Craig Mercer wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote: Sure, the fighter doesn't usually know much Spellcraft. But he's usually fine when it comes to things like climbing, riding, taking care of his weapons, taking care of his horse, and talking to people. And he can. He just has to spread his skill points out a little. Or are you asking him to be the top in every skill he should know?
I'm asking him to have a level of skill appropriate to his level in every skill he should know.
He may not have the stats to back him up compared to a more skill-based character, but hopefully he doesn't make a fool out of himself with level 1 skill at level... say... 8 or so.
how about a class ability at first level then.
Secondary Training: At 1st and every other level a fighter may receive bonus skill points equal to his fighter level divided by four (minimum 1). He may only spend these skill points on fighter class skills. Only levels of fighter count for this ability.
this way you can have your bonus skill points, and fighters can have a bit more flavor to them as well.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote: Craig Mercer wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote: Sure, the fighter doesn't usually know much Spellcraft. But he's usually fine when it comes to things like climbing, riding, taking care of his weapons, taking care of his horse, and talking to people. And he can. He just has to spread his skill points out a little. Or are you asking him to be the top in every skill he should know?
I'm asking him to have a level of skill appropriate to his level in every skill he should know.
He may not have the stats to back him up compared to a more skill-based character, but hopefully he doesn't make a fool out of himself with level 1 skill at level... say... 8 or so. I would ask the same for the other skilled people, who always have to choose what skills to take and what skills to leave. Even the Rogue doesn't get enough skill points to start to cover all the things a Rogue should be able to do. So why give the Fighter that?
Are you claiming that the Fighter is going to be a natural climber, but the second-story Rogue can't be? The Fighter needs a high level in Ride and Handle Animal, but the Ranger and Druid who should be better don't?
You want the Fighter to have all these benefits that you think they should have, but don't care to give the same benefits to other classes.
Here's a thought. No Skill points at all (except extras for Int)! Pick your 5 skills that the Fighter is supposed to be "good" at (your definition), and just give him those skills at his level. By the same token, every class should have the same number (or far more for more skilled classes), and they get all of those at their skill level.
Or heck, go back to original D&D, where Rogues got better in all their skills, and no one got anything else!
And for those Fighters that don't sack their Int to boost Str, and who actually care about skills, 2 for class, 1 for Human, 1 for Favored. 4 of the 5 you wanted (and who says Fighters have to be good talking to people?), without changing a thing!
reworking the previously mentioned ability with some of the above mentioned post.
Secondary Training: At 1st level, 4th level, and every four levels thereafter, a fighter may select one of his class skills. this class skill is treated as having ranks equal to the fighters class level. any ranks currently in the selected skill are refunded to the fighter to be put elsewhere.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Craig Mercer wrote: I would ask the same for the other skilled people, who always have to choose what skills to take and what skills to leave. Even the Rogue doesn't get enough skill points to start to cover all the things a Rogue should be able to do. So why give the Fighter that? You do know that the rogue being bad at its main job is a bad thing and a problem with the class, not a trait to be emulated, right?
Craig Mercer wrote: (and who says Fighters have to be good talking to people?) Because standing around in the background doing nothing while everyone else is able to actually speak is really boring? And because the "inspiring warlord" character type is a thing, and one that Pathfinder is woefully reluctant to support?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Roberta Yang wrote: Craig Mercer wrote: I would ask the same for the other skilled people, who always have to choose what skills to take and what skills to leave. Even the Rogue doesn't get enough skill points to start to cover all the things a Rogue should be able to do. So why give the Fighter that? You do know that the rogue being bad at its main job is a bad thing and a problem with the class, not a trait to be emulated, right? Every class has this exact same "problem". It's called "limited resources". It's a thing of the system. This doesn't make the rogue "bad", this makes choices matter.
Roberta Yang wrote: Craig Mercer wrote: (and who says Fighters have to be good talking to people?) Because standing around in the background doing nothing while everyone else is able to actually speak is really boring? And because the "inspiring warlord" character type is a thing, and one that Pathfinder is woefully reluctant to support?
Inpsiring Warlords: bards, cavaliers, and their related prestige class battle herald being literally exactly that thing.
(Also Paladins, but I figured you'd want something without divine connotations.)
EDIT: Inspiring Warlord leaders, ahoy!
Tactics subdomain, the Tactics Inquisition, the Luring Cavalier (which is entirely based around the concept of "okay, guys, we can do this, if we work together, I'll lead him to you while you hide here...), the holy tactician (which is literally the divine embodiment of what you're asking for), the savage skald bard archetype, and, of course, the tactician archetype which grants 4 skill points, is good at speaking (knowledge (nobility), diplomacy, linguistics, sense motive), and is literally everything that could possibly need to exist for said idea to be executed.
Toaster: make it a straight-up four ranks, or else the lore master suddenly sucks... well, sucks more, I mean. Even so that steps on the loremaster's toes already.
