Skill Points Per Level Too Low?

[MrSin]

EldonG wrote:

Now...I did used to do something back in 3.5 to encourage more non-combat skills...assuming everyone had an actual background...I gave 10 points to everyone, that could only be used in some knowledges, professions, and crafts. They were limited to the 4 points anybody could start with, in any one...and they weren't considered cross-class, for that only. Pathfinder is a bit different...only 1 point to start with...and they've given us traits...that CAN serve that purpose (but so rarely do).

While I really don't think it's a matter of they need more points, I'm a huge fan of backstory and the like...and think that most folks have some odd skills they pick up early in life. I'd love to work out a good way to adapt that to Pathfinder.

That's... a good idea...

3.5 was a lot different. Skills were much harder, I'm much happier with pathfinder's list and handling of cross class. Not nearly as punishing. I let people make up traits for their backstory. Depending on your players you can get some really cool stuff out of them, and it can only help them shape their character.

[thejeff]

EldonG wrote:

Now...I did used to do something back in 3.5 to encourage more non-combat skills...assuming everyone had an actual background...I gave 10 points to everyone, that could only be used in some knowledges, professions, and crafts. They were limited to the 4 points anybody could start with, in any one...and they weren't considered cross-class, for that only. Pathfinder is a bit different...only 1 point to start with...and they've given us traits...that CAN serve that purpose (but so rarely do).

While I really don't think it's a matter of they need more points, I'm a huge fan of backstory and the like...and think that most folks have some odd skills they pick up early in life. I'd love to work out a good way to adapt that to Pathfinder.

Even without free points, I preferred 3.x's way of handling starting skills for reflecting background.

You had a ton of points at first level and it didn't cost too much to put at least one in every skill you plan to take and in several skill to reflect background that you probably would never really use. In PF, you really don't have the points for that. In most classes you can't even put one point in all the skills you plan to invest in at 1st level, much less waste any on background stuff. In the hands of some GMs it leads to questions about where you learned the "new" skills when you level up and can afford a point in them.
In 3.5, I'd usually take 4 points(1 skill's worth) and split it up in background skills.

You get more out of the points in the long run in PF, but the early levels are weird. You can take traits, but usually you want those to open up class skills not add a point to Professions or non-magic item Craft.

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Again though, Fighter isn't your basic grunt. That's a warrior. Fighters are the elite. They should be more skilled than the base grunt.

I've already established that he's elite. He's not a "basic grunt". That's a warrior, as you pointed out.

They are "more skilled" than the basic grunt. Those "skills" come by way of their impressive class features instead of skill points.

Yes, you already established it.

Following which, LazarX posted that Fighters don't need many skills because basic army grunts don't need them. That's what I was replying to.

Problem is that WAS not the argument you were making. You were listing the skills of I quote "The Basic Soldier". Fighters by definition aren't your basic soldier. They may be very well your squad leaders, or generals, but not your basic soldier which is your grunt warrior. And again most squad leaders aren't scouts, they'll have scouts under their command.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Again though, Fighter isn't your basic grunt. That's a warrior. Fighters are the elite. They should be more skilled than the base grunt.

I've already established that he's elite. He's not a "basic grunt". That's a warrior, as you pointed out.

They are "more skilled" than the basic grunt. Those "skills" come by way of their impressive class features instead of skill points.

Yes, you already established it.

Following which, LazarX posted that Fighters don't need many skills because basic army grunts don't need them. That's what I was replying to.

Problem is that WAS not the argument you were making. You were listing the skills of I quote "The Basic Soldier". Fighters by definition aren't your basic soldier. They may be very well your squad leaders, or generals, but not your basic soldier which is your grunt warrior. And again most squad leaders aren't scouts, they'll have scouts under their command.

So take the larger question then: What role do fighters play in the military?

They're not the basic grunts: Those are warriors.
They're not the scouts: Those are rogues/rangers
They're not special forces: Those are rangers.
Are they leaders/officers? Do they have the skills/abilities for that?
(Cavaliers might fit that better in many cases.)
Some kind of elite grunts/champions?
Do they have any role in the army at all?

