| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the problem! The fighter can be easily replaced or bettered by other classes. Giving the fighter extra skill points at least makes it a little harder choice.
Funny, I see that EXACT same comment about every class featured in every other thread like this; The Rogue can be replaced, the Monk can be replaced, the Cleric can be replaced, and so on.
I suspect it was an EVIL PLOT by the designers to ensure you dont HAVE to always have a certain class, that it is almost as though they were getting rid of the Holy Trinity!
ZOMG!
A Fighter isn't essential!?
I do not mean to sound hard-hearted, but I have little sympathy for any build that only has a 10 int (or less) and then wants more skill points. Obviously the priorities were for wanting different than skills when you allocated the stat points.I hate to sound like a broken record, and I know this is not the last time I will say it, but this is a game of choices. If you have a 10 int or less, you made a choice to be much better in something else than skills. If someone thinks that a barbarian or ranger has it so much better than a fighter, than play a barbarian or a ranger, and just roleplay them like a fighter. Nothing in the rules to prevent someone from doing that.
It's not really a question of not be able to eke out more skill points because of a lower intelligence score. The real issue is whether the fighter's feat selections are really enough to make up for the skill point deficit compared to barbarians and rangers regardless of intelligence score. I think they really don't and there's little justification, along balance or class role lines, to justify receiving 2 fewer skill points than the barbarian at the same intelligence level.
Sadly in the develompment of PF from the beggining to this day were more or least like this.
In the CRB The Devs created the fighter and they saw the class combat abilites were
good, surely this class have to have only 2+int skill per level cause he is good a fighting."Lets give the barbarian and rangers more skill points cause they are not that good at fighting." (?)
and then the dark days came where the DEVs thought "lets give barbarian and rangers powerful combat abilities, lets give them overpowered spells and rage powers and absurd magic items. And lets the fighter stay as they already are cause ...".
u.u
Not only is this a gross mischaracterization of the design process, it's flat out wrong in its assertion.
In the development of Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition, the originators and designers were mostly working in a vacuum with theoretical knowledge that they then had to playtest with a limited amount of man-hours and eyeball the rest (granted they were very experienced eye-ballers). When 3rd edition was updated to 3.5, the fighter stayed the same because the feedback they'd received indicated that the fighter... worked. Most people that commented on it didn't want or need the fighter to change all that much. The skill system itself was tweaked, while the skill values remained the same (except for rangers who received an HD-value downgrade in exchange for more skill points to better fulfill the functions players were trying to get out of rangers).
In the design process of PF, on the other hand, there was a decision made to generally standardize and bind hit dice values to base attack progression (notable exceptions were the Barbarian class and Dragon racial hit dice, due to Legacy and Image reasons) as well as a general decision to refine and combine various skills so that fewer skill points did more, over-all, meaning that a single skill point was now far more valuable than it had been previously, because it could do more.
This also had the effect of boosting almost everyone's HD (cleric, druid, monk, and the fighter being notable exceptions, along with a few racial groups that got downgraded) or altering their base attack bonus (I don't think this actually happened, but it would have been a natural consequence if any race's BAB was preferred over the HD, for some reason).
These two things may make it seem like the fighter got the short end of the stick, but, whether you feel that way or not, fighters are categorically better off in PF than they were in D&D... you know, the system that people played and generated an enormous amount of feedback, base purely off of the fact that a fighter's skill points are now more valuable than they were before.
Also worth noting is that Fighters didn't remain unchanged from 3.5. They received rather impressive bonuses, including Weapon Training, Armor Training, and the mastery of those two things - something entirely new, and once again a mechanic that required an amount of arbitration and careful eyeballing... but definitely an increase from the D&D days.
This is definitively not "stay as they already are..." like you claim.
Whether the fighter is in a better situation over-all than they were before (since many monsters were beefed up substantially as well) is up for no small amount of debate. But they were not left the same, and they weren't treated with contempt by the developers.
One final thought in this. Fighters aren't the weakest class in the game. Far from it. That distinction goes to the rogue and/or monk (probably monk) - two classes that I love, and both of which have more skill points than the fighter.
