|
If so, just dump charisma, never take a single rank in diplomacy, and when you want somebody to be your friend just just nicely ask to be youyr enemy, you will fall your diplomacy check and the Npc will do the contrary of what you request from him, copngratulation now you have a friend.
I sincerely hope your tongue is in your cheek.
Does all social encounter get resolved by the roll of a dice?Well, seeing as how they lack the skill points to spend on social skills, they can't do it well.What does ability to roleplay have to do with the base functionality of the fighter class?Why did the fighter have to sit out on social situations? You do realize that role playing isn't just in the dice. You can be sociable without having to roll dice.
Why are you asking me? Malignor included that as part of the reason why fighters are no good. He was saying that because someone he was with was playing a fighter they had to sit out of social situations.
I know that's not true.
When you need to use persuasion, intimidation, or deceit and not believe everything you hear, then yes, things are resolved by dice. That is why the skills for them exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players can describe what they want their characters to say, right down to talking it out. However, just like with swinging a sword, their descriptions are tempered by the dice. Just as you cannot declare that you slice the head off the orc and forgo the dice rolls because you were being descriptive of talkative, you cannot ignore that your character sucks monkey-cheeks at social skills because you yourself aren't bad at talking.
|
|
And actually yes, by the rules, social encounters are resolved by rolls of the dice. Let's say your character is lying. That's a bluff, tempered by the NPC's sense motive check. Let's say the NPC is lying to your player? That's sense motive for your player. If they're palming a dagger, that's perception. If they're secretly a rakshasa, that's knowledge (planes)!
So many skills needed for that particular social encounter!
And actually yes, by the rules, social encounters are resolved by rolls of the dice. Let's say your character is lying. That's a bluff, tempered by the NPC's sense motive check. Let's say the NPC is lying to your player? That's sense motive for your player. If they're palming a dagger, that's perception. If they're secretly a rakshasa, that's knowledge (planes)!
So many skills needed for that particular social encounter!
Don't forget that it's a DC 20 Sense Motive to notice that someone is charmed. By 5th level you can do that by taking 10, so you immediately know when something is not right in the world. :P
To me the best way to make a fighter is to think up what I want his fighting style to be and focus on that. That has always lead me to make some really fun character. The Archetype system is kind of an icing on the cake. Sure some more skill points would be handy but the way Pathfinder changed the skill system means I'm not really locked into my Class skills any more.
The Fighter Fights, yeah is kind of his thing. I've always tried to focus on How he fights and focus on the feats that turn him into what I imagined.
Honestly I think the fighter "hate" comes from people who don't really think about how they want their fighter to fight. They view the class as "guy what hits things with Stick." and don't put much thought into it beyond that. When it comes time to pick a feat they look at the feat on it's own merits instead of how it's going to combine with the rest of their choices to create their fighter's style.
To me the best way to make a fighter is to think up what I want his fighting style to be and focus on that. That has always lead me to make some really fun character. The Archetype system is kind of an icing on the cake. Sure some more skill points would be handy but the way Pathfinder changed the skill system means I'm not really locked into my Class skills any more.
The Fighter Fights, yeah is kind of his thing. I've always tried to focus on How he fights and focus on the feats that turn him into what I imagined.
Honestly I think the fighter "hate" comes from people who don't really think about how they want their fighter to fight. They view the class as "guy what hits things with Stick." and don't put much thought into it beyond that. When it comes time to pick a feat they look at the feat on it's own merits instead of how it's going to combine with the rest of their choices to create their fighter's style.
I had an elf nomad who dual-wielded kusari-gama from the 3.5 DMG (essentially light spiked chains that deal slashing damage) which she called "Dust Blades", and wrote a history of the style, how it came about being, why it was a favored weapon of her people, a poem or two, and an example of how the style favored mobility, misdirection, and ambush tactics from any angle.
