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.
EDIT: blarg, weird computer thing is weird, causing a post to post early. It might have something to do with accidentally double posting. ANYWAY.
I was thinking of playtesting a following skill system:
Every class gets 6+int+etc. amount of skill points but the classes themselves have limitations to how they can use them. For example a wizard must spend 2 skill points for every rank in physical skills. This represents that they use most of their time reading books and studying.Fighters would have a similar limitation to mental skills (except class skills and so on. As OP pointed out, skills are an important part of fleshing out any character, even the dumb ones.
What's the "etc" mean? Does that mean their base class skills (i.e. 2 for fighter, 8 for rogue, etc)?
One of the difficulties with giving a solid number to a class like fighter is that at ten skills, if they have six skill points (seven as a human) plus their INT bonus, they're going to have all but two of their class skills known.
Are you changing class skills to give all classes access to all skills except as defined above?
And how do you plan on separating "physical" skills from "mental" ones? Are "social" skills a separate category?
It sounds like an interesting base idea, and I'd love to hear more.
I remember reading somewhere on the message boards this,
instead of just intelligence dictating skills, each ability score modifier granted a set of skill points only spendable in skills that use that modifier. there was also general skill points that can be used for anything equal to half the class' normal ability score modifier. it seemed pretty cool and supported more thematic skill sets.
I remember reading somewhere on the message boards this,
instead of just intelligence dictating skills, each ability score modifier granted a set of skill points only spendable in skills that use that modifier. there was also general skill points that can be used for anything equal to half the class' normal ability score modifier. it seemed pretty cool and supported more thematic skill sets.
This thread, page six, and mdt was the guy who created it. Here's his post:
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 : -1So 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.
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.
Clarification accepted! :D
Sorry.I took his point differently than you.
EDIT for word choice.
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.
[snipped for size]
False comparison. Intimidate and two different optional knowledges mean your fighter has more options out of combat.
[EDITED for clarity]
Getting +3 to intimidate, knowledge engineering and knowledge dungeoneering (assuming the ranks are invested there) in exchange for -3 on perception isn't exactly a strong margin of improvement. The fact that it's arguable to be better at all means they're arguably on par, exactly like I said.
I rest my case on this.
================================
The solution I would recommend is to consider NOT that the fighter is a soldier. If you want a modern spec ops kind of soldier, play a ranger.
Instead, the fighter is more like a warrior monk, or weapons-focused martial artist. They're trained in elite combat maneuvers, weapons, armor and so on, taking the implements of war and becoming a virtuoso in perfecting their use. They would receive training in secluded camps, secret societies, monasteries or by those lone masters who select them. Alternately, they may just be geniuses of combat.
They're certainly more trained than a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin or Cavalier in combat maneuvers, weapons and armor. Once trained, they're highly sought after as mercenaries, royal guards, military officers and trainers, and so on. They are what Sun Tzu would call the perfect soldier, except they're not a soldier... they're a specialist.
I suggest altering the class as follows:
- 4 skill ranks/level. Add Knowledge (History) and Knowledge (Geography) as class skills.
- Add +1/2 Fighter level on all knowledge checks to identify an enemy and/or their abilities. Knowledge checks to identify a creature or ability don't need to be trained to go beyond DC 10.
- Gain additional Bonus Feat at levels 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18. Select from among [Acrobatic, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Deceitful, Endurance, Fleet, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Magical Aptitude, Persuasive, Run, Self-Sufficient, Skill Focus, Stealthy]
Know History reflects their studies of war, tactics, the origins of weapons and armor and so on. Geography is similar, as the Fighter learns about terrain, renowned battlegrounds and areas of conflict, and the like.
Knowledge bonuses come from the fact that fighters are formally educated on the strengths and weaknesses of the various creatures they might face on the field of battle. After all, dragons and zombies and the like are REAL in this world, and they are threats which the Fighter might have to face. It's all part & parcel of the education in tactics and strategy.
The bonus feats reflect the accelerated development of the fighter, as they know how to apply knowledge and discipline in unexpected ways, and train their minds and bodies to become exceptional.
(Mechanically, this creates avenues for rounding out the character with non-combat feats; Barbarians get more rage powers and trap sense, Rangers get more skill ranks, spells and terrain mastery, Paladins get more spells and mercies... so fighters get more "mundane" abilities in the form of noncombat feats)
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.
[snipped for size]
False comparison. Intimidate and two different optional knowledges mean your fighter has more options out of combat.
[EDITED for clarity]Getting +3 to intimidate, knowledge engineering and knowledge dungeoneering (assuming the ranks are invested there) in exchange for -3 on perception isn't exactly a strong margin of improvement. The fact that it's arguable to be better at all means they're arguably on par, exactly like I said.
I rest my case on this.
If you're worried about a +3, might I recommend Skill Focus? You have more than enough feats for it.
The statements are, "Fighters are barely useful out of combat."
I mean, why would the Fighter be focusing on wisdom anyway? Will saves? That's what Iron Will is for (and again, they have feats).
Wisdom isn't needed for the better feat lines, and a typical party has at least one character who has decent wisdom because it works better with their class, including rangers who tend toward higher wisdom for spells, rogues and ninjas who can't afford extra feats like Iron Will and need the perception to deal with traps. For both of those classes, wisdom is a better investment than it is for the fighter, and who tend to use their wisdom score more than the fighter. Adding perception to the list of Fighter's skills encourages focusing on ability scores that don't matter as much, and isn't even within most ideals of the Fighter-style archetypes (though it is in some). Fighters are known to be intimidating and fearless (which their class skills and features reflect), and feat choices mean that they tend to be intelligent, but they're not known for their sharp senses or having iron wills. Unless, of course, you're looking at a specific fighter archetype, in which case: that's what the archetype is for, to provide an alternate take on the Fighter.
