Pretty much what it says. Has there been any discussion or commentary by any past or present developers on increasing (or not) the skill points per level for the 2/level classes?
I understand that the skill points per level will not change in this edition.
I'm looking for if there had been commentary, or if this might be addressed in Unchained.
I found reference to some commentary but have had no luck tracking it down thus far.
Any help would be appreciated.
Considering that the warpriest is the only non INT-based class, outside of the core rulebook, that has 2 skill points then i think that the 2 skill points thing is a legacy issue.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the creating classes section of the ACG states that you should consider the default skill points/level to be 2, and think of it as a class feature to have more than that.
Personally I have no problem with 2 skill points/level. I love skills but some characters just aren't going to be great at them. Remember that you don't have to keep skills maxed out and you can have a character who's okay at a few things instead of being "the best" at one or two.
Remember you can always choose an extra skill point each level just from favored class. It might not be as "sexy" as other FCBs but I have little sympathy for players that choose every option to nuke their skill points (dump int, not human, alternate FCBs) then complain about not having skills.
Considering that the class creation section of the ACG says that the best class at skill points is the rogue... i wouldn't take it as a very good guideline and put much faith in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, low skill point classes that should have skills, like the fighter, consider it a railroad to be forced to play human, have a high int, and to spend their FCB on skill points just so they have enough to be barely functional.
Strangely, you will notice that spellcasting classes don't complain about low skill points. that's because they have spells, and/or rely on high Int anyways.
The classes without magical powers should not be forced to rely on non-class buffs just to be fair with skills. Indeed, the fighter is the most non-magical class out there, which means he should be swimming in skill points since he doesn't waste any time on magical tricks like every other class does.
==Aelryinth
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Leo1925, I'd take that passage in the ACG to indicate that currently the designers don't have a problem with 2 skill points per level, and that they think the rogue is best at skills. You might disagree with that as a design ethos but I think it's indicative of where the deisgners' heads are at. I know the current fad is to knock on the rogue but the fact is that she does get the most skill points, as in points that can be freely assigned anywhere. Bards and such may be able to outskill the rogue by using class features, but that isn't actually more skill points, just bonuses and subsitutions that apply to specific, pre-chosen skills. In theory a rogue could spend say 14 skill points a level and never touch knowledges or Cha based skills, and the bard can't outdo that.
Aelrynth, actually the class I most feel the sting of low skill points is the cleric. Generally I find it's easy to dump Int on a cleric and then end up with 1 skill point per level, and clerics tend to feel pressures to have at least Knowledge(religion), Spellcraft, and Heal. And sometimes Diplomacy. Although I've had fun playing a cleric who knew nothing about his own religion, he just believed.
Fighters on the other hand - well I often don't need skills to do what they do. Perception is nice but not necessary. Profession (soldier) is good if your campaign will have mass combat. Intimidate can be nice. There are lots of skills that would be nice to have but are really not needed. Usually you can get by with one rank in each of Climb, Swim, and Ride.
I guess I don't ever feel "trapped" into taking extra skill point choices any more than I feel "trapped" into taking Power Attack. Every choice you make excludes something else you might want. that's what makes it a meaningful choice.
|
Eh, low skill point classes that should have skills, like the fighter, consider it a railroad to be forced to play human, have a high int, and to spend their FCB on skill points just so they have enough to be barely functional.
Strangely, you will notice that spellcasting classes don't complain about low skill points. that's because they have spells, and/or rely on high Int anyways.
The classes without magical powers should not be forced to rely on non-class buffs just to be fair with skills. Indeed, the fighter is the most non-magical class out there, which means he should be swimming in skill points since he doesn't waste any time on magical tricks like every other class does.
==Aelryinth
This is an absurd exaggeration. The bog standard fighter really doesn't need more skill points than he has (climb, swim, intimidate).
Ranger, various archetypes, etc are there pretty much precisely so that you can play a fighting sort with more skill points. Choosing to play a fighter is pretty much explicitly deciding that you don't really care about skills.
I'd have no problem if fighters got more skill points but they're hardly crippled in the current system.
The class that actually bothers me the most is cleric. There are lots of skills that they SHOULD have at reasonable levels that they just can't really afford. And they DEFINITELY should have some kind of 1/2 level bonus to their knowledge religion. Its just silly that wizards, bards, etc all know more about religion than they do. The cloistered cleric is a step in the right direction but they made taking it FAR too expensive for what one gets.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 'bog standard' fighter should be able to:
Ride Well.
