Why don't fighters have acrobatics as a class skill?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

151 to 174 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Abraham spalding wrote:

Have ya tried tumbling around in chain mail (let alone a breast plate)? I managed it... it was ugly, ungainly and ultimately painful.

Not fun.

were you wearing the padding below the chain or just a chain hauberk on your clothing?

Scarab Sages

Majuba wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
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.

Besides that type of skill should be CON based, if it refers to how long you can fight. But that also hurts the players and causes extra DM Tracking.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Darkwolf wrote:
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.

Really?

In 2e, clerics were combat medics and HP-batteries who never got to cast any of their other spells. That changed in 3e, because people didn't like it.

In 3.0, bards couldn't cast arcane spells while wearing armor. That changed in 3.5 because people didn't like it.

In 3.5, fighters received about half as many class features as they needed to be viable characters. That changed in the Pathfinder Alpha, because people didn't like it.

I think you may be adopting a false sense of objectivity here, or at the very least, overstating the "seriousness" of the matter at hand. This is a game, and whether or not people like it is the ONLY thing that matters.

Innumerable rich, detailed discussions have taken place here concerning why people like some things, why they don't like others, and what inclinations or preconceptions their opinions are based on.


Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Have ya tried tumbling around in chain mail (let alone a breast plate)? I managed it... it was ugly, ungainly and ultimately painful.

Not fun.

were you wearing the padding below the chain or just a chain hauberk on your clothing?

I tried both ways, with it belted. Now part of the pain was probably from a bad landing, would have tingled anyways but the chain pinched too. The awkwardness may have been a lack of practice in armor, but a lot of it is I am use to being able to turn the tumble to a side, or abort in mid-movement, and what not, A straight somersault I could do, but getting fancy with it wasn't so smart.

I also tumbled around some in leather armors... lamellar, scale, and a hardened leather breast plate, and that was much easier truthfully.

The chain mail in question was 10 ga. 1/2" links, unfortunately it's not riveted, knee and elbow length.

Honestly I think the biggest difference between the chain shirt and chain mail in 3.5 is the padding underneath.


Darkwolf wrote:
Right, because Spellcraft is completly optional for an arcane caster right?

Yes, actually. You don't need Spellcraft. It helps you avoid AoOs ... exactly like Acrobatics does. And, hey, it's only 3 points worse than having it as a class skill!


Zurai wrote:
Darkwolf wrote:
Right, because Spellcraft is completly optional for an arcane caster right?
Yes, actually. You don't need Spellcraft. It helps you avoid AoOs ... exactly like Acrobatics does. And, hey, it's only 3 points worse than having it as a class skill!

Actually it's not even that anymore. It's a modified caster level check (modified because you add your casting stat) this was covered in the cleric's preview.

So no, you don't need spellcraft as an arcane caster (and it could be fun playing a bard or sorcerer without it).


Darkwolf wrote:


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.

The bone of contention for me is that skill focus closes the 3 point gap, but to take skill focus you're wasting a feat. And it seems unfair to me that some of the most physical classes in the game can never be as skilled in this area without blowing a feat on skill focus. And of course, they still lag behind someone who gets the skill on their class list and decides to take skill focus.

Casters really don't have to have spellcraft. Of course, it's one of the few skills that every single caster wants to have, which is why I used it as an example. It makes sense for them to have it, they shouldn't have to blow a class feature to get it. I feel the same way about pretty much every physical skill and fighters/rangers/barbarians/etc. They should have the option.

If you feel that comes down to "I don't like it"... Well, sorry. I just don't like it.


Darkwolf wrote:
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.

Agree.

Edit:
It's been said that my "deal with it" attitude doesn't contribute a lot to a serious discussion. I say as an answer do "it's not fair" it make perfect sence.

  • Suggestins have been made to the OP by many on why the rules are they way the are
  • Suggestions have been made on how to play a swashbuckler type.
  • this thread has bee thread jacked many times and people doesn't even use spoilers
  • Even though the OP never was into "it's not fair" this thread as move on from talks about rangers and other stuff to "it's not fair."
  • the "it's not fair." attitude doesn't contribute a lot to a serious discussion

    Well is it fair? Answer: Perhaps, perhaps not. But deal with it. Even the 3.x rules said you could houserule on minor class features. So if you want to a boost to acrobatics you can:

  • houserule.
  • multiclass
  • pick skill focus.
    Any other suggestion on how do deal with it?
    Repeating "it's not fair" won't make Jason delay the final and rewriting it.