In honesty, Commoners don't need Perception either. I feel that it was pointless to give it to them. Basing an argument, then, off the idea that "commoners get this skill, fighters don't" becomes extremely weak in my eyes for that exact reason.
Add that to the fact that PF is supposed to be a team game, and the majority of arguments tend to sound a lot like, "The Fighter can't do everything by himself." Thus, you know, the "team" aspect of the game.
Again. As they're currently designed: Fighters have options in an out of combat and fulfill their roll well. Asking for anything else is asking for "extras" and, while not bad, isn't critical to making them a "good" class.
I give them extra stuff. But that's a playstyle choice.
I mean, why would the Fighter be focusing on wisdom anyway? Will saves? That's what Iron Will is for (and again, they have feats).A fighter using a feat for Iron Will is the same as a Barbarian using a feat for Iron Will. The cost is not less for the fighter, just because the majority of his class abilities have the word "feat" attached to them. Barbarians get rage powers instead of feats, so by rights, the cost is the same for a Barb. They get a fistful of rage powers and 10 feats, and the fighter gets a fistful of combat feats and 10 feats. They both get 10 feats and a fistful of chosen abilities... do Rage Power count in watering down the value of their feats? I have my doubts.
PF is supposed to be a team game, and the majority of arguments tend to sound a lot like, "The Fighter can't do everything by himself."
A party who replaces the fighter with any other martial class sees little difference in combat, but improvement out of combat. Claiming that I'm basing arguments on solo-playing a fighter is classic strawmanning.
But to follow your tangent, team play really hits the sensitive spot of a fighter out of combat: While the rest of the party is making magic gear, influencing cunning NPCs, foraging for food, tracking down enemies, navigating, circumventing traps, solving problems and so on, the fighter is little more than a commoner in all these endeavors.
I mean, why would the Fighter be focusing on wisdom anyway? Will saves? That's what Iron Will is for (and again, they have feats).A fighter using a feat for Iron Will is the same as a Barbarian using a feat for Iron Will. The cost is not less for the fighter, just because the majority of his class abilities have the word "feat" attached to them. Barbarians get rage powers instead of feats, so by rights, the cost is the same for a Barb. They get a fistful of rage powers and 10 feats, and the fighter gets a fistful of combat feats and 10 feats. They both get 10 feats and a fistful of chosen abilities... do Rage Power count in watering down the value of their feats? I have my doubts.PF is supposed to be a team game, and the majority of arguments tend to sound a lot like, "The Fighter can't do everything by himself."A party who replaces the fighter with any other martial class sees little difference in combat, but improvement out of combat. Claiming that I'm basing arguments on solo-playing a fighter is classic strawmanning.
False. Again.
Also, I did not intend to claim your argument was for solo play. I meant that is sounded that way - i.e. that was the only reason I could see for that argument - not that it was for that thing. I apologize if that came off as me telling you what you were arguing. That was not my intent.
But to follow your tangent, team play really hits the sensitive spot of a fighter out of combat: While the rest of the party is making magic gear, influencing cunning NPCs, foraging for food, tracking down enemies, navigating, circumventing traps, solving problems and so on, the fighter is little more than a commoner in all these endeavors.
1) making magic items: Wizard (or fighter with the right feats and skills)
2) influencing cunning NPCs: Bard, Wizard, or Fighter3) foraging: Druid or Ranger
4) tracking: Barbarian, Druid, Ranger
5) navigating: Bard, Druid, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard, or Fighter
6) circumventing traps: Bard, Cleric, Ranger, Rogue, or Wizard (Barbarians have good defenses, but aren't good "eliminators")
7) solving problems: literally all of the classes. Like, all of them. This is a super-generic example.
Didn't read the whole thing, but I agree with the premise.
Yes some class have way too low skills point.
For me, everyone should be 4 + int modifier, besides some class that are skills focused like Rogue, Bard and such.
False. Again.A fighter using a feat for Iron Will is the same as a Barbarian using a feat for Iron Will. The cost is not less for the fighter, just because the majority of his class abilities have the word "feat" attached to them. Barbarians get rage powers instead of feats, so by rights, the cost is the same for a Barb. They get a fistful of rage powers and 10 feats, and the fighter gets a fistful of combat feats and 10 feats. They both get 10 feats and a fistful of chosen abilities... do Rage Power count in watering down the value of their feats? I have my doubts.
...
A party who replaces the fighter with any other martial class sees little difference in combat, but improvement out of combat.
Really? What does the fighter's CLASS FEATURES have to compete with
- trap sense (barbarian)- two good saves (ranger, paladin)
- fast movement (barbarian) or superior mobility (ranger)
- animal companion (ranger, paladin, cavalier)
- divine magic (ranger spells, paladin spells)
- terrain mastery (ranger)
- 2 additional skill ranks per level (barbarian, cavalier)
- 4 additional skill ranks per level (ranger)
Again I stress class features. HD-feats (1,3,5,7,9) don't count cuz everyone has them.
1) making magic items: Wizard (or fighter with the right feats and skills)
... and Commoner. Thus, has nothing to do with class anymore than an equal level lowest of the low NPC loser. Further, these feats and skill ranks cost the fighter some of his combat build, just like it would a Barbarian or Cavalier. This makes nothing for your case.
