine and say, 'spend the feat'.
Or are we talking about Fighters no longer having Jump, in which case I am in more of an agreement, but still don't see it as an 'Ah, hell Fighters are just screwed now' thing.
I was talking about Tumble.
I think it's a little silly to suggest that any character take Skill Focus with a non-class skill (Skill Focus is balanced on the assumption that you have already done everything in your power to maximize a skill. It's barely worthwhile even then. A mechanics-savvy player would just dip into barbarian long before that). But that's definitely just an opinion. If you want to take skill focus (tumble) and call your fighter a swash-buckler, more power to you.
But I still insist that
"Fighters
have
feats
use them."
Contributes nothing to the thread.
Sidetrack, but a direct translation of the old "cosmopolitan" feat would work well here.
It makes a non-class skill a class skill and also grants a +2 bonus.
|
|
I was talking about Tumble.
I think it's a little silly to suggest that any character take Skill Focus with a non-class skill (Skill Focus is balanced on the assumption that you have already done everything in your power to maximize a skill. It's barely worthwhile even then. A mechanics-savvy player would just dip into barbarian long before that). But that's definitely just an opinion. If you want to take skill focus (tumble) and call your fighter a swash-buckler, more power to you.
But I still insist that
"Fighters
have
feats
use them."
Contributes nothing to the thread.
Well his presentation may have been a bit abrupt, but that doesn't invalidate the point. While Skill Focus may be sub-optimal, that doesn't mean it's a complete waste.
|
Sidetrack, but a direct translation of the old "cosmopolitan" feat would work well here.
It makes a non-class skill a class skill and also grants a +2 bonus.
Yeah, I miss the 3.0 realms version of that feat. The new cosmopolitan is a poor substitute.
In Unearthed Arcana there is Skill Knowledge (page 81) that lets you choose two class skills that always are class skills no matter what, or you can choose one cross-class skill and that becomes a class-skill forever after that. It gives no bonus, but its pretty close.
Yeah, I miss the 3.0 realms version of that feat. The new cosmopolitan is a poor substitute.Sidetrack, but a direct translation of the old "cosmopolitan" feat would work well here.
It makes a non-class skill a class skill and also grants a +2 bonus.
I never bought any 3.5 'Realms stuff so I wouldn't know, but because the original version was such a good feat I think I'll agree on principle.
Also, what's this about Luck of Heroes granting an AC bonus too but not stacking with magical luck bonuses? "+1 to all saves" was neet, simple, and well balanced.
Were they trying to make FR 3.5 sloppier?
I think it's a little silly to suggest that any character take Skill Focus with a non-class skill
Hey, you may think what you want, and I don't agree.
(Skill Focus is balanced on the assumption that you have already done everything in your power to maximize a skill. It's barely worthwhile even then.
I don't agree. Ever played half-elf or are you calling me stupid?
Ever played half-elf or are you calling me stupid?
Huh?
Huh?Ever played half-elf or are you calling me stupid?
Gotta side with Hydro here.
Huh?
And I side with you both. Sorry.
I mean.A) I don't think Skill Focus is balanced on the assumption that you have already done everything in your power to maximize a skill.
B) Do you think people like me who play half-elves (or humans) and pick skill focus because we think it's worthwhile (Be it a class skill or not) are stupid/wrong/doing someting that isn't done, etc?
Yeah, I miss the 3.0 realms version of that feat. The new cosmopolitan is a poor substitute.Sidetrack, but a direct translation of the old "cosmopolitan" feat would work well here.
It makes a non-class skill a class skill and also grants a +2 bonus.
I never bought any 3.5 'Realms stuff so I wouldn't know, but because the original version was such a good feat I think I'll agree on principle.
Also, what's this about Luck of Heroes granting an AC bonus too but not stacking with magical luck bonuses? "+1 to all saves" was neet, simple, and well balanced.
Were they trying to make FR 3.5 sloppier?
+1 luck bonus to all saves and AC, it's a great feat for keeping characters alive at low levels. I did not find PGFR sloppy at all, quite the contrary IMO.
|
|
Yeah, I miss the 3.0 realms version of that feat. The new cosmopolitan is a poor substitute.