I mean sure, it was just TWF a pair of light reach weapons with a few feats scattered here and there, but I mean I put a lot of thought into the fighting style of all my characters. Even my wizards! Heck, one of my recent PCs was a mummy, and her fighting style was essentially powerful use of brute force and raw endurance. I was playing her in an adventure path, and she actually tossed a guy into a pool of fish guts. It was amusing. :P
Does that count?
|
Well, seeing as how they lack the skill points to spend on social skills, they can't do it well.What does ability to roleplay have to do with the base functionality of the fighter class?Why did the fighter have to sit out on social situations? You do realize that role playing isn't just in the dice. You can be sociable without having to roll dice.
Why are you asking me? Malignor included that as part of the reason why fighters are no good. He was saying that because someone he was with was playing a fighter they had to sit out of social situations.
I know that's not true.
So what's wrong with a Diplomacy +27 from Bob's build? Last time I checked, the fighter wasn't really the face of the group when you have a Bard or a Rogue who is built to be the face.
|
|
When you need to use persuasion, intimidation, or deceit and not believe everything you hear, then yes, things are resolved by dice. That is why the skills for them exist.Does all social encounter get resolved by the roll of a dice?Well, seeing as how they lack the skill points to spend on social skills, they can't do it well.What does ability to roleplay have to do with the base functionality of the fighter class?Why did the fighter have to sit out on social situations? You do realize that role playing isn't just in the dice. You can be sociable without having to roll dice.
Why are you asking me? Malignor included that as part of the reason why fighters are no good. He was saying that because someone he was with was playing a fighter they had to sit out of social situations.
I know that's not true.
Since when have fighter's been known for this? You assume that there isn't a bard, or rogue, or sorcerer in the party who could handle these situations better.
Seems to me like the fighter needs to be a one man show because if he can't do everything then there is a problem.
Do you get mad when the fighter can't handle knowledge Arcana checks when there is a perfectly good Wizard standing over there?
If situations come up that it's obvious when another class is supposed to handle it, and that class is in the party, then where is the problem?
Please stop trying to come up with situations that you think a fighter can't handle when he doesn't have to.
So what's wrong with a Diplomacy +27 from Bob's build? Last time I checked, the fighter wasn't really the face of the group when you have a Bard or a Rogue who is built to be the face.Well, seeing as how they lack the skill points to spend on social skills, they can't do it well.What does ability to roleplay have to do with the base functionality of the fighter class?Why did the fighter have to sit out on social situations? You do realize that role playing isn't just in the dice. You can be sociable without having to roll dice.
Why are you asking me? Malignor included that as part of the reason why fighters are no good. He was saying that because someone he was with was playing a fighter they had to sit out of social situations.
I know that's not true.
I haven't looked at any of the builds. I'm making the point that, with the Fighter's low skill points, there isn't much to spare. If you buy a social skill, you are ignoring something else. Fighters have very few skill points to spare. There also may not be a Rogue or Bard face in the group to do all the social interactions.
Since when have fighter's been known for this? You assume that there isn't a bard, or rogue, or sorcerer in the party who could handle these situations better.When you need to use persuasion, intimidation, or deceit and not believe everything you hear, then yes, things are resolved by dice. That is why the skills for them exist.Does all social encounter get resolved by the roll of a dice?Well, seeing as how they lack the skill points to spend on social skills, they can't do it well.What does ability to roleplay have to do with the base functionality of the fighter class?Why did the fighter have to sit out on social situations? You do realize that role playing isn't just in the dice. You can be sociable without having to roll dice.
Why are you asking me? Malignor included that as part of the reason why fighters are no good. He was saying that because someone he was with was playing a fighter they had to sit out of social situations.
I know that's not true.
There might not be. Or maybe the Fighter wants to be more than just a warrior.
Seems to me like the fighter needs to be a one man show because if he can't do everything then there is a problem.
Nobody said that. What we want is a bit more out of combat usefulness, not the ability to do everything. As it stands, the Fighter can fight, and that's it. Everybody else can be useful outside combat.
Do you get mad when the fighter can't handle knowledge Arcana checks when there is a perfectly good Wizard standing over there?
No.
If situations come up that it's obvious when another class is supposed to handle it, and that class is in the party, then where is the problem?