2) influencing cunning NPCs: Bard, Wizard, or Fighter
Intimidate has limited and short duration use with consequences. Intimidating a King, mob boss, or anyone with power, leads to baaad consequences: "After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities." (... or tries to hurt or kill you).
3) foraging: Druid or Ranger
or Barbarian. 2 more ranks makes a couple ranks in Survival quite likely.
Defense is plenty when it comes to traps, because surviving a trap could mean overcoming it, or at the very least determining where it is to bypass, avoid or destroy it. Meh, a hair to split.4) tracking: Barbarian, Druid, Ranger
5) navigating: Bard, Druid, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard, or Fighter
6) circumventing traps: Bard, Cleric, Ranger, Rogue, or Wizard (Barbarians have good defenses, but aren't good "eliminators")
7) solving problems: literally all of the classes. Like, all of them. This is a super-generic example.
Breaking a code (linguistics), chasing a hippogriff (fast flight), infiltrating a secret society (disguise, bluff, stealth - or invisibility) ... not every class can do all these things, but each class has something more to offer than others, and ALL of them have more to offer than the fighter, except the commoner who is on the same level.
You're missing the forest for the one and only tree you can see (skill points).
Those HD-based feats count because the Fighter has so many Fighter feats. They can afford to do things that the other characters can't. By insisting that the HD-feats "don't count" you're indirectly ignoring one of the Fighter's greatest assets - his class feats. The reason the Fighter can afford those other HD-feat things so easily is because he has all of his class feats, and his class abilities to cover the areas that most people spend the HD feats on.
So: false. Again.
Again, in Homebrew (which this was originally about) I'm all cool with people granting more skills to the Fighter. I do that.
But when people go, "The RAW Fighter sucks, it needs extra skills to be 'on par'" I disagree.
If making magic items has nothing to do with the class, then you shouldn't have brought it up. It's your bad example, I just pointed it out.
You didn't specify how you were influencing NPCs, only that you were influencing. If you start specifying how, and the natural consequences thereof, than you're going to quickly start and end with the bard or a few rare builds of other classes. False equivocation.
Ah, the Barbarian. Greatest of the INT-dump-stat classes. But, sure, add that to the list of survivalist, because, all things being equal, it deserves to be there.
Traps functioning as you indicate is heavily influenced by play style. Much like Fighters requiring more skill points to be effective.
Breaking a code (linguistics), chasing a hippogriff (fast flight), infiltrating a secret society (disguise, bluff, stealth - or invisibility) ... not every class can do all these things, but each class has something more to offer than others, and ALL of them have more to offer than the fighter, except the commoner who is on the same level.
The commoner is not on the same level, because if anything goes wrong, there will be combat, at which point the Fighter will be the one to survive.
Perception allows benefit with traps and secret doors out-of-combat, and occasionally finding treasure. That's it (unless you count ambushes, but that seems an awful lot like "proto-combat" to me). There's also the strong application of knowledge and intimidate, which can be enormously useful for clue-gathering, finding weak spots or likely hidden doors, and granting bonuses to yourself or allies in all sorts of situations. Those overcome a lot of problems (though intimidate is usually a short-term victory).
If you sell what the Fighter can do short, of course he'll come up short, but the fact is the Fighter has a few very nice things.
Again, I'm not saying don't give the Fighter extra skill points, only that they don't need it to function in any given role. It's about application and preference, not necessity.
Those HD-based feats count because the Fighter has so many Fighter feats. They can afford to do things that the other characters can't. By insisting that the HD-feats "don't count" you're indirectly ignoring one of the Fighter's greatest assets - his class feats. The reason the Fighter can afford those other HD-feat things so easily is because he has all of his class feats, and his class abilities to cover the areas that most people spend the HD feats on.
This looks like the core of your bad argument. Why bad, you ask?
Well, because those fighter feats plus weapon & armor training is supposed to be fair trade for what other martial classes get, and it simply isn't.A barbarian who uses his 10 HD-feats for combat feats, compared to a fighter who uses his 10 HD-feats for non-combat feats, is markedly superior in combat and comparable out of combat. That is, a fighter who uses his 10 HD-feats for non-combat becomes weak.
Those 10 HD-feats either contribute to combat (like the Barbarian's usually do) to keep pace or they contribute out of combat, at which point all the other martial classes excel by comparison in combat.
Cut away the common martial character factors and look at the remaining package (good Fort, d10 HD, 2 ranks/level, martial weapons, 10 HD-feats, etc.):
- Fighter gets heavy armor proficiencies, 11 combat feats, weapon training, armor training, bravery.
- Barbarian gets medium armor, +2 ranks/level, average +1 hp/HD, fast movement, DR, trap sense, rage, 10 rage powers, uncanny dodge
- Paladin gets divine spells, animal companion mount, heavy armor proficiency, smite, divine grace, good Will save, Lay on Hands & Mercy, Aura of Courage, positive channeling, aura of resolve
- Ranger gets 4 ranks/level, good Reflex save, 5 combat feats, 5 favored enemies, 4 favored terrains, Endurance, Evasion, tracking, animal companion, divine (nature) magic, and advanced stealth powers
- Cavalier gets 2 ranks/level, heavy armor proficiency, challenge, animal companion mount & charge attack, tactician (feat sharing) and other group buffs (banner), Order (which includes skill bonuses and combat bonuses), 3 combat feats
This list, and the imbalance it reveals, is what we're talking about. It's why fighter threads seem to magically appear all the time. Yet you claim the imbalance isn't there despite the hypocrisy of actually houseruling fighter fixes in your own games.