Heaggles wrote: remember that someone that has a 7 int has a IQ of 70, with that IQ they would be lucky to know 1 or 2 skills trained after that they would be untrained in almost everything. Its not the skill points that need to be changed its the ability for people to dump stats that needs to be changed, think if someone had a 70 IQ would anyone want to adventure with them for any amount of time, would you want them on watch at night or watching your back? Fallacy. A 7 INT does not equal a 70 IQ. Nowhere does it say that. A more accurate assessment is that a 70 IQ (2x standard deviation) equals a (10.5 - (2x 2.96)) or 4.58 INT. IQ as it is measured by standardized tests is NOT distributed similar to a 3d6 Gaussian distribution.
RadiantSophia wrote: Heaggles wrote: remember that someone that has a 7 int has a IQ of 70, with that IQ they would be lucky to know 1 or 2 skills trained after that they would be untrained in almost everything. Its not the skill points that need to be changed its the ability for people to dump stats that needs to be changed, think if someone had a 70 IQ would anyone want to adventure with them for any amount of time, would you want them on watch at night or watching your back? Fallacy. A 7 INT does not equal a 70 IQ. Nowhere does it say that. A more accurate assessment is that a 70 IQ (2x standard deviation) equals a (10.5 - (2x 2.96)) or 4.58 INT. IQ as it is measured by standardized tests is NOT distributed similar to a 3d6 Gaussian distribution. The origin of the 7 INT = 70 IQ is Gygax. When he originally designed the old system, the "vision" he had for a seven INT character, as noted within the books, was a "70 IQ". I don't think the rest of it specifically mapped out on a 1-to-1 thereafter, but that's a pretty straightforward example.
As I've never played the first edition, I can't say that for sure, however that's what I understand of the original edition and the origin of that particular view of 7 INT = 70 IQ.
To measure for sure what a standard 10.5 means, look at the strength tables, see what that means for encumbrance, and compare. That level of strength is considered "average". If that is above or below our current average across the world (I honestly don't know), than either a) the same can be held true across the board or b) the in-game numbers simply literally do not add up to our own real-world "equivalents", but are just a hazy approximation.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Roberta Yang wrote: Craig Mercer wrote: I would ask the same for the other skilled people, who always have to choose what skills to take and what skills to leave. Even the Rogue doesn't get enough skill points to start to cover all the things a Rogue should be able to do. So why give the Fighter that? You do know that the rogue being bad at its main job is a bad thing and a problem with the class, not a trait to be emulated, right? The Rogue (of which I've played with, and full well know all it's problems) isn't bad because of his skills. He's bad because skills are all he really has, and he isn't the best at them. What is wrong with the Rogue is they can't do combat as they should.
But to reverse what you said, Rogues are bad, so you want to improve Fighters to make the Rogue even worse?
Roberta Yang wrote: Craig Mercer wrote: (and who says Fighters have to be good talking to people?) Because standing around in the background doing nothing while everyone else is able to actually speak is really boring? And because the "inspiring warlord" character type is a thing, and one that Pathfinder is woefully reluctant to support?
And yet Cha is another sack stat for Fighters that I've seen. Anyway...
Being able to speak does not mean "being able to speak better than everyone else". Anyone can speak, and most players will not have their Dipomacy maxed out (seeing how all other classes also don't have enough skill points to do everything that they are supposed to).
And as for the 'Inspiring Warlord' you want, I guess the problem is "How do we make a Fighter that doesn't overshadow all other Fighters?" Maybe take a Fighter, actually have a Charisma stat, buy Diplomacy, spend some feats to boost it, and lead that way. Yes, you won't be the natural born killer that the vanilla Fighter is, but you will be an Inspiring Warlord.
I am starting to believe the problem is not that some classes have too few Skill Points/Level, or too many. The problem is that the Skill System itself in PF allows characters to be very competent, if not exceptional, in non-class skills.
This leads to players looking at non-class skills with an envious eye, thinking that if they just had another point or two, they could do something, almost as well as others in the party. This is especially true, when they see another character in the party that does receive more SP/lvl, spread their points into non-class skills, rather than specializing in their own class skills. And to make it worse, if a character takes another class or more, they not only get more class skills, but these are treated equal to other class skills, whether or not they ever take more than one level of that class again. Another thing that led to this problem, was when skills were combined together, allowing a character to spend just one point, and get the benefit of two skills (example Stealth, used to be Move Silently, and Hide in Shadows)
I see it as trying to over simplify the system. When skills were first implemented in 2nd Ed AD&D, it was much harder to learn non-class skills, and some skills were exclusive to certain classes regardless. UMD only available to Bards and Rogues for example. And if you did want to learn something that was not a class skill, it cost double for each rank. Players were less likely to spend skill points out of their class then. Also, if the character multi-classed, only the current class on level up, counted as class skills when spending the points. I think it made for a more balanced system, even if it was not as easy to keep track of.
Granted, it made it much harder, if not impossible for a character class to become competent in skills outside of their specialty. But, I think if you merged that type of system, with the different feats available in PF, that dealt with skill points, it would work well. Classes would once again be more of a specialist at what they know, and have to rely on other members of the party to carry the load on skills in which they specialize. Players want their characters to be relevant, and that is hard to do, if another player at the table has a character that is able to do some of everything, and their own character does not seem able to contribute.