I never bought any 3.5 'Realms stuff so I wouldn't know, but because the original version was such a good feat I think I'll agree on principle.
Also, what's this about Luck of Heroes granting an AC bonus too but not stacking with magical luck bonuses? "+1 to all saves" was neet, simple, and well balanced.
Were they trying to make FR 3.5 sloppier?
No, but in 3.5 you could never have more than one Regional Feat... so they wanted to make them better all around. I don't allow that one at the table since its so uber... nor the new Mind over Body. :shudder: Too good to pass up because they're game busters at low level.
A) I don't think Skill Focus is balanced on the assumption that you have already done everything in your power to maximize a skill.
B) Do you think people like me who play half-elves (or humans) and pick skill focus because we think it's worthwhile (Be it a class skill or not) are stupid/wrong/doing someting that isn't done, etc?
Ugh... Okay, I'll try to untangle this starting from the top.
For one, skill focus does make half-elves a great race to play if you want to make a skillmonkey. Halfelves make great masters of disguise, silver-tongued devils, sabateurs, etc. Like I said, Skill Focus is worth taking if you really want to rock at one skill.
However, even if you don't, that doesn't make the race suboptimal. Races are a mixed bag. Few characters take full advantage of every feature that a race hands out (especially in PF); +2 to any stat makes them good for any one-stat character even if you don't really need skill focus.
None of which actually supports your assertion about Skill Focus as a feat. In fact, the very reason half-elves get skill focus (while humans get any feat of their choice) is because Skill Focus is weaker than most feats for most characters. It's cool from a flavor perspective but not overwhelmingly powerful (a fringe benefit), and powers like that make good racial features.
And finally, and most importantly, even if I were saying that half-elves were a suboptimal race, it would be rediculous of you to take that personally.
Sometimes you use a given race, class or feat just because you like it; making a suboptimal character does not make you "stupid" and I resent being accused of saying so.
You don't have to agree with me about game balance or game theory or what-have-you, but please, refrain from fabricating personal attacks against you.
|
|
For that matter, I'm having trouble thinking of any swashbucklers in popular fiction that wouldn't be either barbarians or rogues.
You forgot to add the words, "in my opinion" to that. In many of the examples you'd give, I'd call those characters fighters and not barbarians. Porthos was angry, but the way in which it was used can be chalked up to ranks in intimidate. Athos, however, was clearly a fighter. Edmond Dantes was out for revenge, but it was cool and calculated... not very barbarian like. Will Turner strikes me as a fighter as well, far better with his rapier than most other rogues and cutthroats.
Edit: I don't think that just because you don't see someone use a weapon besides their iconic is a fitting argument to deny their ability as a fighter. I haven't seen Valeros use a weapon besides his two swords, nor Tordek move from his axe. Clearly, they use only one kind of weapon. :p
What's wrong with barbarians making really good swashbuklers? Are you saying all barbarians have to be frothing berserkers from the northland or wild jungle natives? I, for one, am tired of all the tribal barbarian stereotypes, and welcome the fluff options that swashbuckling brings to the barbarian class.
Porthos from The Three Musketeers was a drunken lout. Edmond Dantes from The Count of Monte Cristo was fueled by seething rage in his quest for vengeance. So was Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride. (We even get to see Inigo Montoya use his rage to give himself a Con boost in that movie.) Most pirates in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies spend each fight scene snarling like animals and running amok.
For that matter, I'm having trouble thinking of any swashbucklers in popular fiction that wouldn't be either barbarians or rogues. I certainly can't think of any that have mastered a wide range of varied fighting styles (i.e. swashbuckling plus something other than swashbuckling) the way an experienced fighter does with his bonus feats.
So I say barbarians making better swashbucklers than fighters makes perfect sense.
