There's "useful to the party", and then there's "better than anyon else in the party". An extra pair of eyes taking a Perception check. A good Healer, a good Bluffer. A Fighter can bring all these things to the table.
Better than anyone else who decides to bring those same things? Hell no, he's a Fighter. Still, a Fightr could roll high when the "expert" rolls low. "useful", yes. "Ultimate master", no.
It's already been proven over and over and over with many builds on these forums that fighters can perform just fine out of combat and still retain their fighting skills.
How about drop the crusade and discuss something that is actually relevant.
It still has yet to be proven that they can do so better than other classes and still "excel" in combat.
I have yet to see one of these skill builds a decently built Ranger couldn't beat.
Which is still an issue.
And if the Fighter isn't specifically built to have skills (The aforementioned "Human Loremaster with 14 Int or go home" effect from the other threads where people posted their "various" and "unique" Fighter skill builds) he's not even going to be okay at it.
There's "useful to the party", and then there's "better than anyon else in the party". An extra pair of eyes taking a Perception check. A good Healer, a good Bluffer. A Fighter can bring all these things to the table.
Better than anyone else who decides to bring those same things? Hell no, he's a Fighter. Still, a Fightr could roll high when the "expert" rolls low. "useful", yes. "Ultimate master", no.
So can every other class. They can do it better than him too and with less expended resources. A ranger is an extra pair of eyes with better perception, possibly another pair after that from pet, and he can still afford points every level for bluff and UMD if he wanted.
It's already been proven over and over and over with many builds on these forums that fighters can perform just fine out of combat and still retain their fighting skills.
How about drop the crusade and discuss something that is actually relevant.
It still has yet to be proven that they can do so better than other classes and still "excel" in combat.
I have yet to see one of these skill builds a decently built Ranger couldn't beat.
Why do you need one that couldn't be beat?
Yes, fighters can get Master Craftsman + a crafting feat but that also locks up 1/2 of their default skill ranks.
I'm also not sure how a fighter is going to be a good party face. Even with a high point buy you still need high physical stats, so something has to suffer. Lower Int means less skills points to put into those social skills (or in anything really), lower Cha hurts the use of those skills, and dumping Wis isn't directly related but that super low will save hurts too. The fact that diplomacy/bluff aren't class skills also hinders their party face aspirations.
And yeah your character can roleplay whatever they want out of combat; that isn't an issue. The issue is that mechanically they can't meaningfully help out at all.
It'd be nice to see one that can actually meet the par.
So can every other class. They can do it better than him too and with less expended resources. A ranger is an extra pair of eyes with better perception, possibly another pair after that from pet, and he can still afford points every level for bluff and UMD if he wanted.There's "useful to the party", and then there's "better than anyon else in the party". An extra pair of eyes taking a Perception check. A good Healer, a good Bluffer. A Fighter can bring all these things to the table.
Better than anyone else who decides to bring those same things? Hell no, he's a Fighter. Still, a Fightr could roll high when the "expert" rolls low. "useful", yes. "Ultimate master", no.
The qustion isn't "What can the Fighter do better than anyone else?". The question is "What can the Fighter do?".
|
Yes, fighters can get Master Craftsman + a crafting feat but that also locks up 1/2 of their default skill ranks.
I'm also not sure how a fighter is going to be a good party face. Even with a high point buy you still need high physical stats, so something has to suffer. Lower Int means less skills points to put into those social skills (or in anything really), lower Cha hurts the use of those skills, and dumping Wis isn't directly related but that super low will save hurts too. The fact that diplomacy/bluff aren't class skills also hinders their party face aspirations.
And yeah your character can roleplay whatever they want out of combat; that isn't an issue. The issue is that mechanically they can't meaningfully help out at all.
They can mechanically help out and it's been proven over again with various builds. Don't turn a blind eye.
|
|
It's already been proven over and over and over with many builds on these forums that fighters can perform just fine out of combat and still retain their fighting skills.
How about drop the crusade and discuss something that is actually relevant.
It still has yet to be proven that they can do so better than other classes and still "excel" in combat.
I have yet to see one of these skill builds a decently built Ranger couldn't beat.