Also, let it be known, that I'm a fan of skill points. But the fighter is not some wilting wallflower that can't handle himself because of lacking skill points. It's a valid class selection and can handle itself in many situations.
Although it's an older post, someone made a point that Fighters don't fit in all campaigns that you run. (I'm not specifically responding to this person, but am talking in general, building off of that point.)
You know what else won't fit in all games you run? Any class.
Low magic: good-bye casters.
Heavy combat: so-long sneak-thieves.
Godless: ciao divine casters.
Heavy Social: check your low skill point/charisma classes (including fighters) at the door.
Here's the thing. Fighters? Not balanced to everything in the game. But nothing is perfectly balanced to everything in the game. PF isn't a game of perfectly homogenized balance. It's pretty good balance-wise, but it's bendable and even breakable. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
Also mages put pretty much all classes to shame in many cases, skilled or not, though there are a number of warrior builds that could probably destroy most mages.
And if you're doing a solo and/or social-heavy game, why are you bothering with fighter in the first place? The only reason I could see is "flavor" or "feat addiction" and you don't really need that many feats and, as a fan of house-ruling and home-brewing, I'd highly recommend getting yourself some fresh paint and reflavoring something with more skill points, like the ranger.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was reading the Odyssey the other day and I was like WTF this is so unrealistic how come Odysseus can do so many different things surely everyone knows he shouldn't have been trained in anything other than poking things with sharp sticks right
And you came up with the impression that Int was a dump stat...for Odysseus...really?
And if you're doing a solo and/or social-heavy game, why are you bothering with fighter in the first place? The only reason I could see is "flavor" or "feat addiction" and you don't really need that many feats and, as a fan of house-ruling and home-brewing, I'd highly recommend getting yourself some fresh paint and reflavoring something with more skill points, like the ranger.Because I like the class?
I do not understant your statement, fighter are fine cause in those campaings you can always play a ranger?
veryone in pathfinder fights. And almost everyone fight well (the only exeption is the monk and to a sighly less degree the rogue).
why the fighter is the only one that just fight and nothing more?
I'm curious if you like the class: why? It provides no essential flavor compared to any other class, and they're reasonably (not perfectly) balanced toward the other classes.
Am I just misunderstanding you? Please clarify, if it's important to do so, I want to communicate well!
The point of my statement is that the fighter class is, as someone else noted, built around a specific style: fighting.
There are games, however, that don't require much fighting at all and engaging too much could be detrimental to the game. In those cases, fighters are sub-optimal (as are Barbarians, incidentally) while highly skilled classes (including the bard and rogue) tend to shine, even though the latter is generally considered weak.
To respond to your other point: feats come out a lot. A lot. I mean, I don't if you've looked at the d20pfsrd feat list lately, but it's really difficult to sort through.
And a huge number of those are on the fighter list.
Now, in response to more variant fighter options, that's what the archetypes are for. And the fighter does have archetypes. The one problem with tweaking the fighter in the same way one does the ranger or Barbarian is that the Fighter, as written, isn't as modular as either of those classes - its abilities function in a very different way and use a different base mechanic. Fighters are thus not nearly as alterable in that way.
Also, I never said that fighters were "unbeatable" at fighting - just that they were very good at it. Adding additional skill points won't help with that.
And the Fighter doesn't just fight. But that's what he does most of the time and what he does best, and he does it very well already.
Otherwise, it seems like complaining about the "limited resources" effect that all classes have in different ways. And that doesn't really seem to need any change. If the Fighters can use their abilities well and be effective in the game (which they can and do), they don't really need changing. And if you just want more skills... grant them in home brew. I know I do.
I was reading the Odyssey the other day and I was like WTF this is so unrealistic how come Odysseus can do so many different things surely everyone knows he shouldn't have been trained in anything other than poking things with sharp sticks rightAnd you came up with the impression that Int was a dump stat...for Odysseus...really?