Of course, once the genie is out of the bottle, and players have gotten a taste of having their character excell at everything, it is hard to go to a more restrictive system.
Azaelas Fayth wrote: The problem is those are the things they should be good at from level 1. No, you're not supposed to be "good at level 1". You're a breakout rookie, not a seasoned vet. You may be talented but you're unpractised and unskilled.
A "breakout rookie" should be as good as any level 1 character at all the noncombat skills he's used in his youth. Climb unless you live on monotonous plains with no large vegetation able to support your weight and no buildings. Swim if you're near a river, lake, or ocean. Acrobatics and escape artist almost certainly because that's how kids without computers play. Perception pretty much always. Bluff for almost everyone not raised by wolves who didn't put in their backstory that they're a horrible liar. For some backgrounds appraise and/or stealth. For most backgrounds some profession. If you're literate you should usually have some knowledges depending on the nature of your education and what books were available (raised in a church run orphanage probably means knowledge: religion while being educated as a wizard's apprentice means knowledge: arcana)
It makes absolutely no sense to get these background skills at level 2.
Atarlost wrote: A "breakout rookie" should be as good as any level 1 character at all the noncombat skills he's used in his youth. Climb unless you live on monotonous plains with no large vegetation able to support your weight and no buildings. Swim if you're near a river, lake, or ocean. Acrobatics and escape artist almost certainly because that's how kids without computers play. Perception pretty much always. Bluff for almost everyone not raised by wolves who didn't put in their backstory that they're a horrible liar. For some backgrounds appraise and/or stealth. For most backgrounds some profession. If you're literate you should usually have some knowledges depending on the nature of your education and what books were available (raised in a church run orphanage probably means knowledge: religion while being educated as a wizard's apprentice means knowledge: arcana)
It makes absolutely no sense to get these background skills at level 2.
It makes even less sense that you're going to be good with ALL of them. Remember that in your pre-level life, you either weren't exposed to the kinds of threats you're facing as an adventurer, or you had insanely lucky rolls that day, defaulting to attributes. So if you want to be reasonable, don't dump your Int to moron, and maybe pick One or two of those skills for level 1. There's a major difference between playing dodgeball as a kid and dodging a sword thrust to the face.
That's one of my problems with the current skill system. With most characters, unless I'm going to forgo any useful adventuring skills, it's really hard to get a decent range of background skills at 1st level. And it makes no sense to add them later. At 5th level, I finally add the 1 pt in Profession:Cook to reflect growing up in the Inn?
The old way of 4x points at 1st level worked better for this. You could throw a point here and a point there to reflect things you wanted acknowledged on the sheet, but didn't care too much about the actual numbers of.
On the subject of how everyone and his dog wants (and by my logic should have) Perception, I've strongly been contemplating rolling Perception into a facet of Level.
This accomplishes two things of value (to me.) First, it removes a 'Skill Tax' that everybody needs, and secondly, because it removes the class skill bonus, it gives a bit of a leg up to stealth which tends to have trouble being successful in play by-the-book.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Atarlost wrote: A "breakout rookie" should be as good as any level 1 character at all the noncombat skills he's used in his youth. Climb unless you live on monotonous plains with no large vegetation able to support your weight and no buildings. Swim if you're near a river, lake, or ocean. Acrobatics and escape artist almost certainly because that's how kids without computers play. Perception pretty much always. Bluff for almost everyone not raised by wolves who didn't put in their backstory that they're a horrible liar. For some backgrounds appraise and/or stealth. For most backgrounds some profession. If you're literate you should usually have some knowledges depending on the nature of your education and what books were available (raised in a church run orphanage probably means knowledge: religion while being educated as a wizard's apprentice means knowledge: arcana)
It makes absolutely no sense to get these background skills at level 2.
Wow! If only there was some way to get these skills at level 1 just to reflect that you have some exposure to them before 1st level. What would we call this? I know, background traits! You could get background traits to reflect some of the things you did as a child! What a brilliant idea! We should ask Pathfinder to put this in the game!
What's that? They already have? Well then what the heck is Alarlost complaing about then? There already is a way to get some skills before 1st level to reflect your childhood.
Just checking in. There have been some great ideas in this thread! Thanks everyone for your input! If you have the patience to spend time going through 6 pages, you could get some solid concepts from here. Some of my favorites have been:
a. Increasing base skill points by 2
b. Creating a discretionary vs mandatory spending system based on class skills
c. Category-specificy bonus skills (knowledge skill, occupation skill, adventuring skill)
d. Increasing class-skill bonus by level (+3 goes to +5, +7, +10)
e. Automatic bonuses to class-skills by level (1/2 point per lvl)
I feel that EVERYONE should be getting one or two more skill points per level if they are playing a PC class, Fighters with their meager 2 skill points per level, or even 4 if you are human and spending your favored class bonus on skills still need 2 more to cover the skills that the fighter should have (Climb, Intimidate, Perception, Ride, Swim, Survival) without touching the background and craft skills, which a character should have regardless of class.