I think it works if you're willing to reflavor it (and I'm willing to reflavor anything if it'll work for my concept or needs), but there are a LOT of people who aren't. And the name "barbarian" does imply certain assumptions that a lot of people take for granted. Just like the term "fighter" does. People are often prone to feeling that fighters can and should be good at modeling whatever warrior type you want, but they are, mechanically, not that good at doing much other than heavily armored warrior. I'm okay with barbarians being viable swashbucklers, but it seems odd that fighers really can't be.
And what's this about barbarians often wear medium armor? Someone actually wears medium armor?
Apparently, since barbarian fast movement doesn't work with heavy armor.
I think Will Turner would be a fighter, if he weren't such an Unfettered. =p
I think it's a mistake to expect D&D classes to apply perfectly to every genre. D&D is high-magic, high-mysticism fantasy, and in D&D, the guy-who-focuses-on-basic-physical-combat is really something of a specialist, who is defined by his more adaptable but less deadly piers.
If I were running a Pirates of the Carribean game I certianly wouldn't be using D&D classes.
(not to say that this is the ONLY way to do a 'fighter' class in such a setting- "high-magic fantasy" is still a very broad term- but that's the way D&D chooses to do it)
I love how I keep seeing, "fighters master multiple styles with their many feats!"
Then almost immediately, "fighters can only ever use heavy armor, they don't need to be able to tumble. Ever."
Followed by, "if you want a fighter to have basic fighting skills, buy them with feats! It's okay if they waste the only character ability they get at a given level on a piddly skill bonus, because they get that same ability next level, and can use it on something useful."
Why don't we just take all skills away from all characters? Then everyone has to "buy" class skills with feats. Now fighters can really shine!
I'm thinking in my next game, arcane casters won't get spellcraft. If they want it they can use skill focus to make up the loss of class skill bonus, but they don't get many feats so they can just lose a caster level.
I think it works if you're willing to reflavor it (and I'm willing to reflavor anything if it'll work for my concept or needs), but there are a LOT of people who aren't. And the name "barbarian" does imply certain assumptions that a lot of people take for granted. Just like the term "fighter" does. People are often prone to feeling that fighters can and should be good at modeling whatever warrior type you want, but they are, mechanically, not that good at doing much other than heavily armored warrior. I'm okay with barbarians being viable swashbucklers, but it seems odd that fighers really can't be.And what's this about barbarians often wear medium armor? Someone actually wears medium armor?
Agreed, that's one reason I put in my $0.02 worth on the 'Beyond the core' thread the Paizo guys put out. One of my requests was a big book of Alternate Classes, Alternate Builds, and Alternate Races with lots of fluff for each. My specific request was for :
A) A handful of new classes that couldn't be built using existing classes with a handful of tweaks.
B) A LOT of Alternate Builds (Class Kits for all intents and purposes) based around both the core classes and the new classes in the book.
C) A bunch of races (or alternate versions of existing races).
I think Swashbucklers should not be a core class, they should be a kit class built on either Barbarian, Fighter, or Rogue. And, I'd like to see a kit for all three. That would give you the 'angry swashbuckler' the 'Tactical swashbuckler' and the 'sneaky swashbuckler'.
I love the idea of kits with lots of fluff for each kit (one page per kit, fluff and rules mods, or two pages, one fluff, one rules mods).
I think it works if you're willing to reflavor it (and I'm willing to reflavor anything if it'll work for my concept or needs), but there are a LOT of people who aren't. And the name "barbarian" does imply certain assumptions that a lot of people take for granted. Just like the term "fighter" does. People are often prone to feeling that fighters can and should be good at modeling whatever warrior type you want, but they are, mechanically, not that good at doing much other than heavily armored warrior. I'm okay with barbarians being viable swashbucklers, but it seems odd that fighers really can't be.And what's this about barbarians often wear medium armor? Someone actually wears medium armor?
Agreed, that's one reason I put in my $0.02 worth on the 'Beyond the core' thread the Paizo guys put out. One of my requests was a big book of Alternate Classes, Alternate Builds, and Alternate Races with lots of fluff for each. My specific request was for :
A) A handful of new classes that couldn't be built using existing classes with a handful of tweaks.