Duck! Don't look now, but I think that was sarcasm!
|
|
Duck! Don't look now, but I think that was sarcasm!I was reading the Odyssey the other day and I was like WTF this is so unrealistic how come Odysseus can do so many different things surely everyone knows he shouldn't have been trained in anything other than poking things with sharp sticks rightAnd you came up with the impression that Int was a dump stat...for Odysseus...really?
I dunno...I was just thinking that if I was going to build Odysseus...he'd have...friggin' amazing stats. Str 20+, Dex 14ish, Con 16+, Int 16+, Wis 16+...and Cha at least 14. 16 Int, because he was praised heavily for his intelligence, and considered to be one of the great tactical geniuses of his time. He's human...so that gives him a minimum of 6 skill points per level. He's also among the 10 highest level characters around...whatever that might be.
That's some pretty nice skill points...and he has some killer stat mods there.
I mean...so much for sarcasm.
But what you're fussing about is a problem that doesn't exist for the class.
It functions in its intended role and does so well. That's all that's needed for it to be a valid class.
As far as the "totally mundane warrior", might I recommend the higher-skill-point cavalier?
To state that a fighter can't complete the things normally expected in an AP is silly, as, in my experience, even without the additional skills, they function fine.
I get that you really like the feats, but there's no reason for Paizo to increase the skills of the fighter.
Also, Paladins do a lot of healing, are mostly defensive, and have limited-use abilities. Rangers to a lot of stealth missions and have limited-used abilities. And if you're including magic classes (the alchemist, inquisitor, and magus), you're no longer comparing the fighter to purely martial classes, and that falls into the problem of game balance that I noted above: that is, that casters are more powerful, in general, than martials.
And barbarians are widely accepted to be the most powerful martial class... and they do that by having limited-use resources/abilities.
A fighter does not have limited use abilities. That is the area that they dominate all other classes other than the rogue.
Again, I'm all for you house-ruling extra skills to fighters. That's a great thing to do! I do so as well, because I'm a skill junkie, and I like giving extra skills to my players. But that's besides the point. The point is that most people (based on feedback) don't, and they have absolutely no problems with the class as-written in either the APs Paizo publishes or in their home brew campaigns.
For that reason, I'm all for keeping the fighter more or less as it is.
As far as the "totally mundane warrior", might I recommend the higher-skill-point cavalier?
I think something is wrong when the solution to the problem is "play another class"
AS I said I think fighters are mostly fine. The only thing that bugs me is the few skill points per level.
Paizo do not have nor want to change that of course, that does not means that decision is right.
I think that a mundane class with no out of combat class features should not have less than 4 skill per level. That is bad design IMHO.
Happily that is a problem with an easy solution, so it is not really a big problem for me.
First: I'm not telling you to "play another class" because Fighters are bad. I'm telling you to "play another class" because Fighters can't do everything you want them to as-written, but another class actually does exactly that - be a purely mundane class that has more skill points. It would be similar to someone saying, "You know, I don't want to cast spells, but I want to be a bard." I would tell them, "Might I recommend rogue?"
This is a similar situation. You came up with a thing you wanted. I provided exactly that... via another class that fits the description exactly. Alternatively, there's the Lore Warden fighter archetype (also by Paizo, and also available on d20pfsrd). Either way, you've got options in-game for totally mundane skilled characters.
Second, Fighters having "few" skill points is both part of their thematic nature and their mechanical one (either way: gaining feats, proficiency stuff, and weapon/armor perfection instead of skill points or spells). But as has been pointed out, it's not difficult to get Fighters with a decent skill loadout. A 13 INT human fighter with a favored class bonus nets five skills right off the bat (note: 13 is a prerequisite for quite a number of some of the "best" fighter feats out there, anyway).
They have ten class skills: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
For comparison:
A rogue could have ten skills. They have twenty-one skills: Acrobatics (Dex), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Dex), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (local) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Stealth (Dex), Swim (Str), and Use Magic Device (Cha).
A paladin would be identical number-wise, except for their specific skills (which emphasize intelligence a bit more than the Fighter's): Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (nobility) (Int), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int).