If you think the classes have enough skill points as is to cover what they should have, lets run over a few more examples.
Rogue(skill monkey): Last time I had a rogue in the party, we were playing 3.5 with pathfinder skills, he put an 18 into int, and got a +6 int headband before the wizard did, and was a Human who put his favored class bonus into skills. yet STILL with 17 skills per level he needed more, he had one appropriate craft (alchemy) and no knowledge or profession skills,nor did he have intimidate or heal, and that lack is what got him killed in the end.
Wizard: now lets see the wizard with 26 int, human, and favored class into skills(you should not do this, you need the HP), that is 12 skill points per level, seems like alot right? now think, how many knowledge skills is this wizard taking, arcana and planes for sure, probably religion(undead) and dungeoneering(oozes and freaks), likely Geography and history, Nobility and Engineering are slightly unlikely, but still you will probably be expected to have then in several games, Local and Nature are the only ones you probably wont take and are not expected to have...
That is 8/12 skills right there (10/12 with local and nature), now you NEED spellcraft, and if you don't have another craft as a wizard, i expect you are playing PFS. That is 10/12 or 12/12 now, you are one of the few classes that should take the fly skill as a human, and you should probably have linguistics or perception, so that is 12/12 if you drop two knowledge skills and linguistics or perception, or 15/12, and this is with you dropping ~30% of your hit points from class for skills...
Sorc: Fly, bluff, spellcraft, intimidate, diplomacy, you are expected to have all these, on an int dump class with 2 SP per level
Cleric: Spellcraft, diplomacy, knowledge(religion), Knowledge(the planes), heal, again 2 SP per level and an int dump
Barbarian: Actually has about the right amount, since they are like fighters who usually don't take ride, but have 2 more skill points per level.
Ranger: Fighters but with one or two more knowledge skills, and 4 more skill points per level, it seems about right to me.
Druid: Never played one, nor had one in any of my games for more than one session, but 4+int seems good to me for them.
Bard: Thanks to Jack-of-all-trades, Bards might have enough skills at 6 per level, but i feel that they should have 8 as a skill monkey class
Monk: Full ranks should be in Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Perception, Sense Motive, and Swim if you want to play a shaolin styled monk, but you only get 4+int a level.
Paladin: Go home and re-roll please, Don't allow paladins in my games, they are black holes of fun.
Piccolo wrote:
Uhm, SLIGHT problem with this line of reasoning. In the time period where Pathfinder and D&D are based, there was no such thing as a standing army, no such thing as professional soldiers in the modern sense. Thus, there was no cross training. What you had were conscripts (random folk drafted for a summer), mercenaries, and a handful of professional warriors called knights per battle. The latter were responsible for their own training, by the way.
A:PF and D&D are not really based on the medieval time period. They are a mishmash of Bronze age, Iron Age, Medieval, Early Renascence civilizations from all over the known world with added elements of ancient magical industrial and post industrial-like civilizations that have fallen.
B:Professional soldiers have been around since the invention of agriculture allowed for society to have excess food. There are tons of examples of armies that had nearly full time or completely full time soldiers in history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare
Shifty wrote:
So thats five skills he needs to have?
2/level+1/human+1FC?
Why are you maxxing them all out at each level?
18 Str Fighter with 1 point in climb ends up with... a modifier of 8.
Taking 10 he can automatically climb - Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands. By level 3 he can do the same thing even on a slippery surface. Of course if he had 5 gold for a grapple and a rope he'd be laughing at the DC5 which he couldnever fail. Some basic equipment means he's GOOD TO GO for the rest of his career off ONE skill point invested, ever.
18Str Fighter with 1 point in Swim ends up with... he can swim in calm or rough water no problem with 0 threat of ever drowning, and in a rough sea he has a bit of a chance of being in trouble, and by level 3 he can swim foran UNLIMITED number of hours.
And you reckon you need to max these forever?
Are you even looking at the DC chart?
Acrobatics is a MAYBE, a real MAYBE to keep topped up.
Perception is a problem, but then again, how is your Wis?
The only thing it would be nice to keep up to date are opposed skills, but Intimidate is already pretty trivial to pull off.
I think part of the disagreement is the different perception of what a fighter should be. You seem to think that a fighter should be a reasonable impersonation of historical warriors. Those of us arguing for more skill points tend to be thinking more along the lines of the heroes of myth and legend. Hercules was a pretty classic fighter and he was able to CRAFT armor out of a lion he killed and CRAFT poisoned arrows out of blood, used his KNOWLEDGE of the hydra to burn it's heads, TRACKED the hind, SAILED with the argonaughts, BLUFFED atlas in to holding up the world again, learned to PERFORM music from linus, beat the reaper of men at his own PROFESSION(FARMER),he CALMED the mares of diomedes, used his KNOWLEDGE of the planes to get to the underworld where he INTIMIDATED charon, crossed the river styx and captured cerebus.