First off, you assume that the class is in the party. Second, the Fighter is the only class that can only handle one type of situation.
Please stop trying to come up with situations that you think a fighter can't handle when he doesn't have to.
No. The Fighter should be able to do at least a couple things outside of combat.
|
|
They also lack things to do during downtime. The wizard's off crafting, a ranger or rogue can be off scouting, the bard, paladin, cleric or sorcerer are sweet-talking someone. What does the fighter do? If you say craft, take your points out of acrobatics, you're out of skill points. Or maybe you dropped perception? Did you leave out knowledge (dungeoneering) with this build?
Fighters tied with clerics and sorcerers when they drew the short stick for skill points, but clerics and sorcerers both bring more to the party. Every other class gets more skill points. Don't bring race into it, because other classes can be human too. Don't bring stats into it, because other classes can boost their intellect, and some actually get mechanical advantages out of it.
How did you come to the conclusion that Clerics and Sorcerers bring more to the party? They bring something different to the party but not necessarily more.
So what's wrong with a Diplomacy +27 from Bob's build? Last time I checked, the fighter wasn't really the face of the group when you have a Bard or a Rogue who is built to be the face.Well, seeing as how they lack the skill points to spend on social skills, they can't do it well.What does ability to roleplay have to do with the base functionality of the fighter class?Why did the fighter have to sit out on social situations? You do realize that role playing isn't just in the dice. You can be sociable without having to roll dice.
Why are you asking me? Malignor included that as part of the reason why fighters are no good. He was saying that because someone he was with was playing a fighter they had to sit out of social situations.
I know that's not true.
Do you have a Bard or specific subset of Rogue?
That question being asked, the second fighter build Bob provides is significantly better than the first in a lot of ways. I still think I'd rather have a Ranger or Paladin on my side more often, since they bring more to the party than a Fighter does. He also lacks critical defenses like access to freedom of movement, mental protections, and death ward. The lack of death ward means that he would be dead in a session or two if he was in one of my games, almost assuredly.
How did you come to the conclusion that Clerics and Sorcerers bring more to the party? They bring something different to the party but not necessarily more.They also lack things to do during downtime. The wizard's off crafting, a ranger or rogue can be off scouting, the bard, paladin, cleric or sorcerer are sweet-talking someone. What does the fighter do? If you say craft, take your points out of acrobatics, you're out of skill points. Or maybe you dropped perception? Did you leave out knowledge (dungeoneering) with this build?
Fighters tied with clerics and sorcerers when they drew the short stick for skill points, but clerics and sorcerers both bring more to the party. Every other class gets more skill points. Don't bring race into it, because other classes can be human too. Don't bring stats into it, because other classes can boost their intellect, and some actually get mechanical advantages out of it.
As someone who has GMed a group of 4 pathfinder clerics in a party, they most definitely bring more. :P
Hmmmmmm..... We are in the 5th printing of the Core Rulebook and yet the fighter remains the same. Seems to me it's not the fighter with the problem but a few individuals.
We're in the 5th printing of the Core Rulebook and yet I can still create my own personal Terrasque, name him Fido, and have him play fetch. What is your point?
Okay well the fact that you haven't played a fighter in over a decade is pretty much where this conversation cries to a halt. This proves that you have not played a Pathfinder Fighter so really you have no viable data to contribute to the conversation.
And how exactly did a Fighter change with PF? A bonus on saves versus fear, 2 knowledge skills as class skills, and weapon & armor training. Even the archetypes (with the exception of the Tactician) are merely a reshuffling of bonuses and combat abilities.
The new features don't remake the Fighter enough to invalidate anything I've said. You asked, I answered. But feel free to write me off, fellow semi-anonymous internet user.
Why did the fighter have to sit out on social situations? You do realize that role playing isn't just in the dice. You can be sociable without having to roll dice.
Do skills like Diplomacy and Sense Motive have value? Or don't they?
For just talking, I agree. But for any risky social endeavors, the Fighter is just a prop, known as "the muscle". Either that or he's a dupe, being manipulated by charismatic NPCs - aka a liability. He can't really do anything of value unless he invests a large portion of his skills into Intimidate... which means very few Fighters can do anything, and even then only intimidate - not something you use in negotiating with a king, or many other situations.Why didn't you just shoot the ogre magi with your bow?