A ranger would have eight skills. They have fifteen: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Stealth (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
A monk would have six skills. They have fourteen: Acrobatics (Dex), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Escape Artist (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (history) (Int), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Perception (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Stealth (Dex), and Swim (Str).
In all those cases, that's about half of their total class skills. That's... a pretty interestingly consistent piece of game design.
A barbarian, however diverges. With the same stats, they would have seven skills. They have ten class skills, too: Acrobatics (Dex), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
That limits the possible mechanical alterations in character you can come up with, and makes the Barbarians a little skewed compared to the other classes skill-wise anyway.
If you're curious, here are all the fighter feats. That's... a ton. There are twenty in "A" alone. I have no idea what you mean about fighters not having that many options.
Based on a quick over-view, there are sixteen that are fighter-exclusive. That's a really nice number.
Anyway, while you're welcome to your opinion (after all it's your opinion), I'm letting you know that your opinion isn't based on a solid foundation: the fighter skill design process follows a pretty consistent design system that works with most classes across the board (with noted exceptions). Not all classes adhere to the design, true, but enough do that it's not an accident of design. It functions pretty well.
But yeah, it's an easy solution, on that, at least, we agree! :)
|
|
Duck! Don't look now, but I think that was sarcasm!I was reading the Odyssey the other day and I was like WTF this is so unrealistic how come Odysseus can do so many different things surely everyone knows he shouldn't have been trained in anything other than poking things with sharp sticks rightAnd you came up with the impression that Int was a dump stat...for Odysseus...really?I dunno...I was just thinking that if I was going to build Odysseus...he'd have...friggin' amazing stats. Str 20+, Dex 14ish, Con 16+, Int 16+, Wis 16+...and Cha at least 14. 16 Int, because he was praised heavily for his intelligence, and considered to be one of the great tactical geniuses of his time. He's human...so that gives him a minimum of 6 skill points per level. He's also among the 10 highest level characters around...whatever that might be.
That's some pretty nice skill points...and he has some killer stat mods there.
I mean...so much for sarcasm.
Minor point - his wisdom would be much lower. He taunts the blinded Polyphemus and almost gets his ship sunk, then tells him his name which leads to Posidon wanting vengeance against him (Polypheus's dad!)
He just HAS to listen to the Sirens and has no qualms about bedding Circe who had turned his men into pigs (so much for missing your wife mate) and generally has a huge ego which leads to problems. But this is a fighter thread...I would concede they should have perception as a class skill.
LOL...good argument. Agreed on perception. :)
If I criticize is not for trolling or something, I think the system is better if fighters have more skills.
I know you're not trolling. Nor am I. But we disagree. And that's fine, but I wanted to be clear. :)
|
i can understand the desire to have each class at each level have more skill points to work with while also keeping the balance between classes mostly intact.
if i were to do it i would first 'unfold' some of the 'nexus' skills:
Acrobatics > Balance, Jump, Tumble
Perception > Listen, Search, Spot
Diplomacy > Diplomacy, Gather Information
Disable Device > Disable Device, Open Lock
Linguistics > Decipher Script, Forgery, Speak Language
Stealth > Hide, Move Silently
(plus reintroduce Use Rope i suppose)
then allot the followng skill points:
Barbarian > 6
Bard > 8
Cleric > 4
Druid > 6
Fighter > 4
Monk > 8
Paladin > 4
Ranger > 6
Rogue > 12
Sorcerer > 4
Wizard > 2
and
Alchemist > 4
Cavalier > 6
Gunslinger > 6
Samurai > 6
Summoner > 4
Inquisitor > 8
Ninja > 10
Witch > 4
Wow. Just wow.
Guys, Fighters are supposed to be special. They are not infantry. this can not be stressed enough. In modern terms, The Fighter is not supposed to be the guy doing his mandatory military time, He's supposed to the best of the best, Spec ops.