If the imbalance is not there, where are all the Barbarian, Cavalier, Ranger and Paladin fix threads? They are comparatively rare, because these classes are all well rounded martial classes that can kick arse AND chew gum, while the fighter has to choose a build that can only do one or the other.
Do I think the RAW needs to change? No. That's just silly. Look at which forum we're in. Derrrp.
Would it be nice to have some formally-paizo-approved optional adjustments, given the repeated instances of this issue? Yes, but it's not a must-have... more like an implausible "wouldn't it be nice".
So am I just arguing on the intert00bs like some living cliche? Yup... but I'm right.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those HD-based feats count because the Fighter has so many Fighter feats. They can afford to do things that the other characters can't. By insisting that the HD-feats "don't count" you're indirectly ignoring one of the Fighter's greatest assets - his class feats. The reason the Fighter can afford those other HD-feat things so easily is because he has all of his class feats, and his class abilities to cover the areas that most people spend the HD feats on.This looks like the core of your bad argument. Why bad, you ask?
Well, because those fighter feats plus weapon & armor training is supposed to be fair trade for what other martial classes get, and it simply isn't.A barbarian who uses his 10 HD-feats for combat feats, compared to a fighter who uses his 10 HD-feats for non-combat feats, is markedly superior in combat and comparable out of combat. That is, a fighter who uses his 10 HD-feats for non-combat becomes weak.
Those 10 HD-feats either contribute to combat (like the Barbarian's usually do) to keep pace or they contribute out of combat, at which point all the other martial classes excel by comparison in combat.
Cut away the common martial character factors and look at the remaining package (good Fort, d10 HD, 2 ranks/level, martial weapons, 10 HD-feats, etc.):
...
- Fighter gets heavy armor proficiencies, 11 combat feats, weapon training, armor training, bravery.
- Barbarian gets medium armor, +2 ranks/level, average +1 hp/HD, fast movement, DR, trap sense, rage, 10 rage powers, uncanny dodge
- Paladin gets divine spells, animal companion mount, heavy armor proficiency, smite, divine grace, good Will save, Lay on Hands & Mercy, Aura of Courage, positive channeling, aura of resolve
- Ranger gets 4 ranks/level, good Reflex save, 5 combat feats, 5 favored enemies, 4 favored terrains, Endurance, Evasion, tracking, animal companion, divine (nature) magic, and advanced stealth powers
- Cavalier gets 2 ranks/level, heavy armor proficiency,
Houseruling fighter fix...did you miss that he gives *everybody* extra skills? It's not a fighter fix...so it's hardly hypocrisy.
Houseruling fighter fix...did you miss that he gives *everybody* extra skills? It's not a fighter fix...so it's hardly hypocrisy.
I'll concede that one point.
RELATIVELY speaking the cost IS less. A non-human 10th level fighter will have 8 feats to play with, a 10th level Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger, etc will have four.
Incorrect. 4 of those feats should (to remain competitive in combat, and maintain party value as a martial character) attempt to keep up with the Barbarian's rage powers, and/or Ranger's favored enemies & combat feats, and/or Paladin's smite & resistances.
The other 4 should be matched, feat-for-feat, on the same things that those other classes spend them on, which is usually moar combat.1 combat feat is 1 feat, and it has a value. Is that value more or less then a rage power? If we can say they're about the same, then the Barbarian actually has 5+4, including rage powers.
I see what you're saying... I've never not seen it. But what you're saying is bad math and junk logic.
If I were to make any non-fighter martial class, could you make a fighter who was just as good in combat AND out of combat? I highly doubt it. You'd have to (using feats & skills) pick from in-combat equality, or out-of-combat equality, but fall behind in the other aspect. Or you could make a build balanced between combat & noncombat, and fall behind my character in both.
I was thinking of playtesting a following skill system:
Every class gets 6+int+etc. amount of skill points but the classes themselves have limitations to how they can use them. For example a wizard must spend 2 skill points for every rank in physical skills. This represents that they use most of their time reading books and studying.Fighters would have a similar limitation to mental skills (except class skills and so on. As OP pointed out, skills are an important part of fleshing out any character, even the dumb ones.
What's the "etc" mean? Does that mean their base class skills (i.e. 2 for fighter, 8 for rogue, etc)?
One of the difficulties with giving a solid number to a class like fighter is that at ten skills, if they have six skill points (seven as a human) plus their INT bonus, they're going to have all but two of their class skills known.
Are you changing class skills to give all classes access to all skills except as defined above?
And how do you plan on separating "physical" skills from "mental" ones? Are "social" skills a separate category?
It sounds like an interesting base idea, and I'd love to hear more.
Etc. means skill point bonuses from being a human or favored class. So it doesn't mean the base class skills because it replaces that system. All classes would have access to all of the skills (except UMD and similar restricted skills)
Physical skills are the skills that use Str- or Dex-modifier, mental skills are the skills that use Int or Wis-modifier and social skills are the ones that use Cha-modifier.
For classes that normally have more skill points (ie. Rogue) would get a class ability which grants them two more skill points to be used in their class skills.
Cool. So there are three basic skill areas?
How is the cost distribution noted?
Is it (for example) a wizard using one point for mental skills, and two points for either physical or social skills? Or is there a graded value, like one point mental, two social, and three physical?
RELATIVELY speaking the cost IS less. A non-human 10th level fighter will have 8 feats to play with, a 10th level Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger, etc will have four.Incorrect. 4 of those feats should (to remain competitive in combat, and maintain party value as a martial character) attempt to keep up with the Barbarian's rage powers, and/or Ranger's favored enemies & combat feats, and/or Paladin's smite & resistances.