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Again though, Fighter isn't your basic grunt. That's a warrior. Fighters are the elite. They should be more skilled than the base grunt.

I've already established that he's elite. He's not a "basic grunt". That's a warrior, as you pointed out.

They are "more skilled" than the basic grunt. Those "skills" come by way of their impressive class features instead of skill points.

Yes, you already established it.

Following which, LazarX posted that Fighters don't need many skills because basic army grunts don't need them. That's what I was replying to.

Problem is that WAS not the argument you were making. You were listing the skills of I quote "The Basic Soldier". Fighters by definition aren't your basic soldier. They may be very well your squad leaders, or generals, but not your basic soldier which is your grunt warrior. And again most squad leaders aren't scouts, they'll have scouts under their command.

So take the larger question then: What role do fighters play in the military?

They're not the basic grunts: Those are warriors.
They're not the scouts: Those are rogues/rangers
They're not special forces: Those are rangers.
Are they leaders/officers? Do they have the skills/abilities for that?
(Cavaliers might fit that better in many cases.)
Some kind of elite grunts/champions?
Do they have any role in the army at all?

I would say not as much as you might think. Fighters are much less common than warriors, they are the more atypical combat masters. In armies, they'll be elite specialists, and their roles will vary by the individual. Some cultures (like elves) will have a much greater percentage of fighters, (in the elvish case,they'd be archer archetypes, or those who favor elvish weapons) over warriors. A high number of leaders will be fighters, simply because they will be the ones who survive more battles than many warriors (the promotion through survival as in "Starship Troopers")

Skills for leadership? not that much required beyond Intimidate which is a class skill for Fighters. Along with the physical skills that Fighters excel at.

Also keep in mind that beyond the Romans, most pre-tech military wasn't that well organised, and even many Roman auxillaries and mercenary armies weren't either. For the most part aside from the more skilled siege engineers and archers, most armies were simply a collection of armed mobs that ran at each other.

[Atarlost]

EldonG wrote:

No.

Not threadcount.

Individuals playing games. It's a game for playing, not just a topic for discussion. If 50 people start 100 threads, all saying fighters suck, but a thousand people play them happily, it's the thousand that count, not the 50.

Get it?

My 'anecdotal evidence' is the people that are so pleased that they don't come here to cry about it.

So you've polled a thousand people who don't post on these forums? Would you mind sharing your sampling methodology?

[strayshift]

Our personal (subjective) experience of the game is all we have. Optimisation never survives gameplay because no-one plays through the sole prism of it. We all have different styles - thankfully.

I personally don't feel the 'hit' of 2 skill points/level for a fighter for three main reasons:
1. I mainly play humans, and often take the Focussed Study trait and/or the Fast Learner Feat;
2. I never play a dump-stat and frequently play Int. 13+ characters (for Combat Expertise related feats) giving bonus skill points;
3. My role doesn't require me to be a pure skill monkey, Perception aside I tend to have a few skills I have a few levels in should I need to (and a magical solution is not available);

In combat I also find I can be a very effective character and still have feats available at mid-high level for other aspects of adventuring. I don't think Barbarians have that to anything like the same degree - and they certainly miss the armour.

[EldonG]

Atarlost wrote:

EldonG wrote:

No.

Not threadcount.

Individuals playing games. It's a game for playing, not just a topic for discussion. If 50 people start 100 threads, all saying fighters suck, but a thousand people play them happily, it's the thousand that count, not the 50.

Get it?

My 'anecdotal evidence' is the people that are so pleased that they don't come here to cry about it.

So you've polled a thousand people who don't post on these forums? Would you mind sharing your sampling methodology?

No, I haven't...but I never found anybody who wasn't happy with fighters until I came to the forums, and fighters have been in just about every game I've played in...and dominated more often than you might think.

Exactly how many people do you figure play Pathfinder and find it totally unnecessary to come to the forums to whine about it?

