Justin Sane wrote:If, for some reason, the bard is out of the picture, the rogue can still come up with a perfectly legitimate answer when the guards ask what are you doing in the royal quarters. Where does the Fighter fit in?Prison.
The third line was originally something about the wizard getting them out of prison, but that would derail the point since, you know, magic.
If you want skills then try a human fighter with a 12 int and instead of extra HP for favored class, take that extra skill point per level.
Or, if you want good saves you play a dwarf, or if you want to get racial flight you can play an Aasimar, but that doesn't really say much for the fighter class itself. If you want skills you might just want to not play a fighter, but the fact skill points may be the only way the fighter contributes out of combat, and he lacks so few, might be a part of why people think its a problem. You really shouldn't have to play a particular race and put all your favored skill into skill points to try and fix a deficiency, you should probably pick a race you like and gives things you want for roleplay and put your favored class towards something interesting to make that class more yours, imo at least.
Cheburn wrote:And I'd be okay with Fighter contributing less than pretty much any other class outside of combat if Fighter contributed more than most classes in combat. But it doesn't in a world where everyone else has built their characters well.I'm always "dumbfounded" by the contribution statement. All classes contribute one way or the other. Anyone telling you different needs to actually play the game.
The poster didn't say a fighter can't contribute, it was about how much. Everyone can contribute, even a horribly built commoner, but some classes may contribute more than others. Your also a lot more likely to be able to contribute based on what you can and how much versatility or potential versatility you have access to. The guy with six skill points per level is a lot more likely to assist with skills, and well, than a guy with 2+, of course, and someone like a cleric or wizard likely has spells. The guy with six+ is more likely to both have the skill you need in the moment and able to do it well. The fighter is pretty lacking in both skill points and alternative options.
I disagree, simply because it makes no sense. An master at arms who has zero knowledge of the enemies he'll be fighting is pretty much just a corpse, and a waste of investment in training. For a rank & file fodder-grunt (NPC Warrior), I can see a lack of counter-magic and counter-monster training, because they are low-investment expendable types. But not an elite specialist (heck, not even an officer in the military) should be spared training and education on counter-magic and counter-monster tactics. It's similar to neglecting the presence of aircraft or armored vehicles in today's world.
How does this make no sense? And how does a class with no understanding of magic get trained in how to defend themselves against magic and the tactics to defeat it. A wizard with 10 intelligence can't cast 1st level spells. Why should a fighter with 10 intelligence understand all spells and know tactics to fighting wizards if he doesn't know what wizards can do? He's never faced a wizard in combat until he's begun adventuring.
Your assumption that he's been trained in such fashion is a fallacy. Nothing in the fighter class states this is so. I can pick up a sword and say I'm a fighter. This is strictly your projections on how a fighter should work.
Cheburn wrote:shallowsoul wrote:Justin Sane wrote:Nothing stops a fighter from putting points in skills for RP reasons, traits allow you to make some skills into class skills. Now if you have a Bard, a rogue, and sometimes a Wizard(for spellcraft) then you don't need to invest a lot in order to aid another. Let those guys handle the most skills while everyone assists.shallowsoul wrote:Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.I... guess you don't *need* skills, no. I mean, you don't *need* skill ranks to actually participate in, say, a negotiation, or a war meeting, or stuff like that. I mean, what kind of DM do you have that *actually* makes you roll for stuff you roleplayed? I mean, if you give out a decent description of how your muscles bulged and your veins popped when you tried to push that boulder, how dares he to ask for a STR check?
Well, a lack of skill points tends to limit putting points in skills for RP reasons.
And I'd be okay with Fighter contributing less than pretty much any other class outside of combat if Fighter contributed more than most classes in combat. But it doesn't in a world where everyone else has built their characters well.
And who says a well built fighter can't contribute?
Also, contribution is not defined in the rules so there is no default meter that says you must past this to be legally contributing.
I'm always "dumbfounded" by the contribution statement. All classes contribute one way or the other. Anyone telling you different needs to actually play the game.
It's not a matter of "contributing one way or another," it's a matter of degree.
Fighter is good at "Standing still and full attacking," and not much else. They're arguably a little better at it than any other class. But they don't contribute (1) skills outside of combat, (2) buffs (for themselves or others) in combat, (3) healing. Furthermore, their mobility is poor and they do a lot less damage in mobile fights. And they are sitting ducks for magic users. Not just for Dominate, but even simple spells like Hold Person.
If Fighter is going to only be good at battle, then they should be better at battle than other martial classes at least, to balance out the lack of spells, skills, and supernatural abilities. But they're not.
Now you can play a Fighter and kill things. God knows I do so when I play Pathfinder currently. But it's frustrating to know (because I've built all of them out repeatedly) that I could be doing a lot more both in and out of battle with a Paladin or Barbarian. A Ranger would probably contribute similar damage in battle, but a *TON* more outside of battle, plus spells.
|Chris Lambertz Digital Products Assistant|