The fighter used Javelins, not a bow. So after 3 rounds, he was out of ammo. The enemy used Invisibility, which mixed well with Fly. The rope bridge also required balance checks (swaying in high wind), and using a bow would have required 2 hands, and penalized the Fighter's balance enough for him to have fallen.
You asked for examples. Not all fighters use bows. Nor should all fighters use bows.
Fighters can craft items as well in Pathfinder.True, but again this is a skill-hungry ability, for a class without the ranks to spread around. Max out Intimidate and Craft... now you can contribute, but all your ranks are spent up; now the fighter sucks at climb, swim, riding a horse and in knowledge skills, and is dead weight in other situations - situations where his Ranger colleague can do just fine, thanks.
Why couldn't you attack a swarm? Swing a torch, throw some alchemical fire (You don't have to be an alchemist to get access to the stuff).
It was enough swarms to completely blanket the floors, wall an ceiling of a 60'x60'x120' room. And no, he didn't have any commoner-bombs. If he did, how is he doing what a commoner can't do; How is his training helping?
This is turning into a scenario-specific back & forth interrogation, which isn't answering the thread topic at all. It's also a waste of thread space. To have a back & forth convo like this on a thread, even if it "solves" those scenarios, says nothing about the general case. I don't know what this is meant to accomplish.
I actually had a half-orc fighter who had the Craft(Crossbow) skill and had some Knowledge(Engineering) who went around in a dwarven stronghold and made a few modifications to the ballista which enabled them to travel a little bit farther and do a little more damage. I talked it over with the DM who allowed me to combine my skill at the two to accomplish this. The dwarf king was so pleased at what I had done that I was proclaimed dwarf friend, I got three dwarves that would travel with me and I got discounts on items I wanted to have made. I made myself useful instead of just looking at my character sheet and giving up because I didn't have "help the dwarves in X way" written down.
That would count as "not contributing" when compared to what any spellcasting class (or a Ranger) does regularly. That would also count as a DM coddling the Fighter, giving him "something to do" with ad-lib houserules and the like. It actually reinforces my point.
It's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not meet up to expectations.
Exactly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- you do not need sense motive to suspect that somebody is liying, unless your Dm force you to be naive.
Then tell me: what is the value of having the Sense Motive skill?
Most lies vs. shrewdness situations in movies and RL are merely Charisma vs. Wisdom checks, because nobody has ranks in it.
Ranks represent quality training in something.
Ranks in a class skill represent extensive quality training.
An Expert with 1 class-rank in Bluff gets +4 over the standard Charisma check. Even if he were average (CHA 10) he would be bluffing as if he were an extremely convincing fellow; the best that raw talent con provide (as if CHA 18-19). To that expert, MOST people are naive dupes, simply because he's a well-trained con-artist.
Keep perspective on what the skills mean, and it makes sense. Don't ignore bonuses and dice. Translate them into meaning.
EDIT: I'd like to add, that if you do this (translate bonuses into applied meaning), it actually helps with...
- preventing power creep, which is great for DMs and players alike.
- hyping up PCs as they level; level 6 characters are amazing compared to the normal NPC population.
- understanding the ideas behind things like E6.
Players can describe what they want their characters to say, right down to talking it out. However, just like with swinging a sword, their descriptions are tempered by the dice. Just as you cannot declare that you slice the head off the orc and forgo the dice rolls because you were being descriptive of talkative, you cannot ignore that your character sucks monkey-cheeks at social skills because you yourself aren't bad at talking.Let say a fighter have 0 rank in diplomacy and 10 in charisma. He have normal social skills, like you and me, does not people undertand each other whitout the need of being the best bluffers? do you need to have 20+ in diplomacy to say wise words?
maybe he will not be the best in social situation but that is not the equal to be usseless.