At his core Hercules fought and killed things... a pretty basic fighter but the whole reason the story was popular enough to become myth is because of him overcoming obstacles while getting between fights. That's why the fighter needs more skill points. His class features are boring and mechanical, he gets no fantastic magical powers, even most of the combat feats he gets are mechanical and boring. He needs something to make him more interesting and skills fill that role well without noticeably increasing the overall power level of the class.
Don't forget that Hercules was a demi-god. Not sure what the stats are for that, but pretty sure that pumps up the skills a lot.
EDIT: And it is very doubtful that Hercules was anywhere near first level when he did most of these things.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
One thing I did as a houserule in the past (and it worked pretty well) was this :
Halve the # of skill points each class get's per level. So, Fighters/Wizards get 1, Rogues get 4, Bards get 3, etc.
Grant everyone skill points equal to their stat bonuses that can only be spent on skills associated with that stat.
So, someone playing a fighter with the following stats :
Str : 16 (+3)
Dex : 14 (+2)
Con : 16 (+3)
Int : 10 (+0)
Wis : 12 (+1)
Cha : 8 (-1)
Would have the following skill points to distribute :
Class : 1
Str : 3
Dex : 2
Wis : 1
Cha : -1
So they'd be very good at physical stuff, not so good at mental, and awful at charisma things.
You were allowed to trade 2 of one stat skill points to get 1 of another (so 2 str's to get one cha for example) to indicate concentrating more on diplomacy than on climbing or swimming.
Finally, if you had a negative stat, and you wanted to spend points on it, you had to spend enough that level to 'overcome' the negative. So from our example, if you wanted to put a point into diplomacy, you had to put spend your class point (1) to negate the -1 charisma skill level, then trade in two attribute skill points (1 str/1 dex, 2 str, 1 dex/1 wis, etc) to get another Cha skill point.
This worked really well, it gave people more skill ranks overall, but it also meant they usually ended up with skill curves that fit their stats, those who were smart ended up with lots of INT based skills, those who were really strong but not so bright (18 str/8 int) usually ended up with lots of climb and swim and not so many Knowledge skill.
EDIT : Note class skill points were 'unaligned' and could be spent on any skill.
I REALLY like that house rule MDT, and am totally considering stealing it.
kyrt-ryder wrote: I REALLY like that house rule MDT, and am totally considering stealing it. Steal away. :)
EDIT : One thing I like about it is that it makes it more painful to pump your CON and dump your other stats. Each dump stat has a direct effect on your skill levels, and each boost of CON has no effect on them (there being no CON skills anymore). Never liked CON as a skill basis anyway.
Dakota_Strider wrote: Don't forget that Hercules was a demi-god. Not sure what the stats are for that, but pretty sure that pumps up the skills a lot.
EDIT: And it is very doubtful that Hercules was anywhere near first level when he did most of these things.
Gandalf was one of the Valar which was basically a demi god and he's just a third level wizard :-p and Merlin was the son of Satan in some legends. If it makes you feel better you could swap odessyeus and his exploits. If I remember right he was not a demigod (although the greek gods basically screwed everything that moved so I could be wrong)
Sure Hercules wasn't first level for all of his 12 part adventure path and obviously I don't expect Fighters to get a enough skill points to be good at everything right out of the gate. However they should have enough points that they can do some of the things over the course of their adventures that the heroes and legends they are based on did.
Wally the Wizard wrote: I think part of the disagreement is the different perception of what a fighter should be. You seem to think that a fighter should be a reasonable impersonation of historical warriors. Those of us arguing for more skill points tend to be thinking more along the lines of the heroes of myth and legend. Hercules was a pretty classic fighter and he was able to CRAFT armor out of a lion he killed and CRAFT poisoned arrows out of blood, used his KNOWLEDGE of the hydra to burn it's heads, TRACKED the hind, SAILED with the argonaughts, BLUFFED atlas in to holding up the world again, learned to PERFORM music from linus, beat the reaper of men at his own PROFESSION(FARMER),he CALMED the mares of diomedes, used his KNOWLEDGE of the planes to get to the underworld where he INTIMIDATED charon, crossed the river styx and captured cerebus. And he was a level 1 Human Fighter was he?
Over the course of a Fighters levels he has the opportunity for a LOT of strong skills, what hurts is STAT DUMPING, plain and simple.
You linked MDT's profile, you suggesting he Stat Dumped Int?
Wow that was bad >_<
My intention (which has now been corrected) was linking to a house-rule he posted upthread.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darkon wrote: I feel that EVERYONE should be getting one or two more skill points per level if they are playing a PC class, Fighters with their meager 2 skill points per level, or even 4 if you are human and spending your favored class bonus on skills still need 2 more to cover the skills that the fighter should have (Climb, Intimidate, Perception, Ride, Swim, Survival) without touching the background and craft skills, which a character should have regardless of class. Even though both climb and swim only need a certain level to do basic climbing and not drown, you claim you need enough to be better than the Rogue (because you should have a better Str). Really? Once a Fighter can climb a knotted rope, (DC 5), what more climbing does he need? Isn't it one of the Rogue's (or Ranger's) job to scale the cliff and set a rope for you?