The Fighter isn't army infantry, He's Spetsnaz (or whatever outfit you think is head and shoulders above the rank and file). Or he should be (and if someone say the word "Rogue" I'll lose it, the Rogue is military intelligence calling in the Spec ops. Or should be).
There is no excuse for Fighter not to get: Stealth, Acrobatics, Perception, Knowledge (geography), Heal and 4+ skill points.
But instead we have a system where a certain class gets +4 skill points, when their ENTIRE schtick can be covered by survival + intimidate, While the most likely academy educated Fighter languishes with 2+ skill points.
i can understand the desire to have each class at each level have more skill points to work with while also keeping the balance between classes mostly intact.
if i were to do it i would first 'unfold' some of the 'nexus' skills
That would make the added skill points a false savings. Sure, everyone gets more skill points, but once they actually spend them they'll have less actual skills than just sticking to the current system.
I am personally of the opinion that Pathfinder classes do not receive enough skill points per level. I see too many Bruisers/Casters that dump int, and end up getting one skill point per level... ONE SKILL POINT PER LEVEL! As someone who loves role-playing and other non-combat encounters, this reality bothers me.
If they are human, they get +1 Skill point/level. They can used FB Bonus to get +1 Skill point/level, and if they are really bothered, don't use INT as a dump stat.
If they aren't doing these things it's because they don't want the skill points, so why give them something they don't want and don't need?
I was reading the Odyssey the other day and I was like WTF this is so unrealistic how come Odysseus can do so many different things surely everyone knows he shouldn't have been trained in anything other than poking things with sharp sticks rightIn particular, Odysseus was an aristocrat by birth and training. In Pathfinder, Aristocrats get a decent amount of skill points and class skills, even if it is a NPC class....
Good point though. I always thought Barbarians should have less skill points per level than Fighters anyway, since the latter were professional warriors while Barbs were uneducated.
Odysseus was also famous for his intelligence. You know, Intelligence
- the stat that gives bonus skill points?
well I do think that they need more skills as class skills, fighter has almost none, same as sorcerers. Skill points I don't think they need more of. yes the figher is a trained solder but why would you train a solder with anything more the basics of what you need them for. If you need a scout you train a scout, if you need a leader you train a leader, if you need a medic you train a medic. But why would you train a medic, scout, and a leader for a unit? There should be a arctype for scout that gives them the right skill sets. But a gen fighter is a solder, not anything more.From statements like this I have to assume you have never served in the military. It's been almost 20 years now but I served for 9 years as a medic and let me tell you from my experience that they don't just teach you one single thing and figure that's enough. They DO teach basic medical skills to everyone, they DO constantly try to encourage and develop leadership skills in soldiers (at least good units do), they do teach basic combat skills to everyone, etc... Training doesn't stop upon completely basic training, training NEVER stops as long as you are in the service. They don't just rely on one person to spot ambushes or to lead.
If you need a scout you train a scout, if you need a leader you train a leader, if you need a medic you train a medic. But why would you train a medic, scout, and a leader for a unit?You said if you need a medic you train a medic. I was a medic and I was trained as a medic, but I was ALSO trained as a leader, and I was trained to operate tactically amongst many, many other things. To think that they are going to train someone just enough to stand there like a moron and poke things is shortsighted and naive.
You are talking about a modern military system of trained soldiers, not a fantasy system. I most mediaeval armies (on which fantasy systems are based), the Knights were a professional Elite and ruling class - they would have such skills as Knowledge (Nobility), Leadership, Riding, Hawking, Courtliness, nmusic, etc. They would not know survival or swimming.
Men-at-arms were recruited from peasant stock. They would bring their skills with them and would know survival, knowledge (natural) or other similar skills from that. They would receive no particular training in skills for their combat role.
famously, swimming was almost unheard of as a skill. the water was too cold for swimming and you would most likely end up dead if you tried it (warmer climes may be different, especially pearl divers). Even 18th century sailors rarely knew how to swim.