[Helaman]

I figure 2 additional skill points ONLY at level 1 - One to be spent on knowledge, perform, profession skill or linguistics (for the bonus language) and the other on any single class skill.

[Malignor]

EldonG wrote:

No.

Not threadcount.
Individuals playing games. It's a game for playing, not just a topic for discussion. If 50 people start 100 threads, all saying fighters suck, but a thousand people play them happily, it's the thousand that count, not the 50.

Wrong.

Compare Fighter feedback, Ranger feedback, Barbarian feedback, Paladin feedback, Cavalier feedback. Almost all of the negative feedback is on two things:
- Paladin behavior (irrelevant for this discussion).
- Fighter's shortcomings as a class.

And here you're saying that fighters are fine because people aren't logging in by the hundreds to complain?

That's willful ignorance, as in a dictionary definition of it. Try running a restaurant with that approach and I'll bet you real money that your business will evaporate.

Meanwhile, what's your "evidence" that fighters should be fine for EVERYONE at EVERY gaming table?

EldonG wrote:

I never found anybody who wasn't happy with fighters until I came to the forums, and fighters have been in just about every game I've played in

... to which I again refer to you...

EldonG wrote:

If you want to state that your anecdotal evidence is better than everybody else's, sure...but that smacks of desperation where I come from.

Look, EldonG, we're in the homebrew/houserules forum, talking about how to homebrew/houserule skills with some extra emphasis on the fighter. Maybe there's a reason?

Maybe, just maybe, it's not wrongbadfun to make houserules for a problem WE see but YOU don't. Is this in the "Paizo fix it for everyone" forum? Nope. You're trolling the wrong thread for the wrong reason, using your anecdotal claims to justify arguing against people trying to be creative and share ideas for problems at their gaming tables (which aren't your gaming table). Look at the big picture please.

[EldonG]

Feel free to houserule.

Recognize that that's what it is, and that the majority of us actually like the game as it is, without that modification. In fact, if you'd like a little evidence, there actually is a thread on it here.

Again, though, as much as anybody is allowed to participate in any of the threads here...I'm definitely allowed to point out that it's not a matter of need. It's fine for anyone to modify the game for their own purposes...and I've even stated that...on this thread, IIRC. You arguing against me not houseruling is no better than my argument against it.

[Mystery Meep]

Unfortunately, I just can't figure out what's productive about your statement, EldonG. It really just comes off as a smug 'Well, you're still wrong, so as long as you admit you're wrong, you can do whatever you want.'

It's cool that you haven't experienced a problem! I have, and know others who have, primarily because I play in and run skill-heavy games. I'm not interested in telling everyone to play nothing but bards, rogues, and rangers, so I'd prefer instead if the fighter could contribute better at its base. Besides which, I think the fighter should keep its oldschool niche as something of a leader, or the warrior you see in books and the like who actually has more to do than just hit things with a stick.

Thus, the fighter is inadequate... despite being, at least in terms of its aesthetic, something I like.

Besides, there are a lot of reasons not to come to this specific forum and complain, and only a subset of them include 'everything is fine.'

[EldonG]

Mystery Meep wrote:

Unfortunately, I just can't figure out what's productive about your statement, EldonG. It really just comes off as a smug 'Well, you're still wrong, so as long as you admit you're wrong, you can do whatever you want.'

It's cool that you haven't experienced a problem! I have, and know others who have, primarily because I play in and run skill-heavy games. I'm not interested in telling everyone to play nothing but bards, rogues, and rangers, so I'd prefer instead if the fighter could contribute better at its base. Besides which, I think the fighter should keep its oldschool niche as something of a leader, or the warrior you see in books and the like who actually has more to do than just hit things with a stick.

Thus, the fighter is inadequate... despite being, at least in terms of its aesthetic, something I like.

Besides, there are a lot of reasons not to come to this specific forum and complain, and only a subset of them include 'everything is fine.'

Nobody has ever shown me that fighters need high ranks in half a dozen skills. Seeing as that's hardly their forte, I doubt anyone ever will, but...you CAN have high ranks in half a dozen skills, nonetheless, if you play a human and don't dump Int.