Jump Well.
Have excellent footwork in combat.
Lead well.
Know the job of a military man.
Know his enemies.
Have a trade to fall back on to prepare for the next fight, and at the very least fix their own gear.
Swimming and climbing would be wise to know.
If they are at sea, some idea of what goes on around a boat.
Be able to survive on their own if needed.
Be able to stay alert and spot their enemies.
Have nigh on superhuman endurance for marching and fighting.
In addition to whatever specialties he is assigned to.
That's not 2 skill points a level. Acrobatics, which is your basic footwork and ability to jump, isn't even on his class list. Nor is alertness/perception.
A Fighter has no magic. Why does a ranger, who has magic to fall back on, get 6 pts instead of 4? Because he's a 3.5 holdover where stealth and perception skills ate up 4 pts instead of 2.
a fighter goes after a different set of skills then a ranger, but saying he shouldn't be equally skilled is again a put-down of the fighter. A fighter, by all civilized measures, should be MORE skilled then the ranger.
The guy with 2 skill points should be the barb, if any of the martial classes...but I think they gave him 4 because they assumed people would dump int.
==Aelryinth
I could have sworn I either read or heard something about giving all characters two extra skill ranks per level being one of the ideas planned for Pathfinder Unchained, but I cannot recall the exact source for that information.
The 'bog standard' fighter should be able to:
Ride Well.
Jump Well.
Have excellent footwork in combat.
Lead well.
Know the job of a military man.
Know his enemies.
Have a trade to fall back on to prepare for the next fight, and at the very least fix their own gear.
Swimming and climbing would be wise to know.
If they are at sea, some idea of what goes on around a boat.
Be able to survive on their own if needed.
Be able to stay alert and spot their enemies.
Have nigh on superhuman endurance for marching and fighting.In addition to whatever specialties he is assigned to.
The type of character you describe is more likely to be a lore warden, fighter/expert, or fighter/ranger.
The core fighter can be skilled at some of those things, but not all, unless we're talking really experienced or extraordinarily high Intelligence. The CRB fighter is not Heinlein's Competent Man. He's a fighting specialist, not an expert at all of the non-combat skills that might be relevant for a soldier. If you want an everyman, you'll have to deviate from the standard fighter. It's simple enough to add more skill points to adjust the baseline from fighting specialist to master of all things mundane. But that's a personal preference; it doesn't change what the CRB fighter was intended to represent.
The 'bog standard' fighter should be able to:
The core fighter can be skilled at some of those things, but not all, unless we're talking really experienced or extraordinarily high Intelligence. The CRB fighter is not Heinlein's Competent Man. He's a fighting specialist, not an expert at all of the non-combat skills that might be relevant for a soldier. If you want an everyman, you'll have to deviate from the standard fighter. It's simple enough to add more skill points to adjust the baseline from fighting specialist to master of all things mundane. But that's a personal preference; it doesn't change what the CRB fighter was intended to represent.
To represent a one dimensional swordswinger that can do little else than smack people upside the head with a blade? I kid. ;)
However the fighter needs more zip, it he is suppose to be the character with the most training (even if it might be self taught) he should have more skill points.
Uh...not sure how I got my last post quote all screwed up...my text is not in the quote tag. I blame my phone.
Anyways, as long as we are on skills I think that they shoud be a bit front loaded at first level. I mean it makes little sense when a full grown adult has only two skills. You are still limited by ranks per level so it shouldn't create any issues.
That's a subjective call. I've seen dwarf and orc fighters to be quite "functional" with 2 pts per level. The 2 per level classes, and this includes the cleric and the wizard are so because they are dedicated classes to melee and magic mastery. The fighter is the weapon master, and the wizard the ultimate spell creator. They only get 2 points per level because they don't have time for other pursuits. The classes who get more skill points do so by tradeoffs compared to them.Eh, low skill point classes that should have skills, like the fighter, consider it a railroad to be forced to play human, have a high int, and to spend their FCB on skill points just so they have enough to be barely functional.
==Aelryinth
Um, no.
Once you're proficient in something, you're proficient in it.
You can't expect me to believe that Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain take less training then +1 to your Weapon Mastery.