Modern Trained soldiers did not begin to appear until Cromwell developed the New Model Army in the 1640's. Even then, they were trained in weapons and military drill, not healing, perception or stealth. The emphasis was on discipline (Cromwell was disgusted with Cavalry that would run off to loot the enemies baggage rather than help ensure vicory on the battlefield). Even as late as WWI the prevailing attitude was that a soldier should fight and die. Skulking on the battlefield was seen as a form of cowardice.
During all this period, any skills a soldier picked up were mostly self-taught - not "class skills".
Now fantasy systems are just that - Fantasy. Your soldiers can be highly trained professionals or untrained Militia, but the class has to find a balance. I see nothing wrong with a base of 2 skill points/level, if you want more you can get them.
Clearly the existing system creates characters more skilled than the average already, why would we need to increase it?
@Gavmania: thanks, you beat me to it. :)
I was reading the Odyssey the other day and I was like WTF this is so unrealistic how come Odysseus can do so many different things surely everyone knows he shouldn't have been trained in anything other than poking things with sharp sticks rightIn particular, Odysseus was an aristocrat by birth and training. In Pathfinder, Aristocrats get a decent amount of skill points and class skills, even if it is a NPC class....
Good point though. I always thought Barbarians should have less skill points per level than Fighters anyway, since the latter were professional warriors while Barbs were uneducated.
Odysseus was also famous for his intelligence. You know, Intelligence
- the stat that gives bonus skill points?
Honestly, pretty much everything Odysseus did makes me think rogue, not fighter. He's famous for being sneaky and cunning, not a powerful straight-up fighter.
But that's not terribly relevant to the mechanical troubles the fighter has with skill points.
OTOH, most soldiers are Warriors, not Fighters. Fighters are the elite.
And fighters are super elite, when compared to warriors.
Warriors get: best BAB, d10, good fortitude, simple and martial weapon proficiency, light to heavy armor proficiency, and shield proficiency, and 2+ skills, and their options of Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Profession, Ride, and Swim.
Fighters get: everything noted above and adding Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (engineering), and Survival to their list of choices (intriguingly two of which seem to indicate formal training and schooling); 11 bonus feats, bravery, armor training, weapon training, armor mastery, and weapon mastery. They also have a higher presumed wealth on average than a warrior.
They're differentiated by as early as first level with fighters having higher (presumed) starting gold and an extra feat. That seems pretty elite to me.
While the expert is, perhaps, more flexible in their skill selection, a rogue has double their skill value plus class features, a ranger has better attack and hit dice plus their class features, and a bard has magic plus their class features.
The aristocrat inhabits a strange location of not fulfilling a solid "role", mechanically speaking. The aristocrat's closest comparison, mechanically, would likely be a druid, though the aristocrat lacks any spellcasting, but thematically would be closer to a bard... which is better, mechanically speaking, in practically every way.
The commoner is categorically and mechanically worse than every other class. Yes, including the monk.
Agreed, but the previous post was using the training of medieval soldiers to justify the fighter's lack of skills. The Fighter is certainly better at fighting and gets a couple more class skills, which is great, but still doesn't mean you can point at regular soldiers to say anything about the elite Fighters.
Accepted.
The thing is, however, most modern military training more closely resembles a ranger sans spell-casting than a fighter; that post was in response to the idea that a fighter should embody the concepts that a ranger already does, and responded by showing how most fighters originated.
PCs are, by their nature, exceptional. They live in a world that is substantially different from the real one, though it is informed mostly by fantastical versions of medieval real-world concepts, though taking inspiration from many eras (and Golarion takes more inspiration from later eras than other worlds).
But for the world they live in: Fighters are elite, they function well in their current role, and are capable of doing anything you'd need them for, combat-wise.
Heck, they're the best archers in the game, from my understanding - archery being the most powerful combat option (again, going by what I understand, I'm not as clear on all of this, as I don't do the DPR olympics thing).
Which is ultimately my point: fighters fill their role extremely well. They don't need to be changed for the game to succeed. If you want them changed in homebrew, though, go for it! It's actually a lot of fun!
Fighters are better than an NPC class!