Which is still an issue.
And if the Fighter isn't specifically built to have skills (The aforementioned "Human Loremaster with 14 Int or go home" effect from the other threads where people posted their "various" and "unique" Fighter skill builds) he's not even going to be okay at it.
The only problem here is your expectations.
It's a problem that I expect a build specifically tailored to get skills to actually be better than another class that puts no focus on them at all?
They can mechanically help out and it's been proven over again with various builds. Don't turn a blind eye.
In all the builds I've seen another class could do it better, without expending as many resources, and isn't as much of a one trick pony.
Why the fighter have to do better than the others? if a fighter could be better in combat and with skills than all rangers, then why to play a ranger? in that case we will have a lot of ranger sucks threads.
The question is what fighter could do out of combat? the answers is they can do several things, they are not the better at it but certainly they are not useless.
This.
The qustion isn't "What can the Fighter do better than anyone else?". The question is "What can the Fighter do?".So can every other class. They can do it better than him too and with less expended resources. A ranger is an extra pair of eyes with better perception, possibly another pair after that from pet, and he can still afford points every level for bluff and UMD if he wanted.There's "useful to the party", and then there's "better than anyon else in the party". An extra pair of eyes taking a Perception check. A good Healer, a good Bluffer. A Fighter can bring all these things to the table.
Better than anyone else who decides to bring those same things? Hell no, he's a Fighter. Still, a Fightr could roll high when the "expert" rolls low. "useful", yes. "Ultimate master", no.
Anything, however someone else can do it better, with less expended resources, and isn't so much of a one trick pony.(sorry for the repeating record). His 2+ skillpoints don't go far, anyone can just nab UMD and skill focus, anyone can roll perception, and anyone can buy magic items. The fighter on his own doesn't really get many expendable resources from his own class to burn on those things beyond feats. Which is something everyone gets, and won't add up to 2 more skill points per level very well. Worse is the lack of class skills... At least he can full attack things sometimes?
My direct answer to the question? Not much.
Guess we will agree to disagree, I feel that fighters are a great addition to any group. It's only the PLAYER who limits what a fighter can do out of combat because they can't think outside the box or they have a limited imagination.
Because the Fighter that invests Feats, Point Buy, and Traits into skills SHOULD be able to beat a Ranger who does none of them.
A build specifically designed to do one thing should always trump another class' default mode.
Look at it this way, you build a Fighter that's based completely around Trip maneuvers. He invests everything into tripping and taking advantage of trips.
...But there's another class with Full BaB and something that gives a bonus to Trip maneuvers while also having all the Trip Feats as prerequisite-less Bonus Feats.
In effect, that class' existence completely invalidates the point of making a Trip based Fighter. Why would you ever not play the other guy when looking solely from a mechanical perspective?
Because the Fighter that invests Feats, Point Buy, and Traits into skills SHOULD be able to beat a Ranger who does none of them.
A build specifically designed to do one thing should always trump another class' default mode.
Look at it this way, you build a Fighter that's based completely around Trip maneuvers. He invests everything into tripping and taking advantage of trips.
...But there's another class with Full BaB and something that gives a bonus to Trip maneuvers while also having all the Trip Feats as prerequisite-less Bonus Feats.
In effect, that class' existence completely invalidates the point of making a Trip based Fighter. Why would you ever not play the other guy when looking solely from a mechanical perspective?
The short answer is: Flavor.
Again, this is a role-playing game and people like certain flavors that means that they don't have to be min/maxed uber-optimized munchkins.
Anything, however someone else can do it better, with less expended resources, and isn't so much of a one trick pony.(sorry for the repeating record). His 2+ skillpoints don't go far, anyone can just nab UMD and skill focus, anyone can roll perception, and anyone can buy magic items. The fighter on his own doesn't really get many expendable resources from his own class to burn on those things beyond feats. Which is something everyone gets, and won't add up to 2 more skill points per level very well. Worse is the lack of class skills... At least he can full attack things sometimes?
My direct answer to the question? Not much.