Don't get me started on Feats. They give feats away because they are half a class feature. rangers end up with almost as many as fighters...AND HAVE SPELLS.
Barbarians, the ultimate 'natural fighters' who don't study anything, get 4/level. The only possible justification for them getting 4 is the original class makers thought everyone would dump INT, because Barbs are nothing but brute melee fighters. Historically, they weren't anything but berserkers looking for the next fight. Acrobatics as a class skill? What?
The cleric gets 2 skill points per level because he's a full caster, AND a competent melee guy with weapon and armor profs. He doesn't need skills except for his speciality. He has SPELLS.
The wizard's time is consumed with learning how to do stuff with magic.
The fighter's time is consumed with learning how to do stuff WITHOUT MAGIC. That is both feats, and skills.
THe Competent Man of Heinlin is closer to a factotum then a fighter. But all you have to do is look at modern career military (not a guy serving his mandatory 2 and out somewhere) to see that there is a LOT of training required, and it isn't all shooting stuff. If you are a skilled primary melee combatant whose job is to be the exemplar of a civilized yet non-magical combatant, your combination of skills+feats has to be the equal of some strutting magos or anti-social rager or brawling savage who never bothers with training.
Fighters TRAIN. And training is more then learning the next feat...it's about skills. You have to learn your gear, you have to learn tactics, vehicles, survival skills, basic first aid...and if you're a fighter, you're the OLYMPIAN of these guys. This is your LIFE...you eat this stuff up!
I personally give the fighter +1 Class skill and +1 skill point/level for every point of Bravery. That way they pick the skills they want, and they end up with more skills then a ranger as time goes on. It was a simple and elegant workaround.
==Aelryinth
|
The 'bog standard' fighter should be able to:
Ride Well.
Jump Well.
Have excellent footwork in combat.
Lead well.
Know the job of a military man.
Know his enemies.
Have a trade to fall back on to prepare for the next fight, and at the very least fix their own gear.
Swimming and climbing would be wise to know.
If they are at sea, some idea of what goes on around a boat.
Be able to survive on their own if needed.
Be able to stay alert and spot their enemies.
Have nigh on superhuman endurance for marching and fighting.In addition to whatever specialties he is assigned to.
I don't think all those things are required, some are specialities. For example, not all fighters are mounted or come from a culture where mounted warfare is at all common. Survival training for warriors also varies widely between cultures - and remember that basic foraging is DC 10, which is achievable for an untrained survivalist.
Also, some of them would be better represented by class features rather than extra skill points. For example, "knowing your enemy" involves knowledge skills, but a fighter probably isn't good at all applications of knowledge skills, so it makes sense to give them a bonus (maybe +1/2 class level) to knowledge checks made to identify monsters or military groups.
However, I absolutely agree that fighters should have more skill points and more class skills (Acrobatics and Diplomacy, and probably Heal, History, Nobility, Sense Motive, and Stealth). Most fighter concepts I can think of have at least three core skills. Cavalry Officer: Ride, Diplomacy, History and/or Nobility. Viking: Swim, Sailor, Intimidate. Gladiator: Intimidate, Perform, and Acrobatics. Duelist: Acrobatics, Diplomacy and/or Intimidate, Bluff (to feint). Scout: Perception, Stealth, Survival. Dungeon delver/tomb robber: Dungeoneering, Climb, Perception. A class should generally have one skill point for concept-essential skills for its commonly filled concepts, without being human or having above-average intelligence, or spending a FCB (which should be used for filling out the skill list with things like acrobatics, climb, swim, and perception if not core skills, or for Craft or Profession Soldier). And yes, I would spend these resources to increase skills on a fighter, but I shouldn't have to.
It's particularly annoying if the concept is supposed to have any kind of leadership ability, since investing in Int means low Cha, but investing in Cha means low Int and not enough skills. And fighters are often used as the "officers" compared to the common enlisted warrior class.
Clerics have the same concept problem. A cleric of Shelyn should be able to take Knowledge Religion, Diplomacy, and some Craft or Perform skill without dipping into extra resources; a cleric of Sarenrae should be able to have Religion, Diplomacy, and Heal; a cleric of Iomedae should have Religion, and at least two of Diplomacy, History, and Nobility. Not to mention all of these will want Spellcraft.