B) A LOT of Alternate Builds (Class Kits for all intents and purposes) based around both the core classes and the new classes in the book.
C) A bunch of races (or alternate versions of existing races).I think Swashbucklers should not be a core class, they should be a kit class built on either Barbarian, Fighter, or Rogue. And, I'd like to see a kit for all three. That would give you the 'angry swashbuckler' the 'Tactical swashbuckler' and the 'sneaky swashbuckler'.
I love the idea of kits with lots of fluff for each kit (one page per kit, fluff and rules mods, or two pages, one fluff, one rules mods).
Some of the alternate builds from UA never saw any use, but some just rock. We use the heck out of Cloistered Cleric for example, and we use an alternate fighter build for swashbucker types.
|
|
Actually in the new rules fighters can do acrobatics pretty good, They just aren't the best at it In fact with armour mastery fighters are better at doing acrobatics in heavier armour than any other class in the game.
So if they can do it better than anyone else... then why cannot they not have trained in it as if it were a class skill?
No, Hydro. You are correct. Just look at the illustration of Full Plate on 124 of the PHB. Full Plate is big serious armor.
Cartwheels? I'd pay money to see Zurai pull that off.
I can't do cartwheels at all, let alone wearing armor. I'm not exactly the athletic type.
Oh, and the PHB illustration? A total joke. Especially the "spiked" half (armor that looked like that would be worse than not wearing armor at all -- big, sweeping spikes like that just channel the attacker's sword to joins in the armor, which are always a weak spot). Even the non-spiked half is a horrible representation of any kind of practical armor. It's ceremonial armor. Kinda like how the spiked chain in the PHB is utterly ridiculous from any kind of "makes sense" perspective.
Full Plate and Jousting Plate are, and always have been, different types of armor, even in D&D. Jousting plate is designed specifically for jousting, where you know you'll always be on your horse, and you know exactly which angles of attack are possible as well as which parts of your body are going to be protected by a shield. Full plate is designed to be used by people on the ground as well as people on horses, and to provide protection from most conceivable attacks while not preventing the wearer from being able to avoid attacks more or less as normal. In D&D, they have different stats.
Ugh... Okay, I'll try to untangle this starting from the top.
For one, skill focus does make half-elves a great race to play if you want to make a skillmonkey. Halfelves make great masters of disguise, silver-tongued devils, sabateurs, etc. Like I said, Skill Focus is worth taking if you really want to rock at one skill.
However, even if you don't, that doesn't make the race suboptimal. Races are a mixed bag. Few characters take full advantage of every feature that a race hands out (especially in PF); +2 to any stat makes them good for any one-stat character even if you don't really need skill focus.
None of which actually supports your assertion about Skill Focus as a feat. In fact, the very reason half-elves get skill focus (while humans get any feat of their choice) is because Skill Focus is weaker than most feats for most characters. It's cool from a flavor perspective but not overwhelmingly powerful (a fringe benefit), and powers like that make good racial features.
As for as a choise for a fighter/swashbuckler it's a great race
+2 to any stat (dex)no penalty to con (as the elves have)
Elven Immunities - nice when you got bad will saves and nice vs. Ghouls
Keen Senses - always nice to get +2 to one of the most powerful skills in the game
And....skill focus.
As for Skill Focus is weaker than most feats for most characters? Well let me quote SuperSheep.
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.[...]
So if skill focus (+6 at level 10) is not a big deal. Why are people having a thread about not getting +3 to a skill?
And finally, and most importantly, even if I were saying that half-elves were a suboptimal race, it would be rediculous of you to take that personally.
Sometimes you use a given race, class or feat just because you like it; making a suboptimal character does not make you "stupid" and I resent being accused of saying so.You don't have to agree with me about game balance or game theory or what-have-you, but please, refrain from fabricating personal attacks against you.
I have made many post in this thread where I have suggested skill focus as an good alternative, then you come along and say:
I think it's a little silly to suggest that any character take Skill Focus with a non-class skill (Skill Focus is balanced on the assumption that you have already done everything in your power to maximise a skill. It's barely worthwhile even then
Which I thought suggested my idea was stupid. Especially when you end your post quoting me.