As Nicos said, if a Fighter could maintain its combat prowess, and get a crap ton of skills, without a lot of "expended resources", then that would be one BA class. He can't do much but he can do enough. What can the Bard or Wizard do in melee? A little, but not as much as a Fighter
No one is saying Fighters should get 6 skill points per level and add half their level to all skills.
Skills are a secondary role, of course, an no one has to be the best as their secondary role, but if they're not even good enough to be relevant, then something is wrong.
If every class can do it just as well or better than you at a given role, than you fail at that role. This is the case for Fighters and every out of combat role. They can help, of course... But they are not any more helpful than a freaking commoner.
Fighters are not useless out of combat, but they still suck at it. Because every other class is more useful than them in that situation. Being worse than everyone else does not mean you're completely useless, but it does mean you suck at it!
So, yeah, compared to all other classes, Fighters suck out of combat.
Guess we will agree to disagree, I feel that fighters are a great addition to any group. It's only the PLAYER who limits what a fighter can do out of combat because they can't think outside the box or they have a limited imagination.
Woah! Care what you say. The game itself limits fighters by not giving them resources or class features that add to the party. Any other person in the party can talk, anyone can swing a sword, anyone can jump. When you start rolling the D20 the results will be affected by your class and abilities, not solely on your ability to role play.
Because the Fighter that invests Feats, Point Buy, and Traits into skills SHOULD be able to beat a Ranger who does none of them.
A build specifically designed to do one thing should always trump another class' default mode.
Look at it this way, you build a Fighter that's based completely around Trip maneuvers. He invests everything into tripping and taking advantage of trips.
...But there's another class with Full BaB and something that gives a bonus to Trip maneuvers while also having all the Trip Feats as prerequisite-less Bonus Feats.
In effect, that class' existence completely invalidates the point of making a Trip based Fighter. Why would you ever not play the other guy when looking solely from a mechanical perspective?
The short answer is: Flavor.
Again, this is a role-playing game and people like certain flavors that means that they don't have to be min/maxed uber-optimized munchkins.
And Nicos, didn't we already go through this with the build thread? It always came down to "You beat me by a bit of to-hit and some damage, but our skills are the same (with little investment on my part) and Favored Enemy blows you out of the water"?
Except the Archer, your Archer won handily, I'll give you that for sure.
As Nicos said, if a Fighter could maintain its combat prowess, and get a crap ton of skills, without a lot of "expended resources", then that would be one BA class. He can't do much but he can do enough. What can the Bard or Wizard do in melee? A little, but not as much as a FighterAnything, however someone else can do it better, with less expended resources, and isn't so much of a one trick pony.(sorry for the repeating record). His 2+ skillpoints don't go far, anyone can just nab UMD and skill focus, anyone can roll perception, and anyone can buy magic items. The fighter on his own doesn't really get many expendable resources from his own class to burn on those things beyond feats. Which is something everyone gets, and won't add up to 2 more skill points per level very well. Worse is the lack of class skills... At least he can full attack things sometimes?
My direct answer to the question? Not much.
Rangers must be OP. They get bonus feats, 6+ skill points per level, and a pet to boot! Oh and spell casting. Can't forget spell casting.
Actually in combat a wizard is going to be far more devastating in combat. He doesn't need a full attack, he has dozens of spells to protect himself and shape the field, and he can throw around save or dies from the sky while summoned creatures ravage the field and come to his aid. Being god is a glorious thing sometimes.
Bard has some viable combat builds, but he's not going toe to toe with the fighter for DPR. He however can dominate the fighter because the fighter has a puny will save... Then outside of combat he has the best skills and some casting too boot.
Guess we will agree to disagree, I feel that fighters are a great addition to any group. It's only the PLAYER who limits what a fighter can do out of combat because they can't think outside the box or they have a limited imagination.Woah! Care what you say. The game itself limits fighters by not giving them resources or class features that add to the party. Any other person in the party can talk, anyone can swing a sword, anyone can jump. When you start rolling the D20 the results will be affected by your class and abilities, not solely on your ability to role play.