Wise words? Not at all. Most of us tend to get a lucky shot (read: moment of inspiration) now and then. Most of us tend to put our feet in our mouths sometimes too. I myself would probably stat myself as having a Charisma of 7 and ranks in Diplomacy. It's good enough for me.
My wisdom seems to be a dumpstat as well, if my Perception is to be believed, which leads me to believe that any usefulness I'd have with Sense Motive is derived from ranks yet again.
Do I think you can have a reasonable character with average modifiers? Absolutely. However, when dealing with serious issues, the DCs for a lot of those skills tend to be pretty high. It's not terribly uncommon to get Diplomacy DCs in the 20s at low levels, and the stronger the will of your target the more difficult it is to get them to listen to you.
I'm not saying that the Fighter has to do everything. But being able to do more would be helpful. Look at the Ranger. The Ranger has been repeatedly proving itself to me to be everything that the Fighter should be. Solid skill set, solid combatant, solid saving throws, solid out of combat options, solid in combat options that extend beyond whacking stuff with weapons, etc. I keep finding that for filling out character concepts and representing heroic warriors and such, the Ranger seems to work way more. Fighter is just about getting tons of static modifiers.
Even if I dumped Intelligence hard, I find myself fine with the amount of skill ranks I could have. Ranger with Int 7 has 4/level skill points before favored class or race. That's enough for Handle Animal, Perception, Stealth, and Survival right off the bat. If I didn't dump Intelligence, then add Ride and Spellcraft to the list. I could drop a few ranks here and there, no worries. Drop a rank into each of my many class skills to diversify, then power-level a few skills each level where I feel I need them.
Meanwhile, I'm a badass martial with HP, BAB, and good saves, strong armor proficiencies, and so forth. I get Endurance for free, and I can drop a feat or a level dip to grab Heavy armor proficiency, for when I intend to prance about in Mithral Full Plate later on. I get bonus feats and I'm a good switch hitter by default. I even get a pony or something at 4th level, and a variety of useful spells. I even get resist energy as a 1st level spell, which is sexy.
Speaking of spells, I can function as a backup healer with some wands, craft my own items at 7th level, I get a smidgeon of druid spells, but many of them are pretty awesome. I even get the almighty freedom of movement later on, which is just sexy. Seems like all these new splatbooks are just gushing with sexy new spells for me to use, including stuff that just makes my damage sweeter and sweeter, but also stuff that lets me steal the Fighter's class features, 'cause Paizo is sweet to the non-fighters like that.
Long story short, you just get a lot more from the Ranger. Also the Paladin, who has lots of sexy abilities that serve him both inside and out of combat. Even if you decided you didn't like the Ranger 'cause of the animal companion, spells, and favored enemy, you could swap favored enemy for weapon training, animal companion for armor training, and spells for bonus feats and...well I guess you're a Fighter now. Only with better skills, saves, and more options, but less options than a normal Ranger. Oh well. :o
|
|
And actually yes, by the rules, social encounters are resolved by rolls of the dice. Let's say your character is lying. That's a bluff, tempered by the NPC's sense motive check. Let's say the NPC is lying to your player? That's sense motive for your player. If they're palming a dagger, that's perception. If they're secretly a rakshasa, that's knowledge (planes)!
So many skills needed for that particular social encounter!
- you do not need sense motive to suspect that somebody is liying, unless your Dm force you to be naive.
- Maybe you can not see his dagger, but if he es hiding his hands you have reason to suspect, maybe you can ready an action.
I refuse to accet that dnd/pathfinder is only about rolldice
Pathfinder isn't just about rolling dice, but if someone is lying to you, you need sense motive to even suspect that they are. The player may suspect a lie, but if you roll badly on sense motive, your character suspects nothing. If your character suspects nothing, then there is no reason to ready an action.
Sense motive is a very useful skill, if you(the player) do not suspect anything maybe the DM give you a clue. maybe you want to know what part of the Npc speech is false or something
thats do not mean that somebody with 0 ranks in sense motive have to be naive of unless coruse your DM force you.
maybe is just that we have diferent styles.
Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong, such as when you're talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.
That's DC 20 which is arguably reasonable.