So, what's productive about all the arguments that they shouldn't be focused the way they are? I'd say exactly the same...nothing. If you feel like you have to houserule it, be my guest...but nobody has even come close to presenting reason that it's the 'right thing to do'.

[Nicos]

EldonG wrote:

Nobody has ever shown me that fighters need high ranks in half a dozen skills. Seeing as that's hardly their forte, I doubt anyone ever will, but...

It is not about needs. A fighter can have ranks in just a couple of skills and let the wizard handle all the knowledge checks, let the bard do all the social checks, and basically let other handle most of the out of combat encounters.

By the same token barbarians, cavaliers and gunslingers do not really need to be more skilled than figthers but they are. And fighting is also they forte.

Quote:

you CAN have high ranks in half a dozen skills, nonetheless, if you play a human and don't dump Int.

Poor poor hal elfs with just average int?

[MrSin]

Nicos wrote:

EldonG wrote:

you CAN have high ranks in half a dozen skills, nonetheless, if you play a human and don't dump Int.

Poor poor hal elfs with just average int?

Well as you know, everyone else is just building them wrong. Also, you can't make a human barbarian and not dump int. So you can't use those as an example![/sarcasm]

[Mystery Meep]

They need those ranks if they're to be expected to be able to contribute meaningfully in skill-based situations, which amount to 'everything that isn't combat'. And that's important if your games don't determine everything important in combat!

They need it if you don't think spotlight-based design to the extent that Pathfinder has it is good design.

And besides, frankly, 'if you take this one very specific combination, you can have your skillful fighter!' isn't good enough.

[Nicos]

Mystery Meep wrote:

They need those ranks if they're to be expected to be able to contribute meaningfully in skill-based situations, which amount to 'everything that isn't combat'. And that's important if your games don't determine everything important in combat!

Well, there are other kind of game where palaers can skip some of the skill checks. Several old school DM (more or less like me) do not like much the social skill. A fighter in my games, with average charisma could do just fine (not great but not awful) with good roleplaying and saying the right words.

[Mystery Meep]

In a game like that (to Nicos), then the fighter's lack of skills hurts a whole lot less. I mean, nobody complains that the AD&D fighter doesn't have any skill points because they aren't necessary!

[Nicos]

Mystery Meep wrote:

In a game like that (to Nicos), then the fighter's lack of skills hurts a whole lot less. I mean, nobody complains that the AD&D fighter doesn't have any skill points because they aren't necessary!

This is why I do ot have much problems in my homegames (and because I also give them 2 extra skills). But in a RAW game it could be a big problem.

[EldonG]

I think a lot of folks believe skills have to be maxed out to be effective at all...and I disagree with that. Of course, if you dump Int and put all your favored class points into HP, you won't have a skilled fighter.

Now...should that not be an option? Do all fighters have significant skills?

[MrSin]

EldonG wrote:

I think a lot of folks believe skills have to be maxed out to be effective at all...and I disagree with that. Of course, if you dump Int and put all your favored class points into HP, you won't have a skilled fighter.

Now...should that not be an option? Do all fighters have significant skills?

Most fighters have awful skills, even if they dump everything into it they then suffer as a fighter. While I don't think you have to have things maxed at all, I think 2+ sets a very low bar for the average fighter. Mouth Frothing barbarians have 4+ skill points. Cavaliers and gunslingers also have 4+. Warblades had 4+ and int synergy. Your suggestion is that we put resources into it, so we can come out where all these basic and very similar classes are, and that everyone who puts no points into it be dumber than the dumbest barbarian(7)... It sucks to have 1+ skill point per level. Even 3+ leaves you wanting, and the lack of class skills doesn't help at all.

[Nicos]

EldonG wrote:

Now...should that not be an option? Do all fighters have significant skills?

4 skill per level is not particulary significant.

[EldonG]

MrSin wrote:

EldonG wrote:

I think a lot of folks believe skills have to be maxed out to be effective at all...and I disagree with that. Of course, if you dump Int and put all your favored class points into HP, you won't have a skilled fighter.