As for "fabricating personal attacks". Sorry if I misread "I think it's a little silly to suggest that any character take Skill Focus with a non-class skill", but this in conjunction with the rest of your answers to my posts does look like you think I'm, or my posts are, stupid.
Or how should I read: "This sort of "frikin deal with it" assertion contributes nothing to the thread."?
Well my post prior to that post was more that just "deal with it". Did you read it?
And if you don’t like “deal with it”....To be honest what can we do? The final is ...final. We can deal with it. I have given Disciple of Sakura (and Nero24200) suggestion how to play a swashbuckler and I think that contributes SOMETHING to the thread or at least to them. I have also speculated as to why Paizo made the choice they made, which is more than just screaming: deal with it.
I had an argument with Disciple of Sakura. You jumped in and started to say my suggestions was silly and that my "deal with it" assertion contributes nothing to the thread. So if I read you wrong (my suggestions are silly and they contribute nothing to the thread) it doesn't mean I "fabricating personal attacks". I tend to take it personal when people call my opinions silly and dismissing my suggestions, saying they contribute to nothing.
The final part of your reply to my ‘apology’ doesn’t exactly weaken my feeling that you are hostile. Adding rediculous in bold text and accusing me of fabricating stuff is not to be read as hostile? Misreading does not equal fabricating. People do mistakes. I do them all the time. That doesn’t mean I fabricate stuff just to pick a fight.
Anyway. I agree on most of your posts in this thread. For what’s that’s worth to you.
You don't have to agree with me about game balance or game theory or what-have-you, and yes I do mistakes some times, but please stop your accusations of me fabricating stuff.
....If I misread youn again, sorry.
too much to quote
Let me be clear here, I'm not calling anyone anything.
But it's silly to suggest taking skill focus with a non class skill. And your posts pretty much read as "deal with it" to me.
The issue at hand is that people are suggesting that fighter should have access to the option at no cost. The counter opinion is that they can give up a very valuable class ability (feat) or an entire class level in order to obtain it. Why would it be surprising that this is unacceptable? Why would it be surprising that people might alter things they don't like in the final?
|
|
Since this has become mostly a disagreement about why skill focus is or is not the cure all for the fighter's lack of acrobatic training, let me suggest something different. Give all characters a number of skills (equal to some arbitrary number like 2 of their Int bonus, min 1 of course) that they can treat as class skills. Why shouldn't some wizards be able to use search and dsable device? Why shouldn't some fighters have stealth and acrobatics? I don't think this would take away too much from the skillmonkeys, since the main comodity is skill points, not access to skills. These could be like the backgrounds in some games/settings that give access to additional skills. Now--discuss/argue/tear it apart.
Since this has become mostly a disagreement about why skill focus is or is not the cure all for the fighter's lack of acrobatic training, let me suggest something different. Give all characters a number of skills (equal to some arbitrary number like 2 of their Int bonus, min 1 of course) that they can treat as class skills. Why shouldn't some wizards be able to use search and dsable device? Why shouldn't some fighters have stealth and acrobatics? I don't think this would take away too much from the skillmonkeys, since the main comodity is skill points, not access to skills. These could be like the backgrounds in some games/settings that give access to additional skills. Now--discuss/argue/tear it apart.
I'm still lobbying for my "choose your class skills" idea. Count how many your class would get normally, then take that many class skills by picking off the list.
Pick your own skills in '09!
Since this has become mostly a disagreement about why skill focus is or is not the cure all for the fighter's lack of acrobatic training, let me suggest something different. Give all characters a number of skills (equal to some arbitrary number like 2 of their Int bonus, min 1 of course) that they can treat as class skills. Why shouldn't some wizards be able to use search and dsable device? Why shouldn't some fighters have stealth and acrobatics? I don't think this would take away too much from the skillmonkeys, since the main comodity is skill points, not access to skills. These could be like the backgrounds in some games/settings that give access to additional skills. Now--discuss/argue/tear it apart.