I still disagree. Fighters are meant to do many different things in combat (hence 20 feats by the time they are level 20). They don't have to all be combat feats if the PLAYER wants a different flavor for their fighter. Someone can spend 3-4 of those 20 for some crafting feats, SKILL FOCUS feats so that said fighter has more to do out of combat with their character, or that player can even decide to invest a single feat into leadership (if the GM hasn't removed it from their game like some like to do) to have a skill monkey to play with alongside the fighter. There are lots of possibilities here.
Again, the limit is only the imagination of the player not the class.
Guess we will agree to disagree, I feel that fighters are a great addition to any group. It's only the PLAYER who limits what a fighter can do out of combat because they can't think outside the box or they have a limited imagination.Woah! Care what you say. The game itself limits fighters by not giving them resources or class features that add to the party. Any other person in the party can talk, anyone can swing a sword, anyone can jump. When you start rolling the D20 the results will be affected by your class and abilities, not solely on your ability to role play.I still disagree. Fighters are meant to do many different things in combat (hence 20 feats by the time they are level 20). They don't have to all be combat feats if the PLAYER wants a different flavor for their fighter. Someone can spend 3-4 of those 20 for some crafting feats, SKILL FOCUS feats so that said fighter has more to do out of combat with their character, or that player can even decide to invest a single feat into leadership (if the GM hasn't removed it from their game like some like to do) to have a skill monkey to play with alongside the fighter. There are lots of possibilities here.
Again, the limit is only the imagination of the player not the class.
That would be the case if feats gave more options. They add more +1s usually. They also tend to be big long chains so you can't do more than 3 things at once.
Anyone can spend some of their feats on something. Nothings stopping the wizard from taking craft wondrous items at the cost of one feat and doing it better than the fighter will. He also still has spell casting of course... The wizard also has a ton of skill points, and if he wanted could use leadership to get a wizard apprentice, who each take from each others spell books for more spells, have minions who are more wizards with more spell books so they all have a ton of options! They also all have a ton of skill points because they're intellect based.
Better? No.
Match, yeah. Weapon Training doesn't even come into play for Grapples so the Fighter has lost his main advantage all the other builds had over my Rangers.
Meanwhile the Ranger still has all his other advantages the other builds had that were mitigated due to the Fighter's Weapon Training and Fighter only Feats giving him an edge in combat without FE.
Also, I'm not saying a Fighter should beat a Ranger in both skills and damage output.
I'm saying the Fighter should be able to match the Ranger in skills without bringing his damage output below the Ranger's if he invests into getting skills.
The question was what the figther can co out of combat. It can be show that with not much investment the fighter can do a couple of thing out of combat.
The question was answered here in several other places. But we see the same that always happens.
"what fighter can do out of combat" becomes "what fighter can do out of combat that a ranger could not do", that is not the original question and more importantly why that question do not apply for others? "what can do a barbarian out of combat than some other class could not do?
Define "Not much investment". Can he do those things well?
@MrSin - you are just making my point for me. ANYONE can do anything they want, sure some classes have more skill points, but you can only invest 1 per level per skill anyhow.
So what if the fighter can't take every single skill whereas the wizard can? It just means that fighter has devoted his time to learn a few specialized things rather than a lot of things (he's out training with his sword and the wizard is training with his mind). He's good in certain areas, and not so good in others.
I rather like having some limitations to my characters, it gives them more personality to me. I purposely give my PC's flaws as well to give them more layers (like onions), and I give them in-depth back-stories because I like to enrich the experience for myself and make playing them more fun.
A Barbarian still meets the par.
He doesn't match Rangers but Rangers are silly anyway. Not OP, but I just don't understand why he's the only full BaB class with more than 4+Int.
But the Barbarian matches Monks, Cavaliers, Paladins, etc. with no investment on his part.
@MrSin - you are just making my point for me. ANYONE can do anything they want, sure some classes have more skill points, but you can only invest 1 per level per skill anyhow.
So what if the fighter can't take every single skill whereas the wizard can? It just means that fighter has devoted his time to learn a few specialized things rather than a lot of things (he's out training with his sword and the wizard is training with his mind). He's good in certain areas, and not so good in others.
I rather like having some limitations to my characters, it gives them more personality to me. I purposely give my PC's flaws as well to give them more layers (like onions), and I give them in-depth back-stories because I like to enrich the experience for myself and make playing them more fun.
