Skill points are not meant to be a fighter's forte. No one is saying they are. We all understand that more effort is required for skills for them than certain other classes. But, it can be done.
Skills aren't the barbarian or kineticist or oracle or gunslinger's forte either, that's not really a compelling argument against 4+int.
And barbarians can be better on both fronts!What you're missing is those don't have that as a baseline they sacrifice things to achieve it.Building any character involves opportunity costs.
The good news is that fighters can be skillful and good in combat. They are not mutually exclusive.
Though Barbs can't be Lawful, or wear heavy armour, or easily invest in expansive feat trees, or move their full speed in heavy armour.
Though this is now becoming a thread on Why Fighters Suck rather than Why Two Skill Points is Enough. If two versions of Unchained Fighter were released, one exactly the same as it is now with 4+INT skill points, and one with cool, useful, Fighter Powers every other level like Rogues, Barbs, and Monks, would anyone actually prefer the former? Lack of skill points is not why fighters suck.
If you want to give "Fighters" a bone with some extra skills, that's one thing, but fighters don't need it. The OP is about a Paladin, which is not a weak class.
Assuming that 'he has the highest INT in the party' means at least a 16 INT...You have a massively distorted perception of what normal intelligence is. Do you perhaps have someone in your local group who never plays anything but maguses?
I didn't realize that 'he could have the highest INT in the party' came with the disclaimer *in a party where nobody uses INT. I guess if that's the only thing in everything I've mentioned that you're taking issue with, I should feel pleased.
Again, I wouldn't have an issue with houseruling that everyone gets +1 skill, or maybe even that all 2+INT becomes 3+INT. I only take issue with the idea that you need a ton of skills/level to be 'able' to do a lot of things, as opposed to being a master at many things. 4 skills/level is enough to master a couple skills and still be very able at many others, and even a 7 INT goon with only 2/level could master one skill and still develop basic competence in others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know you can't, but... this is a homebrew thread.
Though Barbs can't be Lawful, or wear heavy armour, or easily invest in expansive feat trees, or move their full speed in heavy armour.And barbarians can be better on both fronts!What you're missing is those don't have that as a baseline they sacrifice things to achieve it.Building any character involves opportunity costs.
The good news is that fighters can be skillful and good in combat. They are not mutually exclusive.
Let's see, avoiding the worst alignment, can make up for the lack of heavy armor with DR, beat out the feats with rage powers, and with fast movement they can match a fighter while wearing breastplate.
I mean if you really need a lot of feats for a specific style there's the ranger and the slayer who aren't as blatantly better than the fighter but between skipping prereqs on some styles and getting feats early and the 6+int skills they boast, and the ranger even gets spells!
...
I just had a new idea for skills. Int based casters get 2+int, non-int based casters get 4+int, noncasters get 6+int, and any class that is more skill centers (investigator, bard, etc.) gets 4 extra skill points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is that the Fighter concept was not built for the world in which it exists.
In the world, magic and supernatural beings are well known. Everyone knows dragons and wizards are real and quite active in the world. Any elite warrior in such a world would be suicidal for not learning how to deal with such foes (or work effectively alongside them).
Fighter training includes the use of very expensive and sophisticated iron age weapons & armor (plate mail, rapiers, halberds, etc). This necessarily means they come from a society with plenty of knowledge and resources. This strongly suggests that information about sorcerers, demons, lycanthropes, trolls, etc. is available to some degree.
So why the heck is a fighter only trained in using weapons and armor, and lacks the other necessary training to actually do his job effectively?
Here's my houserule change to the Fighter.
I figured this would add some free skillmonkey features to the fighter which are in line with the concept, and make the class relevant in a more magic-rich setting.
Its only objectionable because there are rules that exist within the game that can give characters more skills. As stated above its not very challenging to gain more skills.Like being a barbarian!
You are right. Let's reduce barbarian to 2+Int.
* See above for my argument against that
* Having to pick a specific race just so its possible to get an adequate amount of skill points is not what I'd consider good design. Also, this option is open to everyone, not just martials, so I don't think that it should apply to this discussion
* Again, an option that is available to all classes, not necessarily just martials.
* Just like having to decide to be a human, why must a martial multiclass into a secondary class just to get a decent amount of skill points? I'll go into more why I don't find this useful when it comes to Fighters and Paladins lower.
* By RAW, these seem to be Human only feats. Meaning that if your GM is a stickler for that, then you're out of luck if you want to play another Race. Also, for anyone but a Fighter, even one feat is a big tax to pay
Trained only can be adressed with Improvisation efficiently. And it stacks with solid Int.
If you want to play another race, half-orcs, half-elves and aasimars offer nearly the same. Half-orcs can even take skilled as an alternate racial trait. If a GM disallows human options for half-humans, that's bad, but you can't really blame Paizo's rules for that. Just the wording could be a tad more clear.
Yeah, the options are available to any class - but way more relevant for fighter, and probably paladin. About what other classes are you talking, since you emphasize the feat cost?
A fighter does NOT have to multiclass, it's an option. Given the mostly linear progression of the class, not a bad one, actually...
------------
By the way, 4+Int shrinks to 2 ranks with Int score 7. So a PC with a dumped score doesn't gain much. Sorry if this was covered already...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its only objectionable because there are rules that exist within the game that can give characters more skills. As stated above its not very challenging to gain more skills.Like being a barbarian! You are right. Let's reduce barbarian to 2+Int.
Nah, my solution is leagues better.
And barbarians can be better on both fronts!
Building any character involves opportunity costs.The good news is that fighters can be skillful and good in combat. They are not mutually exclusive.
Some barbarians can be better... not all.
Example: A fighter archer beats a barbarian archer.
the barbarian two-hander is still better than the fighter archer probably.