A player/PC can assume someone's lying, roll or not. This is true. I mean if you were told beforehand "that guy is a con artist", you'll choose not to listen to them and () now the con artist will have a harder time of convincing you (the DC increases with reduced credibility). But the roll remains. That's the scary thing about bluff - someone starts with a hostile stance? If you're that good, you can convince them that the reasons for their hostility are grounded in lies -
"You won't believe me because of X; but let me tell you, X is wrong because of Y"
A high roll from a trained and charismatic con artist will still get you as long as his words reach the language-interpreter in your brain. It's not about being naive, it's about facing what looks like unshakable truth. That's the power of a high Bluff check, and why 99% of Fighters (the 1% being the ones oddly built for social games at the expense of Fighter prowess) are fall somewhere between "dead weight" and "liability" in a con-artists game by virtue of their class.
|
|
Pathfinder isn't just about rolling dice, but if someone is lying to you, you need sense motive to even suspect that they are. The player may suspect a lie, but if you roll badly on sense motive, your character suspects nothing. If your character suspects nothing, then there is no reason to ready an action.And actually yes, by the rules, social encounters are resolved by rolls of the dice. Let's say your character is lying. That's a bluff, tempered by the NPC's sense motive check. Let's say the NPC is lying to your player? That's sense motive for your player. If they're palming a dagger, that's perception. If they're secretly a rakshasa, that's knowledge (planes)!
So many skills needed for that particular social encounter!
- you do not need sense motive to suspect that somebody is liying, unless your Dm force you to be naive.
- Maybe you can not see his dagger, but if he es hiding his hands you have reason to suspect, maybe you can ready an action.
I refuse to accet that dnd/pathfinder is only about rolldice
let say you are a 20 level sorcerer (is unlikely that you have a high sense motive). if in the middle of the night a stranger(with, let say 20 rank in bluff couple with charisma 30 and skill focus and some item that give him +10 in bluff) come close to you and tell you that he is a good and if you cut yuur own hands he will reward you.
then if you fail your check you have no reason to believe that there is something dangerous in that situation?
Let's say you wanted to tell someone an impossible or far-fetched lie. You'd take some penalties, as listed in the bluff skill section. If you don't want to play it by the rules, then don't. But don't say that pathfinder is not about rolling dice. It's a game where everything that happens is impacted by dice rolls.
let say you are a 20 level sorcerer (is unlikely that you have a high sense motive). if in the middle of the night a stranger(with, let say 20 rank in bluff couple with charisma 30 and skill focus and some item that give him +10 in bluff) come close to you and tell you that he is a good and if you cut yuur own hands he will reward you.
Then if you fail your check you have no reason to believe that there is something dangerous in that situation?
Firstly, hostility and the very nature of the situation causes the Bluffer to suffer a -20 (impossible lie). That's assuming the GM will even entertain it as possible (direct quote: Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)).
Secondly, even if the unlikely roll occurs, believe him all you want. Bluff isn't mind control. It doesn't make you do anything, it only makes you believe that what that person says is true. Actually, let's improve your lame lie thus
"This was fun, but now let's get down to business. I am actually the god of magic, possessing this mortal shell for now. I came here to test your faith with my offer - if you remove your hands, I shall reward you by giving you my own hands, and you will have vast arcane power. Join me!"
Now, we can even go further and say that the lie has other stuff in it that we, poor untrained players have no chance of dreaming up; It's just that good. But wait...
Action: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a case-by-case basis).
Well, how long would it take to even say that up there?
Sounds to me like such an elaborate lie would need at least a few rounds to even say. Let's change it up.
"Wait! I'm not here to fight. I promise you'll want to hear what I have to say."
That's a round. Then you can fly into the crazy lie after. Or the player can just say "I'm hostile, and my friend here has Speak with Dead. I'll hear your corpse out later".
Bluff: Success. Too bad it didn't save his life.
A good bluff isn't mind control. The person you're lying to has free will as to how they'll use this "new truth".