I'm still lobbying for my "choose your class skills" idea. Count how many your class would get normally, then take that many class skills by picking off the list.
Pick your own skills in '09!
I like the notion of a couple of "elective class skills".
too much to quoteLet me be clear here, I'm not calling anyone anything.
But it's silly to suggest taking skill focus with a non class skill. And your posts pretty much read as "deal with it" to me.
The issue at hand is that people are suggesting that fighter should have access to the option at no cost. The counter opinion is that they can give up a very valuable class ability (feat) or an entire class level in order to obtain it. Why would it be surprising that this is unacceptable? Why would it be surprising that people might alter things they don't like in the final?
Why is it silly to take skill focus for a non class skill, especially for a half elf?
If people want to house rule acrobatics as a class skill for fighters cool; it's their game. If they are in organized play or have a DM who won't deviate from the book then you're back to multi-classing or skill focus.
I can't say skill focus would be my first choice for a fighter, so I'm certainly not suggesting it's optimal.
OTOH, even if you can't house rule the issue a one or two level dip into rogue is hardly giving up a level. If you take a two level dip your fighter class abilities fall 2 levels behind and you loose a BAB and 2 HP. In exchange you get a SA die, evasion, a reflex bump, 12 extra skill points, a boat load of class skills, and you can still grab a combat feat.
I know that's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's hardly a big handicap.
But it's silly to suggest taking skill focus with a non class skill.
Edit: I don't agree. And Thanx, I'm not silly. Only my suggestions are. Big differens? Oh, I forgot. Your first line gave you an ailbi to write anything.
And your posts pretty much read as "deal with it" to me.
Some did, some did more. Read all my posts.
And what can we do? deal with it. That is. The final is final, we can't change it but we can relate to to it.
Why would it be surprising that people might alter things they don't like in the final?
It's not. It's OK change stuff.
If I say Deal with it only tells you to deal with it. Not how you deal with it. You may go by the book or houserule. If you go by the book I gave some suggestions. You may not like them. It ok if yopu don't.Last: The spoiler was an answer to Hydro.
Just curious about it since with the mechanical advantages of tumbling it should be something that every fighter learns about. Not warriors of course, but fighters are focused on fighting, they're not simply soldiers.
I'm planning to make it a class skill in my game as a house rule, but I was wondering why it isn't one already (and for that matter, why Tumble wasn't one in 3.0/3.5).
Cheers! :)
Fighters are just too inflexible.
Yuk yuk! :)
To venture a (philosophical) guess, the lone fighter (or 2) in an adventure party is actually quite an artificial construct.
A fighter, a soldier, doesn’t get training in acrobatics, because there is no need of it while standing and -holding the line of battle- with your fellow fighters. Or, put another way, as beneficial as the skill may be to combat, there is no time for it at BOOT CAMP.
One doesn’t choose to become a fighter, if the desired goal is to be a rogue or monk -- other military skillz take precedence.
Edit: I like -this picture- .
|
|
To venture a (philosophical) guess, the lone fighter (or 2) in an adventure party is actually quite an artificial construct.
A fighter, a soldier, doesn’t get training in acrobatics, because there is no need of it while standing and -holding the line of battle- with your fellow fighters. Or, put another way, as beneficial as the skill may be to combat, there is no time for it at BOOT CAMP.
One doesn’t choose to become a fighter, if the desired goal is to be a rogue or monk -- other military skillz take precedence.
Edit: I like -this picture- .
Disagree. Those guys are the warrior class (in the second pic, the guys in the first one are clearly bards with 4 ranks in Perform [reenactment])... from a very historically inaccurate game, I might add. Not saying the game isn't fun, mind you, just that it's units are very "hollywood". I mean, we're talking about a game that has exploding pigs for crying out loud!
|
|
I'm still lobbying for my "choose your class skills" idea. Count how many your class would get normally, then take that many class skills by picking off the list.
Pick your own skills in '09!
Seconded.
Also, with only a +3 bonus determining the difference in class skills you should be able to choose at least one on your own class skills if I don't house rule it your way.