  • Zurai wrote:
    You qualify for a prestige class with skill requirement X if you have x-3 ranks in it as a class skill OR (x-3)*2 ranks if it is not a class skill. That means if there are any PrCs that require ranks in Jump, you basically have to multiclass away from fighter or ranger to get access to them, while barbarians are just fine.

    There no longer are any class's skill requirements becuase we no longer have cross class skills.

    ...Don't you check this stuff ;-)


    Hydro wrote:
    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.

    OK. Cool.

    I'll answer the rest of your post when I get better (got some problems reading and writing right now, so I'll be back)

    Liberty's Edge

    You know what. Lets take Knowledge (Arcana) and spellcraft away from sorcerers.

    I don't understand why they get these skill at all. I mean, they're supposed to be "natural" in their ability, not scholars who learn about magic from musty tomes. To me, they're meant to be dumb bumpkins who don't know the difference between magic missile and disintegrate. Definitely.

    But then its only 3 points that seperates them from the big boys; I guess he can just spend one or two of his feats on Skill Focus, or multiclass into wizard. :p </sarcasm>

    I apologize if this comes off as jerkish. I'm just seeing this as the logical extension of not allowing greater customization. I don't feel like i'm being told I cannot so much as told what I SHOULD NOT play like.

    Scarab Sages

    Abraham spalding wrote:

    Have ya tried tumbling around in chain mail (let alone a breast plate)? I managed it... it was ugly, ungainly and ultimately painful.

    Not fun.

    Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
    were you wearing the padding below the chain or just a chain hauberk on your clothing?

    Chainmail bikini?

    Ouch.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    Studpuffin wrote:
    I apologize if this comes off as jerkish. I'm just seeing this as the logical extension of not allowing greater customization.

    This is called a "slippery slope" fallacy. It is faulty in assuming that any line of reasoning which can't be extrapolated to any extremity is therefor invalid. I think most of us can agree that barbarians shouldn't get linguistics by default, but that doesn't mean no one should ever get a non-vital class skill.

    In other words, your 'logical extension' is not logical at all.

    "Customization" is something which needs to be balanced against convention and archetype (things which also have value to most gamers; if they didn't we'd all be using classless systems). Everyone has different views on where that balance lies.


    Studpuffin wrote:

    You know what. Lets take Knowledge (Arcana) and spellcraft away from sorcerers.

    I don't understand why they get these skill at all. I mean, they're supposed to be "natural" in their ability, not scholars who learn about magic from musty tomes. To me, they're meant to be dumb bumpkins who don't know the difference between magic missile and disintegrate. Definitely.

    But then its only 3 points that seperates them from the big boys; I guess he can just spend one or two of his feats on Skill Focus, or multiclass into wizard. :p </sarcasm>

    <none sarcasm>

    It never says that skills are learned.

    Maybe your fighter just happens to have a natural talent for riding, maybe he went to a war college to learn how to. Either way it's one skill point. Same with a sorcerer. They may not know how they know that the spell the wizard is casting does "x" but that doesn't mean they don't know. Kind of a "genetic memory" they have in their blood.

    But that's ok even if it isn't a class skill it doesn't really matter. After all the Beta skill focus turns into a +6 at tenth level anyways which is more than the class bonus, and casting defensively is not tied to spellcraft either. All in all the skills could be added back in for a specific bloodline (arcana for example) if need be.

    The Exchange

    Kuma wrote:

    The bone of contention for me is that skill focus closes the 3 point gap, but to take skill focus you're wasting a feat. And it seems unfair to me that some of the most physical classes in the game can never be as skilled in this area without blowing a feat on skill focus. And of course, they still lag behind someone who gets the skill on their class list and decides to take skill focus.

    Casters really don't have to have spellcraft. Of course, it's one of the few skills that every single caster wants to have, which is why I used it as an example. It makes sense for them to have it, they shouldn't have to blow a class feature to get it. I feel the same way about pretty much every physical skill and fighters/rangers/barbarians/etc. They should have the option.