The other 4 should be matched, feat-for-feat, on the same things that those other classes spend them on, which is usually moar combat.1 combat feat is 1 feat, and it has a value. Is that value more or less then a rage power? If we can say they're about the same, then the Barbarian actually has 5+4, including rage powers.
I see what you're saying... I've never not seen it. But what you're saying is bad math and junk logic.
If I were to make any non-fighter martial class, could you make a fighter who was just as good in combat AND out of combat? I highly doubt it. You'd have to (using feats & skills) pick from in-combat equality, or out-of-combat equality, but fall behind in the other aspect. Or you could make a build balanced between combat & noncombat, and fall behind my character in both.
You're really undervaluing this stuff.
If you're using combat feats for combat feats, you have all your other feats for all the other purposes you want. Fighters have that luxury, while no other classes do.
Yes, Fighters use their feats to supplement their non-combat abilities. But that's because they've got so many combat abilities.
You claim that they don't have out of combat abilities, but they actually have the ability to choose whether or not they have out of combat abilities by using their feats for that purpose or not, at their option.
It all functions pretty well together.
Anyway, as I said, I'm all for house rules. Enjoy those.
Fighters don't have that luxury, because all those 'extra feats' they have they have /instead/ of dedicated class features on par with the other classes. A barbarian gets rage and rage powers; a fighter gets combat feats. Just because the fighter gets to choose, through their feats, precisely what aspects of combat they're good at does not actually mean they're better in combat.
They have the option, yes, to sacrifice their combat ability for more out of combat ability, but they have that option no more than does any other martial class.
They don't have 'more' combat ability that lets them focus elsewhere, they just have customizeable combat ability, and less out of combat ability by default because of their lower skill point total and lesser class skill list.
Fighters don't have that luxury, because all those 'extra feats' they have they have /instead/ of dedicated class features on par with the other classes. A barbarian gets rage and rage powers; a fighter gets combat feats. Just because the fighter gets to choose, through their feats, precisely what aspects of combat they're good at does not actually mean they're better in combat.
They have the option, yes, to sacrifice their combat ability for more out of combat ability, but they have that option no more than does any other martial class.
They don't have 'more' combat ability that lets them focus elsewhere, they just have customizeable combat ability, and less out of combat ability by default because of their lower skill point total and lesser class skill list.
See, you say that, but in my experience and in most build-based experience, that's a questionable assertion, at best.
The vast majority of builds that allow extreme combat ability eliminate all out-of-combat potential in all classes.
Most games don't require that much in-combat ability... in which case, the Fighter has extra things.
The problem with making this argument, is that it feels (on my end) like the goal posts are moving and/or elements of the class are ignored or at the very least, sold short.
Barbarian: limited use abilities; their skills help make up for this, but do not
Ranger: limited use abilities or situational abilities; their skills help make up for this, but do not
Fighter: limitless-use abilities
Fighters have feats for combat and feats for anything, which an be combat or not, and they have their class features.
Again, I'm not saying Fighters are super-powerful. Others have done that enough for me, especially with archery. Again: look at some of the builds on these forums, comparing different classes. DPR olympics, etc. Those are extreme builds that focus exclusively on combat stuff, regardless of the class, and are not readily capable of "doing stuff" out of combat.
But if you're looking at the basics of the classes and choose to build them such that they function out of combat, it's easy to do for all classes, but the methodology is different.
And let me say, house rules territory, you can go for it. I do. But Core RAW with "expected" campaigns means a Fighter doesn't need it.
Never said it needed it by RAW.
Said that at most it could be acknowledged as something worth houseruling.
Gospel/anecdote ("in my experience") is the weakest form of evidence.
When the logic is laid bare, objective, the disparity is strikingly apparent.
|
|
Never said it needed it by RAW.
Said that at most it could be acknowledged as something worth houseruling.Gospel/anecdote ("in my experience") is the weakest form of evidence.
When the logic is laid bare, objective, the disparity is strikingly apparent.
And yet, in the play of the game, it isn't. Time and again, people play fighters and are perfectly happy with them. It's playtested...call that anecdotal all you like...I call it a field test, and NOTHING is better evidence than a field test.
Funny. I've seen 2 fighters in the last 2 games.
- 1 was discarded because he sucked both in and out of combat (I'm playing a ROGUE and I was going toe-to-toe against opponents he couldn't). He actually did a /ragequit over it.
- 1 was awesome in combat (Orc, STR 22, all about the greatsword) but out of combat all he could do was intimidate ppl and lift heavy things, so he ended up surfing the web for 30% of the game.
- Playtesting confirms my argument (for what it's worth; this merely shows how experience is totally subjective, and not useful for a generalized argument. It also counters your anecdotal claims)
- The unceasing plethora of "fighter suck" threads, in proportion to "[martial class] suck" threads confirms my argument.
- Objective analysis confirms my argument.
- The weakness of every counterargument confirms the strength of my argument
+1.
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.
In 3.5, most classes had 7 feats and fighters had 18. In PF, most classes have 10 and figters have 21. Ordinary classes have increased their Feats by nearly 50% while fighters have increased them by 16.66666%. The result is that the Fighter is no longer the king of combat.
I don't know what should be done to fix this, but ideally returning them to their rightful role as king of combat should be the goal. Fighters have never had much out of combat utility, but it has always been acceptable as the class shines in combat - until now.