Or how should I read: "This sort of "frikin deal with it" assertion contributes nothing to the thread."?
Well my post prior to that post was more that just "deal with it". Did you read it?
Your previous posts did indeed contribute to the thread, and the "Skill focus is the same bonus as a class skill' observation was a novel and valuable point of view (but please note that this does not mean I agree with that point, and further note that you have no place taking it personally if I deconstruct, dismiss, or disagree with said point in any way. An objection to your arguement is not an objection to you personally).
It was the post I quoted that was unconstructive. And indeed, had that been your first post in the thread I might have forgiven your tone for the sake of your ideas, but the very fact that your ideas had already been well presents is what made that particular post (The "Fighters. Have. Feats. Use them." one) so useless.
Stating your opinion once is constructive.
Defending or elaborating on your opinion in the future is constructive.
Responding to dissenting opinions by telling people repeatedly to just adopt your solution (without expanding on why they should do so or otherwise building onto your case) contributes nothing. Imagine what would happen to this discussion if everyone started doing that.
Do you understand?
As for "fabricating personal attacks". Sorry if I misread "I think it's a little silly to suggest that any character take Skill Focus with a non-class skill", but this in conjunction with the rest of your answers to my posts does look like you think I'm, or my posts are, stupid.
From the point of view of character optimization? Yes, taking Skill Focus for a secondary skill is silly. It would be just like taking Weapon Focus for a backup weapon, or Spell Focus for a school of magic that you aren't particularly reliant upon.
And, in the very same paragraph I went on to re-assert that this was not a judgement of anyone else's playstyle or point of view. I was only noting that this is a bad move from a balance perspective (and I feel that this is a relevant observation since we're talking about balance), but that does not make it "bad" in any other sense. Indeed, as others have observed in the past, "game balance" and "optomization" recieve far more attention in messageboard threads than in actual play.
I shouldn't have needed to cover my ass there- anyone reading this post should know that "bad tactics" and "bad roleplaying" are two very different things- but I did anyway, and you still chose to take offense.
And not only on that level (as if I had criticized your playstyle, which I didn't, and went out of my way to avoid doing), but as if I were actually attacking you directly. Saying "you run a stupid game" would be aweful, but even that would in no way imply "you are a supid person".
Look, I'm not holding you to blame for taking offense. This is the internet, it happens. Tones can be hard to read, varied communication styles clash, tempers flare, whatever. You're absolutely right, in fact; there was no need for me to jump to the conclusion that you were missreading me on purpose, and you have my appologies for that.
But I do hope you understand now that I was simply disagreeing with you; not criticizing you as a person or a gamer. The only reason I called you out to begin with is because I don't like it when discussions take turns away from constructive and respectful conversation (not that there is anything destructive about 11-word just-do-it-my-way assertions, but I felt and continue to feel that they at least stray into the realm of "not constructive").
Oh, I forgot. Your first line gave you an ailbi to write anything.Actually, it was mostly to remind me to bite my tongue when I started to tell you what I really think; because I don't want to bruise tender feelings.
If I say Deal with it only tells you to deal with it. Not how you deal with it. You may go by the book or houserule.So you just want to let me know that my options are "do anything"? Awesome.
Well I genuinely don't mind your feeling that the class needs no adjustment, it just seems that the gist of your posts (paraphrased as "deal with it") is: Too bad!
Which isn't that constructive.
How about telling me why you don't think any fighter should ever have the option to use that skill without wasting a feat?
|
|
I'm thinking in my next game, arcane casters won't get spellcraft. If they want it they can use skill focus to make up the loss of class skill bonus, but they don't get many feats so they can just lose a caster level.
Right, because Spellcraft is completly optional for an arcane caster right?
In PF the difference between a class skill and a cross-class skill is 3 points. Skill Focus is, coincidentally worth 3 points. I'm really not understanding why this is such a bone for you.
Honestly your arguments seem to revolve around 'I don't like it', which is fine. A perfect reason for a houserule. But it doesn't really contribute a lot to a serious discussion about rules and why they should/should not be what they are.