Barbarians, the ultimate 'natural fighters' who don't study anything, get 4/level. The only possible justification for them getting 4 is the original class makers thought everyone would dump INT, because Barbs are nothing but brute melee fighters. Historically, they weren't anything but berserkers looking for the next fight. Acrobatics as a class skill? What?
I think it's to facilitate tribal barbarians taking Survival and Knowledge (Nature) or Handle Animal in addition to the Intimidate/Perception standbys. Acrobatics is also required for mighty leaps, which barbarians (as well as fighters) should be able to learn to perform. I don't think barbarians should have fewer skill points, but it is certainly weird that they have more than fighters.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I presume the barbarian 4 skill points/level is a legacy issue from 1e. 1e barbarians had a lot of "get along in the wilderness" type stuff, as well as proto-uncanny dodge and some other oddball abilities like summoning a barbarian horde. They were only balanced in the loosest sense - they required more than twice as much XP as anyone else to level and couldn't adventure with spellcasters in the party until they reached certain minimum levels. 1e had no skills, at least not in the way we currently understand them, so all that stuff was done as class abilities. (Eventually "nonweapon proficiencies" were added but I don't recall how barbs did there). Oh and 1e barbs got extra XP by destroying magic items, and had to reach certain minimum levels before they could use even potions.
Barbarian was one of the classes cut in 2e so when the 3.0 authors looked to create the class, they basically had 1e to look back to. I think there was a 2e softcover "splatbook" about barbarians but I don't know what it contained.
@ryric
I believe that these things in the class creation chapter of ACG to be lies that we are being told in order to maintain the illusion of legacy things or the illusion of "balance" of the core rulebook.
Even you need to resort to extremely corner case examples in order to justify it and even that doesn't explain the fact that the warpriest is the only non-INT based class that has 2 skill points outside the core rulebook.
@ryric
I believe that these things in the class creation chapter of ACG to be lies that we are being told in order to maintain the illusion of legacy things or the illusion of "balance" of the core rulebook.
Even you need to resort to extremely corner case examples in order to justify it and even that doesn't explain the fact that the warpriest is the only non-INT based class that has 2 skill points outside the core rulebook.
I was really annoyed at the complete lack of crunch in the class creation chapter. Would a race builder like system have been so hard?
An in all it seemed like a waste of pages in a player book, for a generally GM-ing guide that section would've at least fit the context.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
@ryric
I believe that these things in the class creation chapter of ACG to be lies that we are being told in order to maintain the illusion of legacy things or the illusion of "balance" of the core rulebook.
Even you need to resort to extremely corner case examples in order to justify it and even that doesn't explain the fact that the warpriest is the only non-INT based class that has 2 skill points outside the core rulebook.
Wow. Lies? Sorry, I refuse to ascribe malicious intent to the contents of a gaming book.
For Fighters:
Remember, officers for infantry were often mounted, right up through the American Civil War. That didn't mean a cavalry unit. They were mounted so they didn't have to march, and could see and be seen by their troops. Also, it was a convenient way to keep the noble classes in charge, as to be an officer you had to provide your own armor, weapons and horse, completely beyond the means of more talented and worthy commoners.
So, yeah, Ride skill.
Survival is the ability to provide for yourself and others. That's a leadership function. Foraging was a very common way to provide for men on the march, and it wasn't rangers doing the job.
Keep in mind we are talking fighters, the elites, NOT warriors, who are and should be much less well trained.
Note also that cavaliers/samurai are specialized fighter types.
as for sets of skills varying by type: All fighters should have access to Craft/Profession, Acrobatics (footwork), Perception and Intimidate. They should then have 4 other skills that reflect their background, as you noted, be it Ride, Swim, Diplomacy, Knowledge or what have you.
And they should have at least 4 base skill points to go with it, or a very easy way of getting more from their class. They'll never be a rogue, but still!
==Aelryinth
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Ride checks are not required for just sitting on your war-trained mount and moving around. If you don't want to do fancy tricks you don't even need to roll. No ranks are required to just ride your horse around a battle.
Survival getting along in the wild is DC10, and can be rolled untrained. No wis penalty means take 10 and you're fine. No ranks required.
Acrobatics=/footwork. Acrobatics is circus or gymnast-like jumping/tumbling/parkour. The fighter way to represent avoiding AoOs while moving is to take Mobility or Combat Expertise. Basic footwork is really just part of your BAB.