While Fighters are still undoubtedly good, they suffer from the power creep that has afflicted all classes across the board as the extra power they have received is no match for what others have received. Now the range of levels over which the Fighter shines is seriously curtailed. By levels 6-8 Paladins, barbarians, etc. have achieved most of the feats they need to make their combat style work and are beginning to get other abilities; The Fighter has had his combat style completed and polished by this stage. What does he do now? Any feats he gets after this generally provide less and less utility (there are exceptions - but Paladins, Barbarians, etc. also get access to many of them). He could go for a second combat style, but how often would it be used?
At this stage, the Fighter slowly declines in comparison to other Martial classes. He is still good and viable in combat, but can no longer compete with the special abilities that other martials get. He needs something to give him an edge, and currently he doesn't get it.
The answer is not more out of combat utility, it is better in combat ability.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny. I've seen 2 fighters in the last 2 games.
- 1 was discarded because he sucked both in and out of combat (I'm playing a ROGUE and I was going toe-to-toe against opponents he couldn't). He actually did a /ragequit over it.
- 1 was awesome in combat (Orc, STR 22, all about the greatsword) but out of combat all he could do was intimidate ppl and lift heavy things, so he ended up surfing the web for 30% of the game.
Thread win.
- Playtesting confirms my argument (for what it's worth; this merely shows how experience is totally subjective, and not useful for a generalized argument. It also counters your anecdotal claims)
- The unceasing plethora of "fighter suck" threads, in proportion to "[martial class] suck" threads confirms my argument.
- Objective analysis confirms my argument.
- The weakness of every counterargument confirms the strength of my argument
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. I've played a fighter that was the main damage dealer in combat, and did plenty outside of it. *shrug*
The fact that you didn't have that experience means nothing to me.
'Win' all the threads you like over the internet...I'll play fighters...play them well...and have a blast, in combat and out of it.
Protest all you like.
The answer is not more out of combat utility, it is better in combat ability.
I'll disagree with you on this, as having multiple combat styles is very useful. For example, if your combat style is Great Cleave, it's great against multiple foes, but won't help when facing the "one giant monster" encounter.
A Fighter can benefit from having different combat styles for various encounter layouts. That's a good strength to have. This is especially important when a combat style is CMB-based, or restricted by size limitations.
Further, there are a number of combat feats which only work on a weapon for which the fighter has Weapon Focus. Well, if your current focus is the Greatsword, why not pick another weapon focus like Shortspear? Now you have the same special moves with a weapon you can throw (and get a quiver full of shortspears +1 of returning). How about Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike (and ImprUnStr)? Now even unarmed you can use dazzling display and deadly stroke.
I can only see your argument in the case of badly planned builds.
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.
Who's to say whose anecdotal evidence is better? The answer is NOBODY, and that's exactly my point: individual testimony is irrelevant in arguing the general case. How ironic that you then share more of your own experience right after saying what you said.
The only way to measure the value of individual cases is by frequency of happy vs. unhappy across the population. The "fighter sucks" threadcount, and comparison to the "[martial class] sucks" threadcount, is the closest thing we have to such a measurement. Ignoring this evidence is absurd.
Am I saying "dont play a fighter"? no.
Am I saying "change fighter RAW"? no.
Am I saying "playing a fighter is stupid/badwrongfun"? no.
What am I saying?
Fighters are behind the other martial classes, in that their build options are to either be competitive in combat while sucking out of combat, or to fall behind both in & out of combat.
That's all I'm saying, and nothing more. The above ("dont","RAW-change","badwrongfun") are implications that I'm not making. Even saying what I do, I'd play a RAW Fighter and find a way to enjoy it, enjoying the challenge of making a diamond out of mud. Heck, I'm playing a ROGUE right now, and have been enjoying the game for the last 16 months and 7 levels (we're level 10 ATM)... how's THAT for suboptimal?
The difference is that I'm making my choices honestly, with open eyes to the facts; I don't deny the evidence and raaage RAAAGE against the reality of the RAW.
I also have my own houserules (which include Monk, Rogue and Fighter fixes) for when I GM, and I'll use them happily. I'll play RAW happily. I just enjoy gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One issue I tend to see with fighters is that I think a lot of people overvalue the Fighter's ability to theoretically keep going forever due to not having any limited-use abilities. The problem is, it's one of those things that looks good on paper, but isn't borne out in actual play.
The problem is, the fighter's gonna be in a party full of people with limited-use abilities, quite a few of which are essential for the fighter to do their job. Not many fighters are going to want to keep going once the caster is out of battlefield control/blasting spells, and the healer/buffer has exhausted their spells.
The risk of exhausting healing is not helped by the fighter's relatively weak saves. Barbarians can get the boost from Superstition, Rangers have good reflex saves and Evasion, and Paladins have the best saves in the game and self-healing. In my personal experience, Fighters get hit by a lot more conditions than the other martial classes.
That's not to mention that unless the DM is a fan of throwing encounters at the party until they're utterly exhausted, after a few levels most of the limited-use abilities will get enough uses to carry the party through the typical number of recommended encounters and/or what you'd see in a published AP/module. The Barbarian usually ends up with more rage rounds than they'll ever spend after level five or so.
Am I saying "dont play a fighter"? no.
Am I saying "change fighter RAW"? no.
Am I saying "playing a fighter is stupid/badwrongfun"? no.What am I saying?