And here it is again.
Good at stuff =/= Flawless, uninteresting characters. You can have a character who is good at things and still have them be interesting. It's not hard.
Rangers must be OP. They get bonus feats, 6+ skill points per level, and a pet to boot! Oh and spell casting. Can't forget spell casting.
Actually in combat a wizard is going to be far more devastating in combat. He doesn't need a full attack, he has dozens of spells to protect himself and shape the field, and he can throw around save or dies from the sky while summoned creatures ravage the field and come to his aid. Being god is a glorious thing sometimes.
Bard has some viable combat builds, but he's not going toe to toe with the fighter for DPR. He however can dominate the fighter because the fighter has a puny will save... Then outside of combat he has the best skills and some casting too boot.
I'll give you the pet, but a Ranger is going to do less damage to every enemy (as in non Favored) than the Fighter. The Ranger is not going to hit as much as the Fighter. The Ranger will have less AC or be slower than the Fighter. He can use spells to catch back up somewhat, but that only goes so far. He trades this in for more skill points. Seems reasonable.
I didn't ask about Wizards in combat, I asked about Wizards in melee. When I say a Fighter can be better than everyone else at, say, Disable Device, you say what about all the other skills? You go general. So I'm going to do the reverse to Wizards. Sure they've got a lot of combat options, but they suck at melee.
My point is, it's not about what you CAN'T do, it's about what you CAN. A Fighter will never have as many skill points as a wizard, but he doesn't need them. That's not his focus and he can do ENOUGH. A wizard will never be as good as a Fighter in melee, but he doesn't need to, that's not his focus. He can do enough.
Look at the build. A fighter is grappling with his weapon then he add all his modifiers to it. Weapon focus + greater weapon focus + weapon training and eventually gloves of dueling.Better? No.
Match, yeah. Weapon Training doesn't even come into play for Grapples so the Fighter has lost his main advantage all the other builds had over my Rangers.
Meanwhile the Ranger still has all his other advantages the other builds had that were mitigated due to the Fighter's Weapon Training and Fighter only Feats giving him an edge in combat without FE.
Grapple is not a weapon based Combat Maneuver. Disarm, Sunder, and Trip work. Grapple does not.
Also, I'm not saying a Fighter should beat a Ranger in both skills and damage output.I'm saying the Fighter should be able to match the Ranger in skills without bringing his damage output below the Ranger's if he invests into getting skills.
Why is that? one of the rangers main features are his skills if fighter could do that why to play a ranger.
And even then, a lore warden with int 14 will have the same skills than a ranger without int investment. And the lore warden would have basically the same DPR than other fighters.
You play a Ranger because he can get the same amount of skills with no investment. Remember, the 12 Int Ranger matched your 14 Int Fighter and went more than one up on him?
Your Lore Warden also would have less AC than the Ranger, and still not have any extra damage output the other Fighters didn't have.
|
|
I honestly think some of you don't fully understand the intent behind the fighter class and it's design.
The class is designed to invest, that is why it has so many feats. The fighter is actually the most versatile class out there because you can build so many concepts.
Please fully understand the class before you whine about it. It's alright for you to not like the class but don't blame the class for your dislike of it.
@MrSin - you are just making my point for me. ANYONE can do anything they want, sure some classes have more skill points, but you can only invest 1 per level per skill anyhow.
So what if the fighter can't take every single skill whereas the wizard can? It just means that fighter has devoted his time to learn a few specialized things rather than a lot of things (he's out training with his sword and the wizard is training with his mind). He's good in certain areas, and not so good in others.
That logic... My gosh. The wizard being able to put his points into everything proves my point. He can put in just as many points into everything the fighter had, then put them into more! The fighter didn't specialize in a few, he sucked at everything else while the wizard was good at that and more.
The fighter has 2+, the wizard has 2+. They both are specialized. Wizards because their intellect based are likely to have 22 intelligence by level 4 for instance, which is 6 more skill points per level. He can then proceed to put a point into everything the 14 int fighter did, then have 4 more points to place where ever he'd like. He then shows him up in combat with spells, and shows up the rogue out of it with spells.