Remember that you can put ranks in non-class skills and be nearly as good at them as anyone else. I don't see a compelling reason that all fighters should be exceptional at noticing things, for example. You can certainly max Perception if you like. You can even take Skill Focus if you want to make up the class skill difference. But adding a skill to a class skill list says to me "I think this class should be better at this skill than most people."
I'm not against them having more variety in class skills, but traits can help with that quite a lot. Really traits seem to be the Pathfinder way of slightly customizing your class skill list.
Ride checks are not required for just sitting on your war-trained mount and moving around. If you don't want to do fancy tricks you don't even need to roll. No ranks are required to just ride your horse around a battle.
Survival getting along in the wild is DC10, and can be rolled untrained. No wis penalty means take 10 and you're fine. No ranks required.
Acrobatics=/footwork. Acrobatics is circus or gymnast-like jumping/tumbling/parkour. The fighter way to represent avoiding AoOs while moving is to take Mobility or Combat Expertise. Basic footwork is really just part of your BAB.
Remember that you can put ranks in non-class skills and be nearly as good at them as anyone else. I don't see a compelling reason that all fighters should be exceptional at noticing things, for example. You can certainly max Perception if you like. You can even take Skill Focus if you want to make up the class skill difference. But adding a skill to a class skill list says to me "I think this class should be better at this skill than most people."
I'm not against them having more variety in class skills, but traits can help with that quite a lot. Really traits seem to be the Pathfinder way of slightly customizing your class skill list.
Ride checks are required to remain in your saddle when you are attacked or hit in a combat situation. Ride checks are required to maintain control of your mount in a combat situation.
Fighters need ride.
Acrobatics is the defining skill that affects defensive fighting, a basic fighting skill.
Survival and getting along in the wild for yourself is take 10, sure enough. Now, you're going to let the other 3 members of your party/platoon starve to death, right? And what if its hostile terrain and the DC is 1 point higher? Guess what, you die, too.
Not to mention being able to find north is kind of important if you want to get to a battlefield.
Fighters get into fights. To get into fights you have to be able to find and see the enemy. There is NO class that should have a higher perception then the fighter or ranger, when it comes down to it. If anyone should see a threat coming, its those two classes. Fighters also make the best archers, and the best archers need monstrously good senses to hit enemies at range, in the dark, etc.
Look at most modern cartoons/comics. While super-senses is a topic all its own, the really skilled fighters are also incredibly perceptive and aware of what goes on around them. Development of senses is a key part of increasing your fighting skill.
And +3 is the difference between "I can take 10" and "I must roll and have a 2/3 chance of failure."
===Aelryinth
|
|
I expect many mounted infantry officers would occasionally have a hard time guiding their mount with their knees or staying in the saddle when injured, and would have a less than 50% chance of successfully using their mount as cover. That's a character untrained in Ride.
If the army is foraging, the whole army is foraging, not just the officer. That means everyone is taking 10 on their own untrained survival check to feed themselves. The officer is not making a DC 40 check to feed 15 soldiers.
Some officers will be very skilled at these even if they're not strictly specialized as such but I wouldn't consider them mandatory.
Remember that you can put ranks in non-class skills and be nearly as good at them as anyone else. ... But adding a skill to a class skill list says to me "I think this class should be better at this skill than most people."
That's a decent guideline, but I think it's an argument for fighters having Acrobatics and Perception as class skills. I think the average fighter should have at least as much of an advantage in learning these skills as Ride, Survival, and Engineering.
While acrobatics =/= footwork, footwork and balance are very big parts of acrobatics. Fighters should have unusually good footwork and balance for combat reasons, so they should be better at tumbling and parkour than the average person if they choose to learn that skill.
Awareness is extremely important in combat and between combat (spotting ambushes). Bards, druids, and barbarians all get Perception as a class skills and have no reason to be inherently better at noticing things than fighters (once you account for the druid's higher Wis).
I'm not against them having more variety in class skills, but traits can help with that quite a lot. Really traits seem to be the Pathfinder way of slightly customizing your class skill list.
I love using traits like that, but usually that's for adding a skill that is unusual for the class's typical concepts - like a fighter with Knowledge (Religion) or a druid with Diplomacy. Not for picking up something that really should be part of the class to begin with.