Now...should that not be an option? Do all fighters have significant skills?

Most fighters have awful skills, even if they dump everything into it they then suffer as a fighter. While I don't think you have to have things maxed at all, I think 2+ sets a very low bar for the average fighter. Mouth Frothing barbarians have 4+ skill points. Cavaliers and gunslingers also have 4+. Warblades had 4+ and int synergy. Your suggestion is that we put resources into it, so we can come out where all these basic and very similar classes are, and that everyone who puts no points into it be dumber than the dumbest barbarian(7)... It sucks to have 1+ skill point per level. Even 3+ leaves you wanting, and the lack of class skills doesn't help at all.

The reason why barbarians have all the skill points they do is that the iconic barbarians of fantasy were all highly skilled. Conan is a perfect example...he could do just about anything that didn't take book learning...except for ride. It took him a while to get used to horses.

Cavaliers are educated. They're upper class...and should know a lot of upper-class things.

Warblades are not Pathfinder.

I don't think the average fighter is educated...by book, or by the wilds. They grow up fighting...that's what they know, and they know it better than anyone else. Others may have abilities that make them better...typically under limited circumstances...but for raw, nothing special, just pure combat...that's what a fighter is.

If you want him to be more than that, build accordingly.

Now...I want to STRESS this...if you feel differently...houserule to your heart's content! I have NEVER said that that was bad, or wrong...or any other pejorative you care to slap on it. Heck, I might still gladly play at your table. I'm not against houserules, and never have been. I'm strictly arguing my viewpoint...and I do honestly believe that most people are happy enough with the 2 points...because...again, I've seen tons of fighters played, and nobody dissatisfied.

As an aside, the one character I ever ran across that REALLY felt bad like this was a cleric my brother played...with a 9 Int. He was leading the group. :(

[MrSin]

The warrior and commoner are uneducated. I would certainly hope the fighter is better than them in some fashion... The fighter is the guy who goes out adventuring. He doesn't really get that much to show he's an adventurer. You would think that would add to your skills and knowledge... Apparently not. (Edit: I should probably add the cleric and wizard are both highly educated, but somehow have 2+. Not complaining about wizard when he can get 26 int and enjoy it though.)

Cleric during a chase. That's a fun time. When everyone has to participate that usually where you see that "wow I wish I had skills" pop up. Since we're usually in a group, it doesn't always pop up. I once had a barbarian with 5 int in my party. He was left wanting skill points if I didn't do something to buff him with my Transmutation specialist. He had a ton of fun playing someone stupid, but my gosh he couldn't walk 5 feet without tripping.

[EldonG]

MrSin wrote:

The warrior and commoner are uneducated. I would certainly hope the fighter is better than them in some fashion... The fighter is the guy who goes out adventuring. He doesn't really get that much to show he's an adventurer. You would think that would add to your skills and knowledge... Apparently not. (Edit: I should probably add the cleric and wizard are both highly educated, but somehow have 2+. Not complaining about wizard when he can get 26 int and enjoy it though.)

Cleric during a chase. That's a fun time. When everyone has to participate that usually where you see that "wow I wish I had skills" pop up. Since we're usually in a group, it doesn't always pop up. I once had a barbarian with 5 int in my party. He was left wanting skill points if I didn't do something to buff him with my Transmutation specialist. He had a ton of fun playing someone stupid, but my gosh he couldn't walk 5 feet without tripping.

I really don't consider a fighter to be any more of an adventurer than any other PC class...and I tend to think they put 90+% of their learning into their namesake...fighting.

All that said, there is one skill I really am amazed that they don't get as a class skill...this, I'll agree with the forum on...a fighter learns to watch his opponent, and everything around him. He learns to listen for audible cues...and clues alike. He learns to feel that gust of air, and realize it's a possible attack. What fighter doesn't have perception?

Answer: The dead ones.

[Malignor]

Perception is detection of hiding stuff.
You seem to also be describing Sense Motive.

I think that detection is the job of the scout, which is a Ranger.