As an aside, this is a bit tangential. Care to start a new topic where we can continue this?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
let say you are a 20 level sorcerer (is unlikely that you have a high sense motive). if in the middle of the night a stranger(with, let say 20 rank in bluff couple with charisma 30 and skill focus and some item that give him +10 in bluff) come close to you and tell you that he is a good and if you cut yuur own hands he will reward you.
then if you fail your check you have no reason to believe that there is something dangerous in that situation?
Let's see. So someone who is of godlike power, mastered in lying to the point that he makes devils look bad when spinning lies, who is magically reinforcing his ability to lie, and has Charisma that is similar to beings of immense divine power. Hm...
Well first, you suffer a -20 penalty for your lie essentially being impossibly far fetched. But then again, you are literally beyond mortal levels of lying. The DC to tell you are lying is probably DC 36 or so, assuming a roll of 10 (or taking 10).
Yeah, honestly, you might believe he's a good guy. Hell, you might believe he is god incarnated into mortal form. You probably will even believe that he will reward you if you cut your hands. He can't force you to cut your hands, but that doesn't mean you won't believe he could reward you for doing so.
If your Sense Motive is a whopping +0, yeah you are a tool to this guy. You as a player? Probably really suspicious. Your character? Well he knows no difference. Welcome to PC knowledge vs Player Knowledge. Metagaming 101, as they say.
What I'm seeing here is not a problem with the fighter at all but people trying to put the fighter into situations to try and make the fighter look bad in order to justify their argument. I can come up with situations to make each and every class look bad but that doesn't mean there is a problem with the class. Not every class can handle each and every situation and there are times when it takes everyone helping each other in order to get through an encounter or a situation.
The basic premise is that the fighter sucks at two things: Combat, and non-combat. We say this, not because we hate fighters, not because we're pencil-necked dweebs who hate jocks, but because it's true. Experience shows that fighters just don't pull their weight in a group, starting somewhere between level 1 and 11 depending on group and optimization.
The arguments for the fighter NOT sucking are as follows:
*Endurance. Which is b##@&~&!, because he relies on casters to resupply HP.
*Flavor (My dude used to run an inn! How awesome is that?!). B&$!$%!~, because flavor applies to any character regardless of class. Besides, Fighter is s@#@ for flavor, because he gets 2 skill points and has an Int of either 7 or 13.
*House rules. That's the Oberoni Fallacy, look it up if you don't know it.
*Pandering. I can build scenarios around the Fighter and give him extra-sweet loot. How cute. That's actually an admission that Fighter sucks, not an argument that he doesn't.
*I can build him to do X: Congratulations, you're now mediocre at X, and suck even harder at everything else. And you can't change your build.
*Magic items. I can cover weakness X with item Y. I can solve problem Z with item Omega. The first one usually ends in cherrypicking. After the flying, the teleportation, the interaction and the counter-illusion items, poor fight-dude doesn't have the cash for weapons, defense and strength-boosters. Meanwhile, other classes either don't have the weakness in question or can cover it with class...
Magic items(mentioned above) is a terrible argument. The game assumes you will have them. It does not assume have access to any of them that you want, and the fighter does pull his weight in most game, at least until higher levels depending on the GM.
With the number of feats fighters can cover two paths now, not like 3.5. That one is also wrong.The other melee types only bring bigger numbers in special scenarios(smiting, favored enemies).
The rest of the post is pretty much correct though. You can't depend on house rules or flavor to prove a point. They also need more skill points. They are not so good at fighting that 2+int is justifiable.
|
|
[
Secondly, even if the unlikely roll occurs, believe him all you want. Bluff isn't mind control. It doesn't make you do anything, it only makes you believe that what that person says is true. Actually, let's improve your lame lie thus
Thank you!!
so the fighter does not have to behave acording to the rolls, the Dm have no right to say "you believe in what X says because you failed a roll so behave accordingly".
Wrong again. If you fail your sense motive, you believe him. You are not obligated to do what he says, but you do believe him. If the GM says "you think he's telling the truth", then your fighter thinks he's telling the truth.