Note also that cavaliers/samurai are specialized fighter types.
Yup, which suggests 4 skill points/level for the base fighter is about right.
@ryric
I believe that these things in the class creation chapter of ACG to be lies that we are being told in order to maintain the illusion of legacy things or the illusion of "balance" of the core rulebook.
Even you need to resort to extremely corner case examples in order to justify it and even that doesn't explain the fact that the warpriest is the only non-INT based class that has 2 skill points outside the core rulebook.
Lies might be a bit extreme, but it does seem to suffer from the same problem as the early version of the race builder (before tons of negative feedback led to changes); everything is priced on the assumption that the core options represent a perfect paragon of balance.
Come to think of it, the race builder is probably a big part of why there's not much crunch to the class building section. Given that the race builder is usually considered to be a horribly balanced mess. Given the fairly dodgy editing and balance in the rest of the ACG, if they'd tried to put out a crunch-filled race builder there'd probably be some way of making a Full BAB 9-level casting character with all good saves.
Not to mention it would put a lot of Paizo's ideas on value of class features out in the open, which could just be all kinds of controversial. Just imagine the forum explosion if the Class Builder said that full BAB was worth twice as much as getting 9th level spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Survival and getting along in the wild for yourself is take 10, sure enough. Now, you're going to let the other 3 members of your party/platoon starve to death, right? And what if its hostile terrain and the DC is 1 point higher? Guess what, you die, too.
Not to mention being able to find north is kind of important if you want to get to a battlefield.
If you're talking about your average soldier, he doesn't need these skills. he's supposed to fight, not forage... there's other components of the army responsible for keeping him fed.
He's also not responsible for determining direction... He marches as part of a troop, and there are officers who tell him where to put his feet.
Most of the roles you are thinking of are defined by experts and scouts, i.e Rangers or Experts with the selected skills you'd ascribe to Scout. (you can make a pretty good scout with the expert class)
You're absolutely right, a warrior won't need the skills.
You're not a warrior. You're a fighter. You need to get where you're going, and keep yourself and your friends alive while you do so.
You ARE the expert.
And when the whole army is foraging for food, it's going to be a lot harder to find food without totally destroying the formation of your army, i.e. you don't do it. You send out people with the skill who can collect enough for multiple people.
And that's the elite, the professional. Oh, and it's probably a good idea if he doesn't get lost and makes it back to camp, too.
The warrior, he gets to skin and cook it. Maybe.
==Aelryinth
Survival and getting along in the wild for yourself is take 10, sure enough. Now, you're going to let the other 3 members of your party/platoon starve to death, right? And what if its hostile terrain and the DC is 1 point higher? Guess what, you die, too.
Not to mention being able to find north is kind of important if you want to get to a battlefield.
If you're talking about your average soldier, he doesn't need these skills. he's supposed to fight, not forage... there's other components of the army responsible for keeping him fed.
He's also not responsible for determining direction... He marches as part of a troop, and there are officers who tell him where to put his feet.
Most of the roles you are thinking of are defined by experts and scouts, i.e Rangers or Experts with the selected skills you'd ascribe to Scout. (you can make a pretty good scout with the expert class)
You're absolutely right, a warrior won't need the skills.
You're not a warrior. You're a fighter. You need to get where you're going, and keep yourself and your friends alive while you do so.
You ARE the expert.
And when the whole army is foraging for food, it's going to be a lot harder to find food without totally destroying the formation of your army, i.e. you don't do it. You send out people with the skill who can collect enough for multiple people.
And that's the elite, the professional. Oh, and it's probably a good idea if he doesn't get lost and makes it back to camp, too.
The warrior, he gets to skin and cook it. Maybe.
==Aelryinth
Yeah, I think part of the problem the Fighter tends to have is that since his concept is so broad and generic, he doesn't feel as "elite" as the other classes. The Fighter keeps getting shoved into the box of just being a common footsoldier, instead of the badass concepts that most other classes get. Even the rogue and monk at least have a lot of nice flavor going for them.
Monks at least get quasi magical treatment; rogues get treated like an afterthought with tons of flavor and lousy mechanics to back them up.
But yeah...Fighters are treated just like warriors. Because they can't use magic or quasi-magic, they're just not important.
====Aelryinth