[EldonG]

Malignor wrote:

Perception is detection of hiding stuff.

You seem to also be describing Sense Motive.

I think that detection is the job of the scout, which is a Ranger.

While Sense Motive might be a common enough skill for fighters, it's Perception I'm really concerned about. Yes, Rangers and/or Rogues should just about specialize in it, as they both do scouting as a primary function...but a fighter should be aware of his surroundings...in spades. Few fighters shouldn't take Perception, in my opinion...

[Shain Edge]

Maybe something that may help in gaining training in multiple skills. It is based on a pretty interesting, magic lite d20 setting, Iron Heroes. In Iron heroes, you get the option of having 'skill groups', which are a bunch of related skills that only cost a single point to increase the lot by one rank.

Now if you could use a feat to gain a skill group, that would help out in the course of skills considerably. And since Fighters are rich with feats, it should help them the most.

Example of skill groups-

Academia: Drawing on skills that focus on applied knowledge and a mastery of obscure lore, the Academia skill group is a useful boon for characters with a high Intelligence. Skills: Appraise (Int), Concentration (Con), Decipher Script (Int), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (Int), and Speak Language (none).

Perception: A sharp eye can spot trouble before it befalls you, while a keen ear lets you sneak up on a concealed enemy. Classes that emphasize smart tactics and awareness grant access to this useful skill group. Skills: Listen (Wis), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), and Spot (Wis).

Wilderness Lore: Many adventurers come of age in the forbidding wilds, where one’s knowledge of the land draws the line between survival and death. Skills: Handle Animal (Cha), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Use Rope (Dex).

[strayshift]

As per previous posts I don't tend to miss the skill points because I a. play a single class human mostly and frequently get Fast Learner (3rd level plus = toughness plus a free skill point/level) and b. I don't utilise dump stats.

There are options by which a fighter can be designed to be really good with 1 or 2 skills and still really effective in combat (probably the most effective).

The classes I DO miss the skill points with are the Cleric and the Sorcerer.

[thejeff]

strayshift wrote:

As per previous posts I don't tend to miss the skill points because I a. play a single class human mostly and frequently get Fast Learner (3rd level plus = toughness plus a free skill point/level) and b. I don't utilise dump stats.

There are options by which a fighter can be designed to be really good with 1 or 2 skills and still really effective in combat (probably the most effective).

The classes I DO miss the skill points with are the Cleric and the Sorcerer.

For the record, Fast Learner < Toughness.

Toughness gets you 1 hp/level, front loaded so you get 2 extra when you need them most.
Fast learner is exactly the same as taking Toughness and putting you're favored class bonus into skill points, except it's not front loaded, you don't have the option of putting the fc bonus into hit points and you don't get it when you multiclass.
The only advantage is that it stacks with Toughness if you want both.

[strayshift]

thejeff wrote:

strayshift wrote:

As per previous posts I don't tend to miss the skill points because I a. play a single class human mostly and frequently get Fast Learner (3rd level plus = toughness plus a free skill point/level) and b. I don't utilise dump stats.

There are options by which a fighter can be designed to be really good with 1 or 2 skills and still really effective in combat (probably the most effective).

The classes I DO miss the skill points with are the Cleric and the Sorcerer.

For the record, Fast Learner < Toughness.

Toughness gets you 1 hp/level, front loaded so you get 2 extra when you need them most.
Fast learner is exactly the same as taking Toughness and putting you're favored class bonus into skill points, except it's not front loaded, you don't have the option of putting the fc bonus into hit points and you don't get it when you multiclass.
The only advantage is that it stacks with Toughness if you want both.

I understand the mechanics of it, merely pointing out that this gets you an extra hp (favoured class bonus) AND an extra skill point (favoured class bonus - and relevance to this thread). That for a fighter (who is not generally short of feats) and its ability to stack with toughness (as you point out) makes it a superb choice for a human fighter in my opinion - if you like utilising a strength to partially address a weakness. If you go a combat expertise build with 13+ Int there's another so 4 or 5 skill points a level - use a trait to get perception or some other non-class skill as a class skill and you end up with 1 or 2 useful skills as previously said.