Oh, and lets' horn in on the Ranger, who should be the survival guy, and make the vanilla Fighter just as good.
And speaking of Rangers:
Darkon wrote:
Ranger: Fighters but with one or two more knowledge skills, and 4 more skill points per level, it seems about right to me.
So you think that Rangers have enough skill points, but totally ignore the fact that you claim fighters need as many as Rangers normally get? I call BS!
Looking at this, I find that people are complaining because they can't make a Fighter who has the optimized stats to fight and still have a bunch of skills. It's called making a choice, best at fighting, or good at skills (and still better at fighting than most of the other classes).
Your 6 skills that you list I find that two only need a few levels in, one you are just picking up for no good reason to make it a Fighter skill (want a high survival, play a Ranger), and 3 that you could almost make a case for (except my Dwarven Fighter refuses to take ride, he says he'd rather eat the animal).
Which is great, but as I demonstrated upthread, Climb and Swim (two great examples) hit a shockingly bad curve of diminishing return after 3-5 skill ranks in, so giving heaps of Str based skills becomes a bit silly very quickly.
A low level Joe Average Fighter with a couple of points in swim can apparently swim the English Channel as long as its not a massive storm.
The same low level guy is also a great Mountain Climber.
Why invest more skill points into something that you dont even have to roll for as you already can auto-win at it?
You don't have a lot of environmental encounters in your games do you Shifty?
Fights on ships in the sea where you have to go into the water to prevent the ship from being sunk.
Fights on the side of a cliff, while being assailed by Giant Eagles and the archers on their backs?
I could wax on indefinitely, but to put it simply, if a Fighter can't handle combat in challenging environments, that means one of the casters has to waste his action and his resources handling it for him, which means the Fighter is wasting party resources that could be far better spent working as a team to address the problem.
Pst, Craig, in Darkon's houserules everybody gets 2 more skill points per level. Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, everybody.
And to be honest... the idea that a Fighter should be dependent on a rogue to handle a simple environmental challenge is asinine, and it makes that fighter especially vulnerable to having his rope cut out from under him.
If the Rogue is scurrying up the cliff to set the rope, its not for the Fighter, its for the Wizard who doesn't have a scroll of spider climb (or Fly) on him (or for some strange reason forbid Transmutation...)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Fights on ships in the sea where you have to go into the water to prevent the ship from being sunk.
Fights on the side of a cliff, while being assailed by Giant Eagles and the archers on their backs?
So on the basis of two encounters that are not the most common (unless your campaign is in one of those enviroments), you claim the Fighter needs these skills maximized.
Unfortunately for your logic, that means EVERY class needs those skills optimised!
Climbing: You can hold on to what you are climbing at the basic climb DC you were climbing at. Which means climging on that rope is only a DC 5, and clinging on a climbable cliff face is only a DC 10 (any more than that, and people will wonder why you are there in the first place, aren't your skill people supposed to set ropes for you? Isn't this a group adventure and not a solo adventure?).
Swiming: DC 10 in calm water, DC 15 in rough water, any more and you aren't fighting either.
And, by the way, on a cliff face you really can't perform decent combat. Your arcanist should be putting fly or the like on you so you can fight without restrictions. If he isn't, he's the one wasting party resources!
And the same goes for that water fight; if your party isn't doing something to help you in the water, (water breathing, freedom of action), they are wasting your potential to fight.
You know, that is why you have a party, and not a solo adventurer.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Wow that was bad >_<
My intention (which has now been corrected) was linking to a house-rule he posted upthread.
I just assumed you were linking to my profile because it lists my Wisdom and Charisma as dump stats. :)
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote: And to be honest... the idea that a Fighter should be dependent on a rogue to handle a simple environmental challenge is asinine, and it makes that fighter especially vulnerable to having his rope cut out from under him.
Read the rules, please! If it is a simple enviromental challenge, then the fighter should be able to climb up without any problem, and without maximizing his climb. A fighter not maximized for combat (17 str instead of 18) and set up to be intellegent (combat exp. Int 13) has plenty of skills to start, and starts with a climb of 7. By 4th level, he's got his 18 str, and a climb of 11. Not bad for someone who should only be climbing on climbable cliffs (DC 10). And still better than the second story Rogue, who might have an 8.
The point is, after a certain point, you no longer need to put points in your climb, or your swim. You are good enough to function in those enviroments, as rare as they are.
Craig Mercer wrote:
The point is, after a certain point, you no longer need to put points in your climb, or your swim. You are good enough to function in those enviroments, as rare as they are.
I can agree with that, which was one reason my house rule above allows people to trade those STR points for other points at a 2/1 level.
A typical city wall, or a nearly smooth cliff face (I've seen some in real life, they exist) is DC 30 climb.