My favorite comparison is
F1 - a Fighter in combat is arguably on par with the Barbarian, Ranger, Cavalier and Paladin.
F2 - a Fighter in every situation except combat is arguably on par with a Commoner.
B1 - a Barbarian in combat is arguably on par with the Fighter, Ranger, Cavalier and Paladin.
B2 - a Barbarian out of combat is a fleet-footed survivalist and counter-trapper.
R1 - a Ranger in combat is arguably on par with the Fighter, Barbarian, Cavalier and Paladin.
R2 - a Ranger out of combat is a skilled survivalist, minor spellcaster, pet master and stealthy scout.
P1 - a Paladin in combat is arguably on par with the Fighter, Barbarian, Cavalier and Ranger.
P2 - a Paladin out of combat is a minor spellcaster, healer and pet master.
C1 - a Cavalier in combat is arguably on par with the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger.
C2 - a Cavalier out of combat is a diplomat/negotiator and pet master.
When you look at it like this, the disparity becomes rather apparent.
My favorite comparison is
F1 - a Fighter in combat is arguably on par with the Barbarian, Ranger, Cavalier and Paladin.
F2 - a Fighter in every situation except combat is arguably on par with a Commoner.B1 - a Barbarian in combat is arguably on par with the Fighter, Ranger, Cavalier and Paladin.
B2 - a Barbarian out of combat is a fleet-footed survivalist and counter-trapper.R1 - a Ranger in combat is arguably on par with the Fighter, Barbarian, Cavalier and Paladin.
R2 - a Ranger out of combat is a skilled survivalist, minor spellcaster, pet master and stealthy scout.P1 - a Paladin in combat is arguably on par with the Fighter, Barbarian, Cavalier and Ranger.
P2 - a Paladin out of combat is a minor spellcaster, healer and pet master.C1 - a Cavalier in combat is arguably on par with the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger.
C2 - a Cavalier out of combat is a diplomat/negotiator and pet master.When you look at it like this, the disparity becomes rather apparent.
False comparison. Intimidate and two different optional knowledges mean your fighter has more options out of combat.
[EDITED for clarity]Fighters are better than an NPC class!
That's one way to make a point, even if false: take a post out of context! Winning! ;)
Then don't re-inforce that mindset by not only encouraging people to dumpstat Int down to 8 (or even 7!) and then give them a couple of freebie skill points as a reward.What I can not abide, is this idea that Heroic Men at Arms are supposed to be these stupid limited constrained nobodies that can't even tie their own shoes, let alone be considered a valid member of an adventuring party.
No, having a 2 skill points per level is what encourages you to dump INT to 7, since a Human Fighter with 7 INT still ends up with 3 skill points a level, as opposed to 4 for a Human who doesn't want to dump their INT but doesn't feel like they can afford to invest extra in it either on a 15 point buy.
The 10 INT Fighter gets one whole extra skill point a level at the expense of 4 point buy points.
Hmmm...I see the problem. It's a combination of being able to Dump Stats and having a minimum skills/level of 1.
The solutions are:
(1) Don't allow dump stats (Cue cries of outrage)
or
(2) Don't have a minimum skills/level. Skills can still be attained by FC Bonus or being Human, but at least there is a penalty for dumping your stat to 7.
I'm running a fighter with 17 int and he's an archetype that has 4/level. He still doesn't have enough skills.
Our 16 int cleric is even more strapped for skill points.
We both put our second highest stat in Int in a 4d6 drop lowest spread and took races with a +2 int mod and I also took an archetype with more skills. I'm scrimping to get single points into class skills on top of core concept skills and he can't even keep his core skills maxed.
2+int is inadequate when you're not dumping int. If you want to be a fighter knowledgeable about what you're fighting even 4+int isn't really adequate when you're not dumping int.
17 Int =+3 SP, FC = +1 SP, Archetype = 4SP, that's 8SP, the same as a INT 10 Rogue - and it's not enough? (Iassume your charcter is not human since you do not mention it). What are you spending all those SPs on?