    If you feel that comes down to "I don't like it"... Well, sorry. I just don't like it.

    See, I don't think it's a 'wasted feat' if it's something that they will be using often. A fighter gets twenty one feats. Using one of those to be able to use Acrobatics doesn't seem all that horrible to me. And the only classes they are going to 'lag behind' are the melee oriented classes who don't have Heavy, Medium and in the case of the Monk, Light Armor proficiencies. That seems logical and even balanced to me. You know who's really screwed? The barbarian who wants to wear Heavy Armor or the Rogue who want's to use a Shield. Both of which make at least as much sense as a Tumbling Fighter but they have 11 less feats to use for such things.

    Spellcraft? Yes, it is needed. Specifically, Wizards need it to learn new spells. It's not just for avoiding AoO's, so it's a bad example.


    I'd be in support of giving fighters Acrobatics as a class skill if you take away their proficiency in heavy armor. It would be a variant much like the one in the PF campaign book where you could opt to lose your 1st level bonus feat to gain 4 skill points per level.

    If you want to create an archetypical "light fighter" in makes perfect sense IMHO.

    Liberty's Edge

    Hydro wrote:

    This is called a "slippery slope" fallacy. It is faulty in assuming that any line of reasoning which can't be extrapolated to any extremity is therefor invalid. I think most of us can agree that barbarians shouldn't get linguistics by default, but that doesn't mean no one should ever get a non-vital class skill.

    In other words, your 'logical extension' is not logical at all.

    Yeah I realized that this morning; lack of sleep will really put a crimper on your thought process and it was pretty late last night. I also meant "natural" and not "logical", but that was also bad word choice on my part.

    Quote:

    "Customization" is something which needs to be balanced against convention and archetype (things which also have value to most gamers; if they didn't we'd all be using classless systems). Everyone has different views on where that balance lies.

    Almost agree. Everyone wants the game to be fun, but we all want it to make sense as well. I'm not seeing the argument for excluding fighters (or by extension rangers) from having acrobatics as very strong, so the attitudes expressed are coming off as hostile and needlessly so.

    So you bring up convention and archetype as well... which is something I think is being largely ignored. An entire Archetype is basically denied, the jumping figher. He can no longer jump. I've never seen a fighter who couldn't jump, and it bothers the crud out of me that they're now not as good at climbing.

    Don't get me wrong either, i'd be a big fan of a classless system if I ever found one that I thought worked well enough.


    Zark wrote:
    Zurai wrote:
    You qualify for a prestige class with skill requirement X if you have x-3 ranks in it as a class skill OR (x-3)*2 ranks if it is not a class skill. That means if there are any PrCs that require ranks in Jump, you basically have to multiclass away from fighter or ranger to get access to them, while barbarians are just fine.

    There no longer are any class's skill requirements becuase we no longer have cross class skills.

    ...Don't you check this stuff ;-)

    It would help your case if you were correct when you got snarky. Especially when it's already been covered by other people in the thread several days ago.


    Zurai wrote:
    Zark wrote:
    Zurai wrote:
    You qualify for a prestige class with skill requirement X if you have x-3 ranks in it as a class skill OR (x-3)*2 ranks if it is not a class skill. That means if there are any PrCs that require ranks in Jump, you basically have to multiclass away from fighter or ranger to get access to them, while barbarians are just fine.

    There no longer are any class's skill requirements becuase we no longer have cross class skills.

    ...Don't you check this stuff ;-)
    It would help your case if you were correct when you got snarky. Especially when it's already been covered by other people in the thread several days ago.

    I am correct. they no longer talk about class skills, they talk about skill ranks.

    I didn't want to be snarky. that's why I added the ";-)"


    Zurai wrote:


    That's because that rule is in the main beta book. Page 52, "Designer Notes: Prestige Skills".

    I missed this post. I'm Sorry. I was refering to the Prestige Class Web Enhancement.

    Perhaps they have changed this in the Final. If the PrC in the final is anything close to the Prestige Class Web Enhancement this won't be a problem anyway.

    Spoiler:

    In 3.5 the Duelist requirements are:
  • Base Attack Bonus: +6.
  • Skills: Tumble 5 ranks, Perform 3 ranks.
  • Feats: Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Finesse.