If the surface is slippery (such as if its raining) the DC shoots up by 5 (to 35 in the above example)
Climbing at 1/2 your speed (rather than 1/4) increases the DC by 5 (from 30 to 35, or from 35 to 40)
If you fall while climbing a wall, the DC to catch yourself is the DC of the climbing surface +20.
I'm reading potential climb DC's all the way up to 60. I can see no good reason to stop investing in Climb at any level.
Addendum: no reason unless/until you gain access to at will flight through a magic item of some sort, but even then there are times climbing is more practical/subtle than flight. (Or a fort has an AMF to protect against magical assault, so climbing is the only option)
Craig Mercer wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: And to be honest... the idea that a Fighter should be dependent on a rogue to handle a simple environmental challenge is asinine, and it makes that fighter especially vulnerable to having his rope cut out from under him.
Read the rules, please! If it is a simple enviromental challenge, then the fighter should be able to climb up without any problem, and without maximizing his climb. A fighter not maximized for combat (17 str instead of 18) and set up to be intellegent (combat exp. Int 13) has plenty of skills to start, and starts with a climb of 7. By 4th level, he's got his 18 str, and a climb of 11. Not bad for someone who should only be climbing on climbable cliffs (DC 10). And still better than the second story Rogue, who might have an 8.
The point is, after a certain point, you no longer need to put points in your climb, or your swim. You are good enough to function in those enviroments, as rare as they are. At 1st level, that's an effective climb of 2, assuming chainmail.
At 4th level, that's an effective climb of 6, assuming masterwork full plate.
Same for swim. Assuming you're maxing those skills through that level.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote: A typical city wall, or a nearly smooth cliff face (I've seen some in real life, they exist) is DC 30 climb.
If the surface is slippery (such as if its raining) the DC shoots up by 5 (to 35 in the above example)
Climbing at 1/2 your speed (rather than 1/4) increases the DC by 5 (from 30 to 35, or from 35 to 40)
If you fall while climbing a wall, the DC to catch yourself is the DC of the climbing surface +20.
I'm reading potential climb DC's all the way up to 60. I can see no good reason to stop investing in Climb at any level.
And what the heck are you doing trying to climb the city wall by yourself?
Why hasn't your arcanist spider-climbed up and thrown you down a rope? Or levetated you?
Yes, I know the climbs can go way up. The question becomes "Why are you the only one who has to solve this problem? Why doesn't your party help out?"
And you know, it doesn't matter how good you are when you fall from that DC 60 surface, you aren't going to save yourself with your climb, no matter how good you think you are.
Oh, and just for giggles:
kyrt-ryder wrote: And to be honest... the idea that a Fighter should be dependent on a rogue to handle a simple environmental challenge is asinine, You are way over your so-called "simple enviromental challenge" here.
My point, is that the Rogue and the Fighter are BOTH the 'mundane awesome guys' and climbing is one of those things the 'mundane awesome guys' should be good at.
Where the Rogue differentiates his his breadth of options. The Rogue has twice as many skill points per level as the Fighter class as being discussed before accounting for race/int.
(Technically in Abadar's houserules even Human Rogues have twice the skill points than Human Fighters because Abadar planned to give 6 and 8 skill point classes one more skill point than normal, so Human Rogue would be 10 while Human Fighter would be 5)
A dedicated Second Story Man would probably have Skill Focus: Climb or a rogue talent that helps with climbing. He would also likely be wearing Masterwork Studded Leather until he could afford a Mithral Agile Breast Plate and thus not be competing against an Armor Check Penalty.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote: Craig Mercer wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: And to be honest... the idea that a Fighter should be dependent on a rogue to handle a simple environmental challenge is asinine, and it makes that fighter especially vulnerable to having his rope cut out from under him.
Read the rules, please! If it is a simple enviromental challenge, then the fighter should be able to climb up without any problem, and without maximizing his climb. A fighter not maximized for combat (17 str instead of 18) and set up to be intellegent (combat exp. Int 13) has plenty of skills to start, and starts with a climb of 7. By 4th level, he's got his 18 str, and a climb of 11. Not bad for someone who should only be climbing on climbable cliffs (DC 10). And still better than the second story Rogue, who might have an 8.
The point is, after a certain point, you no longer need to put points in your climb, or your swim. You are good enough to function in those enviroments, as rare as they are. At 1st level, that's an effective climb of 2, assuming chainmail.
At 4th level, that's an effective climb of 6, assuming masterwork full plate.
Same for swim. Assuming you're maxing those skills through that level. Except you forgot your Armor Training at 3rd level. And maybe (if you want to be good) a skill focus or Athletic Feat too.
And all you've really pointed out is that you have to put a few more skill points in (and no matter what you claim, you aren't going to be good at these skills even if you had extra skill points).
So it takes 3 more levels to get you to an auto 10 check. Oh wait, you get yet another Armor Training then. So on that last level, you don't have to spend the skill points to get a 10.
That is still a far cry from justifying having extra skill points for 13 more levels. Which is what you are trying to do, actually.