Fighters are behind the other martial classes, in that their build options are to either be competitive in combat while sucking out of combat, or to fall behind both in & out of combat.That's all I'm saying, and nothing more. The above ("dont","RAW-change","badwrongfun") are implications that I'm not making. Even saying what I do, I'd play a RAW Fighter and find a way to enjoy it, enjoying the challenge of making a diamond out of mud. Heck, I'm playing a ROGUE right now, and have been enjoying the game for the last 16 months and 7 levels (we're level 10 ATM)... how's THAT for suboptimal?
The difference is that I'm making my choices honestly, with open eyes to the facts; I don't deny the evidence and raaage RAAAGE against the reality of the RAW.I also have my own houserules (which include Monk, Rogue and Fighter fixes) for when I GM, and I'll use them happily. I'll play RAW happily. I just enjoy gaming.
See, this part of your post makes me think that most of the posts here are talking past each other, because it certainly seems like you've been saying the things you say you aren't saying. So, for what it's worth, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.
Also, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that the words you're using such as "fall behind" and "suboptimal" sound different to us than to you. On this side of the discussion, it sounds like you're saying fighters suck. On your side, you're just trying to be "clear".
I don't think they're "suboptimal" at all. They can function quite well within and without combat at the same time by using the resources they have - they can fill their role and do other things also. That's having their cake and eating it too.
The idea that other classes "do it better" is opinion. While more threads does lead to the interpretation that Fighters are weaker, I see it more as the interpretation of fighters are weaker. Again, those heavy damage builds that equal fighters are all combat-only as well. Rage powers do little for a party at a banquet, and favored enemy (anything non-humanoid) does little for it as well.
Also, Gavmania and thejeff:
I tend to agree that people tend to overlook the Fighter's other advantages, either focusing on one point or the other.
I also tend to think that if a fighter is going to be tweaked, it should probably be in the arena of Fighting to make it "feel" like they're more powerful in their chosen arena.
However, if you do that, you're going to have a pickle of a time balancing their "always and forever" abilities against the "limited per day" abilities.
As an example, personally, I find weapon training as it currently stands extremely underwhelming on paper, even if they're actually quite effective. I'd love to see it more like a ranger's favored enemies currently instead of more like a Ranger's favored enemies* were way back in 3.0 - but it doesn't need that tweak to be effective and powerful in the game. A single character can generally be good in both places, but can only extremely excel in one, regardless of class.
I mean, look at the mystic theurge as a fine example. In theory it seems like it would be the most powerful thing to ever rock the world. There were tons of people calling it "broken" for the longest time on the internet. There were even a number of people that claimed it from experience. In practice... the majority of people say "meh". The Fighter seems to be the reverse of this exact thing.
Look, I'm not going to say there aren't more powerful classes. Just that the Fighter doesn't need changing... unless, of course, you want to, in which case, go ahead.
And, Malignor, if you're of the opinion that "it functions fine RAW, but houserule away", than we're basically in agreement, but have different preferences for how we express it/look at it. So, you know... there's not really anything to discuss more.
Ex: first Weapon Training is {weapon focus (one group)}, second Weapon Training is {weapon (focus and specialization) in (the first group you chose and one other of your choice)}, the third Weapon Training is {weapon (focus, greater focus, and specialization) in (the first two groups you chose and one other of your choice)}, and the fourth and final Weapon Training is {weapon (focus, greater focus, specialization, greater specialization) in (the three groups you've already chosen and one more)}. Then you have Weapon Mastery.
But, you know, that's just my own preferences and makes less paperwork, over-all. The Fighters work totally fine as they currently are, power-wise.
To clarify, this turns out to about a +2 to attack (and combat manuever, I'd note under the abilities) and +4 damage across four weapon groups (total of +8 to attack and CMB/CMD and +16 damage) instead of a +5/+4/+3/+2/+1 (for a total of +15 attack, damage, and CMB/D), so it may be a nerf, but it also frees up the use of a number of feats (specifically any focus or specialization feats), so it's a bit hard to say what, exactly, the end-result would be balance-wise. It also partially eliminates the odd "fighter level X" prerequisite mechanic which, I suppose, is supposed to be like the "cast X lvl spells" or "caster level X" prerequisites, but it just doesn't work so well that way, to my way of thinking. But again, that's just preference.
EDIT: upon even the most rudimentary reflection, it occurs that since Weapon Training and Focus stack currently, that's a lot of potential loss. Interesting. Using this system, I'd definitely tweak/add something else about them, but, whatever. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. It's all for fun thought exercise. :)
Okay, I'll actually buy that. In a game wherein you don't have to scrape up every bonus just to contribute, a fighter can do OK by spending a few resources to have better skills. (Traits, for instance, don't really hurt anything being devoted that way.)
The problem I have is that it has so little of this capacity--the baseline capabilities of the other martial classes are already better simply because of their skill lists, and what I want out of the fighter is the classic hero in stories, who gets by on her wits and skill and often makes a good leader.
But really, it's not just the fighter. I just think it's bad design for things to be planned around 'good in combat, bad out of combat' because that locks out an entire important section of the game to that class. Skills should be something every single character can do, not the province of a particular class.
Which is why I'm pretty much 'for' 4+ being the minimum, details of how to balance it aside.
Adding 2 ranks/level to all classes isn't a bad way to go.
Someone claimed the increase as "%" and that's a flawed approach to skills. More ranks mean more skills... more skills with 1 rank (so it can be trained or enjoy the +3 class skill bonus), and more skills which are maxed out (and thus competitive in CR-relevant skill challenges). This is lateral improvement, not raw value. Each rank-per-level adds another way to contribute... effectively a whole new situational ability.