Why is that? one of the rangers main features are his skills if fighter could do that why to play a ranger.
And even then, a lore warden with int 14 will have the same skills than a ranger without int investment. And the lore warden would have basically the same DPR than other fighters.
Why play a ranger if the fighter had his skill points? Probably the nature themed class features, favored enemy, pet, and spell casting if I had to guess.
The lore warden also gave up most of the fighters training in order to be a lore warden. His 2 extra skill points have to be put into knowledge skills, and if the ranger has 12 intellect he then has more skill points and he can actually choose where to put them.
The lore warden also gave up most of the fighters training in order to be a lore warden. His 2 extra skill points have to be put into knowledge skills.
FALSE! They just have to be int based skill not necessarily knowledge. Say hello to the sexy appraise and linguistic skills.
FALSE! They just have to be int based skill not necessarily knowledge. Say hello to the sexy appraise and linguistic skills.The lore warden also gave up most of the fighters training in order to be a lore warden. His 2 extra skill points have to be put into knowledge skills.
Oh, you caught me. Linguistics is the sexist of all skills!
@MrSin - you are just making my point for me. ANYONE can do anything they want, sure some classes have more skill points, but you can only invest 1 per level per skill anyhow.
So what if the fighter can't take every single skill whereas the wizard can? It just means that fighter has devoted his time to learn a few specialized things rather than a lot of things (he's out training with his sword and the wizard is training with his mind). He's good in certain areas, and not so good in others.
That logic... My gosh. The wizard being able to put his points into everything proves my point. He can put in just as many points into everything the fighter had, then put them into more! The fighter didn't specialize in a few, he sucked at everything else while the wizard was good at that and more.
The fighter has 2+, the wizard has 2+. They both are specialized. Wizards because their intellect based are likely to have 22 intelligence by level 4 for instance, which is 6 more skill points per level. He can then proceed to put a point into everything the 14 int fighter did, then have 4 more points to place where ever he'd like. He then shows him up in combat with spells, and shows up the rogue out of it with spells.
Where you see a flaw, I see an opportunity for better role-playing. I understand that yes the wizard for example has more skill points to put wherever he wants (hence why I put in my first set of parenthesis). I see it as the fighter putting his lesser intellect to work intelligently. He can't afford to spend all the time he needs to to train with the sword to devote to history and religion that the wizard can. The wizard isn't drilling in the practice yard with heavy armor, bows, swords, halberds, spears, etc because he's in his library studying spells and learning as much about everything that he can.
So when my fighter decides he wants to put his skill points into knowledge (dungeoneering) at the expense of being a better swimmer, that's a character perk to me.
Different strokes for different folks, you won't convince me otherwise and I don't expect to convince you otherwise at this point. So agree to disagree and move on.
Yeah, they build flaws into all the classes for balance. Like wizards ability to cast haste is balanced by
The lore warden also gave up most of the fighters training in order to be a lore warden. His 2 extra skill points have to be put into knowledge skills, and if the ranger has 12 intellect he then has more skill points and he can actually choose where to put them.
He only trade armor training, weapon training remain intact. he lost defenes against hits but gains defenses against maneuverfs and critical hits.
Besides, since when having two knowledge skills per level is abad thing?
The point was 2 of the skill points that helped him catch up were devoted to particular things, where as the ranger could place them anywhere he wanted. There are 12 knowledge based skills of varying value, if I remember right.
Come one rynjin, you did not read the build. Hamatula strke make grapple a weapon bassed maneuver.
Grapple is not a weapon based Combat Maneuver. Disarm, Sunder, and Trip work. Grapple does not.
Actually, I did not know what Hamatula Strike did.
Though saying it makes it a weapon based maneuver is stretching it to me.
You asked for fighter that mathes a ranger with o investment in skills, Now the rager is investng in skills.
No he isn't. Remember, we were doing 20 Point Buy. I didn't have anywhere to put the leftover 2 points.
Besides with a trait the fither can use a mithral breastplate without penalty. And if you think htat i a bad argument I remind you that in this kind of thread is alays asummed that everyone have a mithral celestial plate by level 10.
Is it? Seems a bit pricey to have that plus everything else you need.