Craig Mercer wrote: That is still a far cry from justifying having extra skill points for 13 more levels. Which is what you are trying to do, actually. I hope you aren't trying to levy this accusation against everyone looking for increased skill points for the Fighter (and a few other classes.)
Personally speaking, I DO want to put those skill points into, say, Jump, every level, 1-20. I choose skills for the purpose of maxing them. The only skills I don't max are those I might dabble in during a dip in a class that grants more skill points per level.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote: My point, is that the Rogue and the Fighter are BOTH the 'mundane awesome guys' and climbing is one of those things the 'mundane awesome guys' should be good at.
See, here's the problem.
Fighter aren't 'mundane awesome guys" who are "known to be second-story men or climbers." That's Rogues and Rangers and Barbarians. Yes, I fighter can climb. But I would suppose that a Rogue or a Ranger or a Barbarian would be better than him.
Swimming? You know there is a reason light armor or no armor is favored on ships. And you want to swim in full plate? Really?
"Awesome mundane Fighter's" are the guys I see scrambling to the rooftops or climbing a rocky cliff, and being one step behind those Rogues, Rangers and Barbarians. You can do that with a 10. Heck, you can do it with less, you just have to roll. Even the example of chainmail guy with a 2 climb has a 60% chance of climbing up.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hold the phone.
You WANT the Barbarian and Ranger to be better than the Fighter?
Ok, I think we're done here. We've reached a point beyond which I don't feel further discussion can change anything.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote: Craig Mercer wrote: That is still a far cry from justifying having extra skill points for 13 more levels. Which is what you are trying to do, actually. I hope you aren't trying to levy this accusation against everyone looking for increased skill points for the Fighter (and a few other classes.)
Personally speaking, I DO want to put those skill points into, say, Jump, every level, 1-20. I choose skills for the purpose of maxing them. The only skills I don't max are those I might dabble in during a dip in a class that grants more skill points per level. Your style of play means you want to max those skills, even though you don't need to.
Other styles of play mean those 13 skill points are going somewhere else for that other player.
I keep pointing out how all this extra skill stuff is just making the skill people less useful (just the same way that a properly built Ranger makes a Rogue useless to have in the party).
Really, the only way to satify you seems to be carve out some skills for each class, and those classes get those skills each level. No other skills are allowed, just the ones you have. Because you claim the Fighters all need Climb and Swim or they will die, I guess all those other people who don't max out those skills are incorrect in their gaming.
And, as I pointed out, and you ignored, it is possible to build a Fighter with some good skills, if you don't min/max yourself to be a killing machine. You might actually be a character, and not a pile of stats then too.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It used to be that Wall Climbing, belonged solely to the Rogue class. Now reading these forums, I have seen a lot of mention that the Rogue seems to be underpowered. Think this could have something to do with many skills that were once the sole domain of the Rogue (or shared with just one or two others) have now been watered down and made available for almost everyone? The Fighter class has been made even stronger, as have most other classes, yet most of the things a Fighter excels at (Heavy Armor, Weapon Specialization, etc) still remains his sole domain. Now people are arguing that other classes, namely the fighter, should get to do more of what the Rogue does, and what does the Rogue get in return? I guess if you just want to make the Rogue irrelevant in your game, go for it, pump up the skills for everyone. But, one of the concepts of the game is choices, and that no character should be able to do everything. The fighter gets a lot already, but he is given limitations, so that other classes get a chance to shine in some situations.
If a player gets everything they want at low level, it takes away some incentive for improving. Instant gratification is something that is warned against in the earliest rules of the game. You don't often hear talk about the Monty Haul syndrome in PF, but I think it applies here when giving away skill points, just as it applies when giving out too much treasure.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote: Hold the phone.
You WANT the Barbarian and Ranger to be better than the Fighter?
Ok, I think we're done here. We've reached a point beyond which I don't feel further discussion can change anything.
Better at doing skills, yes.
Better at actually fighting in combat, no.
The Fighter is supreme in combat. Neither the Ranger or the Barbarian can come close except in certain circumstances.
I am saying the same thing back to you (but you seemed to have missed it because I didn't say it to your face).
So here it is: You want the Fighter, who is better in combat, to also be better in skills than the Ranger and Barbarian? Ok, I think we're done here. We've reached a point beyond which I don't feel further discussion can change anything.
Edit: I agree with what Dakota_Strider said above. +1
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.
*Chokes* you think the Fighter is supreme in combat compared to Barbarians?
You and I must be playing entirely different games Craig. In the Pathfinder I'm familiar with, Paladins vs Evil > Barbarians > Paladins vs Nonevil = Rangers > Fighters
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote: *Chokes* you think the Fighter is supreme in combat compared to Barbarians?
You and I must be playing entirely different games Craig. In the Pathfinder I'm familiar with, Paladins vs Evil > Barbarians > Paladins vs Nonevil = Rangers > Fighters
And in the Pathfinder that I'm familiar with, those extra bonus Feats keep the fighter just ahead of the barbarian. And rangers only get in the door when they get their Favored Enemy.
And let's not forget all those feats that are marked Fighter Only.
|