[FascistIguana]

Shifty wrote:

I hardly see the argument here as anything more than "Because I dumpstat my Int I don't have many skillpoints, so I need more skillpoints for free as I shouldn't be penalised for my choices"

Don't dump Int and you wont have a problem.

Fighter? Having a hard life?

2 Skill points, +1 for favoured class, +1 for human.
Thats 4, if you didn't dump Int.

Want to be really good? Use a Feat and buy a Skill focus.
Want a bit of an edge at level 1? Buy some skill based Traits, get a new 'class skill' (+3 bonus woohoo) and a further +1 situational bonus.

Seriously guys.

that is nowhere near the argument, a nonhuman fighter who puts favored class in hp(to not die like everyone else) still only has 2 points per level so they cant do much of anything outside of combat. a cleric who should be expected to know about and be trained in healing, his religion, spells, the planes etc only gets 2. bumping minimum skills up to 4 actually increases the penalty of int dumping not lessons it. because there is a minimum skills per level of 1, 7 int is functially equal to 8 int. with more skills dumping to 7 would lose you two skills instead of one

[The Thread]

Over five and a half years, mate.

[DungeonmasterCal]

I give all classes 2 more points than they normally get. I give the bad guys the same bonus, too.

[FascistIguana]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

How is leaving Wizards and Witches at 2+int taking points away from them?

cause wizards cant stand it when other classes are remotely competent at anything, it takes a way from their whole I can do any/everything power trip

[awbattles]

FascistIguana wrote:

Shifty wrote:

I hardly see the argument here as anything more than "Because I dumpstat my Int I don't have many skillpoints, so I need more skillpoints for free as I shouldn't be penalised for my choices"

Don't dump Int and you wont have a problem.

Fighter? Having a hard life?

2 Skill points, +1 for favoured class, +1 for human.
Thats 4, if you didn't dump Int.

Want to be really good? Use a Feat and buy a Skill focus.
Want a bit of an edge at level 1? Buy some skill based Traits, get a new 'class skill' (+3 bonus woohoo) and a further +1 situational bonus.

Seriously guys.

that is nowhere near the argument, a nonhuman fighter who puts favored class in hp(to not die like everyone else) still only has 2 points per level so they cant do much of anything outside of combat. a cleric who should be expected to know about and be trained in healing, his religion, spells, the planes etc only gets 2. bumping minimum skills up to 4 actually increases the penalty of int dumping not lessons it. because there is a minimum skills per level of 1, 7 int is functially equal to 8 int. with more skills dumping to 7 would lose you two skills instead of one

With this act of blatant necromancy, your alignment shifts to "evil".

[FascistIguana]

Shifty wrote:

Wait, are we seiously being told that the Rogue and the Fighter should be 'great at climbing' but that it is 'unfair' because the Fighter should be also be so good at it he is able to do it wearing full plate too?

That everyone else has to wear light armour (or less) to climb, but Fighter guy should have no problems out of the box at the lower levels achieving the same thing in heavy armour? and that's BEFORE any conversation about his armour training ability that lets him do JUST THAT?

Wow, we've gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

"I want to dumpstat my Int, devote every resource to just one task - killing stuff - and I want to be as skilled (or better) than everybody else because I want to do everything everyone else can do, but in Full Plate, with a golfbag full of weapons".

Yeah that's where we are going guys.

literally no one is saying that. everyone else is saying that everyone fighters and clerics should get 2 extra skills per level to help them flesh out and be useful outside of combat. you seem to think that if a fighter devotes his feats, race and FCB to skills he should be happy to be mediocre at things that everyone else gets for free? because his class is the fighter and therefore he should only be good at fighting.

[doomman47]

Dude you are yelling at people who probably don't even visit these message boards anymore...

[FascistIguana]

doomman47 wrote:

Dude you are yelling at people who probably don't even visit these message boards anymore...

not yelling just debunking shiftys ridiculous premise