Mergy is right-o.
|
|
I said behave.Wrong again. If you fail your sense motive, you believe him. You are not obligated to do what he says, but you do believe him. If the GM says "you think he's telling the truth", then your fighter thinks he's telling the truth.[
Secondly, even if the unlikely roll occurs, believe him all you want. Bluff isn't mind control. It doesn't make you do anything, it only makes you believe that what that person says is true. Actually, let's improve your lame lie thus
Thank you!!
so the fighter does not have to behave acording to the rolls, the Dm have no right to say "you believe in what X says because you failed a roll so behave accordingly".
You're correct, and I misread your last sentence. Barring mind-control, the GM has no right to tell a player how his character behaves. We're far away from the fighter and his abilities by now, however.
I'd like to point out that, despite this little side-track, I do not think the Fighter should have Bluff, Diplomacy or Sense Motive as class skills. Heck, I don't even think Intimidate is a class skill, simply because I have a hard time picturing a group of prospective Fighters being trained on intimidation tactics; the class skill choice is rather arbitrarily based on "what should class X be good at" instead of "what would they actually be trained in".
Now Barbarians would be all about intimidation. War dances, death masks, dressing up like monsters, wearing the shrunken heads of enemies on their belt. Barbarians have a culture deeply enmeshed with intimidation.
I may be missing something, but I might not. This post is actually a badly veiled invitation to justify Intimidate as a Fighter class skill, in a way that supports the narrative of a Fighter's "origin story".
I'd like to point out that, despite this little side-track, I do not think the Fighter should have Bluff, Diplomacy or Sense Motive as class skills. Heck, I don't even think Intimidate is a class skill, simply because I have a hard time picturing a group of prospective Fighters being trained on intimidation tactics; the class skill choice is rather arbitrarily based on "what should class X be good at" instead of "what would they actually be trained in".
Now Barbarians would be all about intimidation. War dances, death masks, dressing up like monsters, wearing the shrunken heads of enemies on their belt. Barbarians have a culture deeply enmeshed with intimidation.
I may be missing something, but I might not. This post is actually a badly veiled invitation to justify Intimidate as a Fighter class skill, in a way that supports the narrative of a Fighter's "origin story".
I can see them getting intimidate. It can stop things before they happen. If you have a large bouncer at club the guy might not even be able to fight, but his size alone will deter some people. Using fear as well as diplomacy to avoid a confrontation seems like a good idea. I would just think that diplomacy would be the first option for most people.
PS:I understand the bouncer's intimidation by size is not the same as the game term intimidation.
I'd like to point out that, despite this little side-track, I do not think the Fighter should have Bluff, Diplomacy or Sense Motive as class skills. Heck, I don't even think Intimidate is a class skill, simply because I have a hard time picturing a group of prospective Fighters being trained on intimidation tactics; the class skill choice is rather arbitrarily based on "what should class X be good at" instead of "what would they actually be trained in".
Now Barbarians would be all about intimidation. War dances, death masks, dressing up like monsters, wearing the shrunken heads of enemies on their belt. Barbarians have a culture deeply enmeshed with intimidation.
I may be missing something, but I might not. This post is actually a badly veiled invitation to justify Intimidate as a Fighter class skill, in a way that supports the narrative of a Fighter's "origin story".
I actually do think Fighters should get social skills. A soldier may not be trained to Intimidate, but a bodyguard very well might. Sense Motive is something guards should get. Diplomacy is useful for mercenaries to get the most when discussing employment or for a Fighter who doesn't want to kill constantly. Perform is something a gladiator may well have. Bluff is useful because of the feint maneuver.
I actually do think Fighters should get social skills. A soldier may not be trained to Intimidate, but a bodyguard very well might. Sense Motive is something guards should get. Diplomacy is useful for mercenaries to get the most when discussing employment or for a Fighter who doesn't want to kill constantly. Perform is something a gladiator may well have. Bluff is useful because of the feint maneuver.
See, this is some neat stuff, not because I agree wholeheartedly, but because what you're describing would be a awesome set of optional packages (Guard package includes these class skills, these bonus class abilities, etc.), or maybe just a better approach to archetypes.