    In the Prestige Class Web Enhancement the Duelist requirements are:

  • Base Attack Bonus: +6.
  • Skills: Acrobatics 2 ranks, Perform 2 ranks.
  • Feats: Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Finesse.

    So the requirements are now MUCH lower. In 3.5 a fighter hade to spend 10 skill points on tumble so he had to be level 7 to get 5 ranks in tumble as a fighter.
    If someone think taking 4 ranks of acrobatics is a problem then those people really don't wan't to play swashbuckler. Because if you want to play one you will max acrobatics.

    The same goes for the Shadowdancer's skill requirements

    In 3.5 they are:

  • Move Silently 8 ranks, Hide 10 ranks, Perform (dance) 5 ranks
    In 3.5 they have to be level 17 to get 10 ranks i hide.

    In Prestige Class Enhancement they are:

  • Stealth 5 ranks, Perform (dance) 2 ranks
    Now a fighter can become a shadowdancer at level 6.

  • edit:

    Kuma wrote:
    stuff
    Spoiler:
    Kuma wrote:
    Zark wrote:
    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.

    OK.

    Kuma wrote:


    Zark wrote:


    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.

    Yes. Do anything so long your DM/GM goes along with it

    Kuma wrote:


    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.

    We can't change the final. So too bad.

    If your DM/GM don't want to help you out/houserule. Too bad.
    I have given some options. If you don't like them. OK. But repeating "it's not fair" is not constructive.

    Kuma wrote:


    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 never said that...or perhaps I did? I think fighters can have jump as a skill. Or the could get +3 on jump checks using acrobatics. As for acrobatics I say no. I just think it's wrong.

    If I did DM/GM a game and a player came to me and said: I want to play a swashbuckler. I got this backstory and I want acrobatics as class skill, I would say: OK. But it comes with a cost. Then I would tell him/her what stuff I would change with the fighter.
    No medium armor, heavy armor or shilds. Only buckler and light armor
    Only simple weapons, Bows, Longsword, Rapier, Scimitar. Perhaps I would allow for some more weapons and perhaps medium armor would be OK.
    I would probaly do some more changes. The backstory would have do be good.


    Edit:

    Hydro wrote:
    stuff

    OK Hydro. I’ll add most of my reply as a spoiler since most of it is off topic and a peply to you.

    Spoiler:

    Edit:
    Hydro wrote:
    Zark wrote:

    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?

    First. Apologies are accepted. I now just want to show you some of the stuff you write – how you write it – may very well be read as an objection to me personally. But I believe you. OK? So take this the right way. Also I don’t agree with all the stuff you say. Buy repeating them again and again are not amusing to others so I will add all this as a spoiler.

    My “frikin deal with it” post as we may call it was not the best I’ve written. But it was a response to Disciple of Sakura. She responded and I added a new post to her respond. That post (and some prior posts) was far more that just deal with it. I actually told her idea to remove Jump from the Acrobatics skills sounded good. So I think my “frikin deal with it” post was now settled.

    And when it is settled you come along and start repeating it “Contributes nothing to the thread”. Well it made me and Disciple of Sakura talk to each other. That’s something. And as I said before It’s not fair, it’s not fair doesn’t contributes too much either, does it? Repeating “deal with it” only show it’s not that constructive just to repeat it’s not fair. And it paid off.

    So
    A) Repeating stuff can be productive. But I agree. It should be avoided.
    B) You repeat stuff again and again. So be careful who you blame.
    C) You heated up something that was already settled. I don’t think that is constructive. It may very well look like you want to pick a fight.

    Hydro wrote:


    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 here you go again saying it is silly. Is this constructive? I think picking skill focus can be a good option and some people agree with me. Repeating it like it was a fact may very well make people think you are arrogant. Especially adding the word “silly”.

    As for “It would be just like taking Weapon Focus for a backup weapon”? Well if acrobatics is a big deal to your playstil, say if you want to play a swashbuckler, then acrobatics won’t be your “Secondary skill” it will be your primary skill. And if the skill is of no importance to you then the +3 to the skill is no big deal. There are no cross-class skills anymore. A 20 level fighter in 3.5 will have 11 ranks in tumble. In pathfinder they will have 20.
    So we don’t agree, fine. But repeating it’s silly just doesn’t come off as nice or constructive
    And character optimization? Well it’s kind of great if you are going to tumble a lot to pick skill focus. Especially if you get + 6 at level 10. And if you are into role playing picking skill focus can be a way of optimizing your character. Even if it’s not a class skill or perhaps even more if its not a class skill. You may not agree and that is OK.