And barbarians can be better on both fronts!What you're missing is those don't have that as a baseline they sacrifice things to achieve it.Building any character involves opportunity costs.
The good news is that fighters can be skillful and good in combat. They are not mutually exclusive.
Though Barbs can't be Lawful, or wear heavy armour, or easily invest in expansive feat trees, or move their full speed in heavy armour.
Though this is now becoming a thread on Why Fighters Suck rather than Why Two Skill Points is Enough. If two versions of Unchained Fighter were released, one exactly the same as it is now with 4+INT skill points, and one with cool, useful, Fighter Powers every other level like Rogues, Barbs, and Monks, would anyone actually prefer the former? Lack of skill points is not why fighters suck.
If you want to give "Fighters" a bone with some extra skills, that's one thing, but fighters don't need it. The OP is about a Paladin, which is not a weak class.
yeah, instead they transcend all that and kill everything.
So Fighters get bumped up to 4+INT skill points per level because they're awful and categorically worse than a Barbarian.
But Arcanists, Clerics, Magi, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners, Warpriests, Witches and Wizards are all fine, right?
So Fighters get bumped up to 4+INT skill points per level because they're awful and categorically worse than a Barbarian.
But Arcanists, Clerics, Magi, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners, Warpriests, Witches and Wizards are all fine, right?
Naw, Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners and Warpriests should all get bumped up to 4+int too. 2+int in general is a pretty terrible standard for classes that don't have a strong incentive to invest heavily in intellect.
Arcanists, Magi, Witches and Wizards are int focused already, so don't particularly need the change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2+Int should be only for wizards. Fighters should get 6+Int.
Really, we should stop being stingy with skill points at all. It makes characters less fun when you only get one or two skill points to work with.
So Fighters get bumped up to 4+INT skill points per level because they're awful and categorically worse than a Barbarian.
But Arcanists, Clerics, Magi, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners, Warpriests, Witches and Wizards are all fine, right?
Naw, Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners and Warpriests should all get bumped up to 4+int too. 2+int in general is a pretty terrible standard for classes that don't have a strong incentive to invest heavily in intellect.
Arcanists, Magi, Witches and Wizards are int focused already, so don't particularly need the change.
While there is a better way to do this that I have suggested already, what Squiggit suggests is good enough if there are those that don't like massive changes.
It will overpower the fighter, duh.
I'm kind of surprised at how many people are so vehemently against the idea, like it's somehow morally objectionable.Hello! it already exists!
And if you want to play an archetype that doesn't stack with Lore Warden? Or your GM bans that archetype for whatever reason?
|
Play a vanilla fighter with Int 14 and a trait that lets you be party face as a class skill? I once had a player with such a guy (fighter with extra trait feat, cosmopolitan feat, specialized in diplomacy and stealth)COngratulation. You are officially less skilled that the slayer guy and he is stronger in combat. In the meantime, the ranger is laughing at both for not having spells.
Thank you. ::fighter takes his award for 'less skilled', and puts it beside his shield +5 and full plate +5....::
::puts on full plate:: :PMeh. Studied Target and you're only up 1 point of AC.
Also the slayer gets 2-4 extra points of damage per hit, might not be much but with three attacks on a full attack it can add up, and there's the very, very rare time where the RNG turns it into 8-10 points of extra damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so what exactly are we arguing here? that fighters not having 4+int is okay because they can wear full plate? does knowing how to wear full plate equal about 2 skill points per level?
Funny enough, you know what that fancy full plate is really bad for?
Skills. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr. Fishy just wandered in here and he is without a clue...And sadly Mr. Fishy did not put ranks in....Mr. Fishy just don't know.
Mr. Fishy thinks there is a fear that a fighter with 4+int per level would break Pathfinder...Or something.
Mr. Fishy does not understand... Did Fighters become god monsters, while Mr. Fishy was away?
Last Mr. Fishy heard fighters were still in the game because the wizards felt bad about making martial unless.
Mr. Fishy just wandered in here and he is without a clue...And sadly Mr. Fishy did not put ranks in....Mr. Fishy just don't know.
Mr. Fishy thinks there is a fear that a fighter with 4+int per level would break Pathfinder...Or something.
Mr. Fishy does not understand... Did Fighters become god monsters, while Mr. Fishy was away?
Last Mr. Fishy heard fighters were still in the game because the wizards felt bad about making martial unless.
You didn't miss anything. But no, they're still here because someone needs to be the class to beat the shit out of for loot and exp, same as the rogue...also because you gotta pander to the old folks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like Air-Breather talk to Mr. Fishy.
So Fighters get bumped up to 4+INT skill points per level because they're awful and categorically worse than a Barbarian.
But Arcanists, Clerics, Magi, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners, Warpriests, Witches and Wizards are all fine, right?
Naw, Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners and Warpriests should all get bumped up to 4+int too. 2+int in general is a pretty terrible standard for classes that don't have a strong incentive to invest heavily in intellect.
Arcanists, Magi, Witches and Wizards are int focused already, so don't particularly need the change.
OK, so Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners and Warpriests. They should get something, too. It's not like 9 skill points per level is too much if they want to invest a few points in Int. Th Rogue sucks anyway no need to worry about giving away yet another of his diminishing assets.
What about a Str focused Magus or Martial Wizard prestiging to EK? The Magus especially can get away with as little a 13 Int (Shocking Grasp has no save). Should Int based classes get an extra 2-3 skill points if they choose not to focus on Int? I mean it hurts them even more than martials, right?
Why does everyone hate pigs? I've had a lot of fun with my pig! Clearly you don't know how to roleplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean trading away weapon groups that you won't be using for advanced weapon training does help alot as does this[/shameless plug]