I see combat feats as having raw value, because they contribute to a sort of vague "combat rating" which I think is valid in seeing who sucks and who doesn't in physical combat. Otherwise the Warrior NPC would be valid as a PC class. Digression.
Here’s the point. PF already did this. Every class has an extra SkP per level. But Min/maxers burn that on HP or something. Min/Maxers also buy down INT to 7.
Now, they are doing that because they have a CHOICE, and they have CHOSEN to have few SkP.
So, altho I have no problem with giving Ftrs 7 such 4SkP lvl, some MIN/Maxer is going to want to be able to have a CHOICE to burn that down, to get more DpR. Isn’t Choice good?
Thus, all this will end up doing is giving a Mix/Maxed Ftr type more DpR, not more skills.
Here’s the point. PF already did this. Every class has an extra SkP per level. But Min/maxers burn that on HP or something. Min/Maxers also buy down INT to 7.
The favored class bonus is not a bonus to your total skill points. Its an optional boost meant to give race specific bonuses that give flavor to a race(versatile humans get more spells), and to keep us more inclined not to multi-class(which could be a frenzy in 3.5). Its an option, and is not a +1 to skill points for all classes. Min maxing has nothing to do with it. By the same logic you can put all your feats into skill focus. Its not inherent.
Here’s the point. PF already did this. Every class has an extra SkP per level. But Min/maxers burn that on HP or something. Min/Maxers also buy down INT to 7.
It's rare to see me make a character, even a Barbarian, with INT under 12.
I'm also addicted to skills, because I love finding uses for them.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your argument doesn't really hold up. They gave some extra skill points, yes, but not enough. And yes, some people will choose to dump Int all the way down to 7... which they can still do, without getting more skill points out of the deal.
This doesn't give them anything more to dump for more damage, and I don't really care about the min-maxers. I care about the fact that the baseline for a 10-int character's skills should be higher than it is.
Here’s the point. PF already did this. Every class has an extra SkP per level. But Min/maxers burn that on HP or something. Min/Maxers also buy down INT to 7.
Now, they are doing that because they have a CHOICE, and they have CHOSEN to have few SkP.
So, altho I have no problem with giving Ftrs 7 such 4SkP lvl, some MIN/Maxer is going to want to be able to have a CHOICE to burn that down, to get more DpR. Isn’t Choice good?
Thus, all this will end up doing is giving a Mix/Maxed Ftr type more DpR, not more skills.
Once again, the min-maxing Fighter who dumps his INT to 7 loses out on a grand total of 1 skill point over the "role player" who leaves her Fighter's INT at 10 because she doesn't want to role play a dumb character. The 7 INT Fighter loses out on 0 skill points a level compared to a Fighter who has an INT of 8.
Favored class bonuses to skills only serve to make dumping INT a more attractive option for a min-maxing Fighter, as it allows them to gain 4 point buy points at the expense of only 1 skill point and still have points left to cover vital skills.
4 skill points a level means that the character who chooses to dump INT is further behind the player who does not. It gives an incentive to the character who dumps INT to not go lower than 8 because it will actually cost them an extra skill point.
|
|
The answer is not more out of combat utility, it is better in combat ability.I'll disagree with you on this, as having multiple combat styles is very useful. For example, if your combat style is Great Cleave, it's great against multiple foes, but won't help when facing the "one giant monster" encounter.
A Fighter can benefit from having different combat styles for various encounter layouts. That's a good strength to have. This is especially important when a combat style is CMB-based, or restricted by size limitations.
Further, there are a number of combat feats which only work on a weapon for which the fighter has Weapon Focus. Well, if your current focus is the Greatsword, why not pick another weapon focus like Shortspear? Now you have the same special moves with a weapon you can throw (and get a quiver full of shortspears +1 of returning). How about Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike (and ImprUnStr)? Now even unarmed you can use dazzling display and deadly stroke.
I can only see your argument in the case of badly planned builds.
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.Who's to say whose anecdotal evidence is better? The answer is NOBODY, and that's exactly my point: individual testimony is irrelevant in arguing the general case. How ironic that you then share more of your own experience right after saying what you said.
The only way to measure the value of individual cases is by frequency of happy vs. unhappy across the population. The "fighter sucks" threadcount, and comparison to the "[martial class] sucks" threadcount, is the closest thing we have to such a measurement. Ignoring this evidence is absurd.
Am I saying "dont play a fighter"? no.
Am I saying "change fighter RAW"? no.
Am I saying "playing a fighter is stupid/badwrongfun"? no.What am I saying?
Fighters are behind the other martial classes, in that their build options...
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.
They do ... Its called the bonus granted by the attached ability score.I remember reading somewhere on the message boards this,
instead of just intelligence dictating skills, each ability score modifier granted a set of skill points only spendable in skills that use that modifier. there was also general skill points that can be used for anything equal to half the class' normal ability score modifier. it seemed pretty cool and supported more thematic skill sets.
wow, i guess you didn't get it...
So what is the final decision? More skill points or keep as is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't one; people disagree. But I say, more skill points per level; skills are an important subsystem that every character should have access to, and if a class's niche is 'skills' then that class doesn't deserve niche protection.
So what is the final decision? More skill points or keep as is?It's a matter of what you like. If you think PCs should be very skilled, give them the points...for your game. I think they're pretty darn skilled as it is. *shrug*. YMMV.
How skilled you are depends on what your playing. A fighter or paladin isn't very skilled imo.
I say more skill points to the 2+, but I'm not keen on giving everyone else more skill points.
|
|
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.