    Hydro wrote:


    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.

    Yes. When I read it again it’s true. You do write: “If you want to take skill focus (tumble) and call your fighter a swash-buckler, more power to you.”

    But you when mix “OK” with “I think it’s silly” it makes it hard to really know what you are saying. Are you saying its’ OK just to cover you ass? It could be read that way. Especially when you end it all with: But I still insist that [xxx] Contributes nothing to the thread. Mixing water and wine is not always good.

    Hydro wrote:


    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.

    I did not choose. I read it the way I read it. It comes of as odd when you say “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.” And here you say that I chose to take offense. This kind of stuff could actually be read as your appology just is a way to cover your ass. – No I don’t think it is. But it does look odd.

    Hydro wrote:


    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 awful, but even that would in no way imply "you are a supid person".

    You can actually insult people or ridicule their choices without write: You are silly. Your opinons are useless and I hate you.

    So I think this argumnet is not a very good one. And if you went out of your way to avoid criticizing me/my playstil I obviously missed it. Too bad I did. But mixing water and wine will lead to a strange taste some might find not so nice.
    And not criticiz a playstil? Well Shisumo has pick skill focus and I the kind of person who would too. Saying it's silly to pick skill focus when people actually pick skill focus is not to criticiz a playstil? If you don't want to criticiz a playstil, saying that something people think is a good playstil is silly does come of as criticizing the playstil. Especially when it is their playstil.

    Hydro wrote:


    Saying "you run a stupid game" would be awful, but even that would in no way imply "you are a supid person"."

    This is awful thin. So I could answer every thing you say with: Hey, That's really stupid. Or I could just say again and again: Hey that's really silly. And this would not imply you are stupid? I say it's a matter of context. Sometimes it does imply I think you are stupid, sometimes it doesn't.

    Hydro wrote:


    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.

    Agree. This is the internet. And sometimes it’s hard to read the tone of a poster.

    Hydro wrote:


    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").

    Agree. It did stray into the realm of "not constructive. I’m glad Disciple of Sakura gave me a chance to answer and tell her that I agree with her on some stuff.

    .

    To you other readers :-)

    Hydro wrote:


    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.

    I think picking skill focus can be a good option and some people agree with me.

    As for “It would be just like taking Weapon Focus for a backup weapon”? Well if acrobatics is a big deal to your playstil, say if you want to play a swashbuckler, then acrobatics won’t be your “Secondary skill” it will be your primary skill. And if the skill is of no importance to you then the +3 to the skill is no big deal. There are no cross-class skills anymore. A 20 level fighter in 3.5 will have 11 ranks in tumble. In pathfinder they will have 20.

    And character optimization? Well it’s kind of great if you are going to tumble a lot to pick skill focus. Especially if you get + 6 at level 10. And if you are into role playing picking skill focus can be a way of optimizing your character. Even if it’s not a class skill or perhaps even more if its not a class skill.
    You may not agree and that is OK.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

    Saying 'take skill focus' is not a solution for the class. Skill Focus is NOT a fighter bonus feat (and a hugely lousy choice for a class ability, too). Taking skill focus becomes a racial/general choice. We are talking about the fighter class.

    As I said before, Acrobatics/Tumble drives defensive fighting. It makes no sense that a Fighter is worse at a basic combat tactic then a Rogue is.

    Being penalized in heavy armor is FINE. Not being able to train in the skill is NOT. You can always choose NOT to train Acrobatics if it doesn't fit with your concept. But if you want to be better at fighting defensively, you will take it. It also represents a level of physical conditioning a true Fighter should have. Grunts who stand in lines are Warriors. Fighters fight, and aren't restricted to minion duties!

    I don't see Rangers requiring Tumble...it's a civilized skill. Ditto barbarians. On the other hand, I can definitely see them needing Balance, because they both work with uneven terrain all the time.

    ==Aelryinth

    151 to 174 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Why don't fighters have acrobatics as a class skill? All Messageboards
    Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
    Druid / Monk?