Seems to me that you want a highly skilled character, so why are you playing Fighter? Play a Ranger. Play a Rogue; don't play a Fighter.
Which leaves us with: Fighters are better than an NPC class!
So are all the other PC classes!
This isn't an argument or even really a discussion point, so much as an attempt to denigrate any semblance of discussion into a off-hand comments in order to belittle a particular position.
Also, the fact that Fighters don't have Perception isn't that big a deal, when you consider, Fighters aren't supposed to do everything. Neither, for that matter, is a commoner (who, it must be noted, got a huge power boost from 3.X, as they used to only have craft and profession, if I recall).
If the argument is that "Fighters can't do anything out of combat.", then the argument is false. They demonstrably can - they have the skills to do so.
If the argument is that "Fighters don't have enough skill points to do things out of combat." the argument is false. They demonstrably can with nothing but a 13 INT score, which is required for some of the best feat chains anyway.
If the argument is that "Some classes are more powerful than the Fighter." might I direct your attention to the Wizard (or, dependent on your interpretation of the rules, the Sorcerer), which is the most powerful class; of course there are classes more powerful than the Fighter.
Or, let's look at the monk, which, while thematically one of the coolest, is mechanically the weakest PC class, with the rogue being the second weakest class. The monk doesn't fit it's defined role and although it can be made acceptably potent, it's not easy. The rogue fits its defined role, but is fully and heavily outclassed () in every job it wants to do by other PC classes*.
Neither of those statements are true of the Fighter. Again, note their superiority in archery. They have more feats than any other class (and thus, more versatility). Still not enough skill points? There are archetypes that cover that as well. Don't like archetypes? Good thing you've got so many feats, then! You can cover it with your non-fighter feats!
Look, as I said, I'm a skills-junky, thus I give extra skill points (to everyone, not just the Fighter). And that's perfectly fine in homebrew campaigns. But in PF as-intended, the fighter functions excellently in their currently defined role and has plenty of out-of-combat options; simply saying, "No, those options don't count." is ridiculous.
If Paizo gave Fighters an overhaul and increased their power, I'd be all for it. But they don't need to, is what I'm saying.
Fighters work, and work well, as they are.
* Though mostly this is a problem due to the archetypes granting Rogue abilities to other classes, even without that, the rogue is one of the weakest classes due to heavily situational abilities and both reliance on (sneak attack) and aversion to (stealth) working with others to get those abilities functional.
wait, are archer fighters better than a zen archer? And Rangers have gravity bow. both zen and ranger can bypass feat prereqs for archery. I guess I never directly compared these all before, anyone got example builds?
You're right. So are all the other PC classes. I think that was hinted at by the big list of how the other martial classes fought as well as the the Fighter and had all sorts of cool things they could do outside combat.
While the Fighter is, out of combat, marginally better than a Commoner: Trades Perception for Intimidate and gets a couple of Knowledges, with the same number of skill points.
They can do something outside of combat, but that's a pretty low bar. They can do less than any of the other martial classes. And really need to invest in Int and use favored class bonuses and/or be human to keep up. Which all the other classes can do as well. Or they can take an archtype that restricts him to light armor and get two (restricted use) skill points.Now, if they were clearly better in combat, that might be a fair trade-off, but it's not at all clear that they are.
Again, this argument is misleading. First and foremost, your definition of "marginal" and mine are very different.
Out of combat, Fighters are better than: commoners and warriors under all circumstances.
In combat, Fighters are better than: anyone other than barbarians and (potentially) rangers.
Barbarians and rangers use limited-use resources and/or situational bonuses to be better. Fighters have limitless-use resources. This is the trade off.
Place fighters in situations where they need to do stuff all day long? They're superior to Barbarians and Rangers.
In this case, it becomes about playstyle instead of mechanics, which, again, is why they don't need to be changed.
IF Paizo changed them, I'd be fine. But they don't need to be changed to fulfill any roll.
The monk and rogue, on the other hand, do. The fighter isn't poorly made.
In the meanwhile, as I said, homebrew is great. Go nuts.