PDA

View Full Version : 2 Skills for a fighter=odd



Jamin
2007-01-07, 03:07 PM
Is it just me or does the rule that fighter get only 2 skill points a level seem weird to anyone else. I mean the fighter is already underpowered. It seems to me that it would make a lot of sense for them to have 4 skill points because they are often a well trained solider who should know some basic skills.

Also it is not like this would break the game because fighters are already underpowered. So anyone else feel this way or am I alone in this.

Pegasos989
2007-01-07, 03:10 PM
They have so weak skills list that they would do nothing with more skillpoints... You could concider adding tumble (moving around without provoking aaos is not on fighter skill list because...?) or adding some flavour skills (like spot+listen+sense motive if they are bodyguard type fighters) in addition to make this useful change.

Also, I think designers intended a lot of fighters to take combat expertise, which means he also gets bonus skills from int.

Matthew
2007-01-07, 03:10 PM
Many things about the Skill System are odd. Mainly it is to do with it being tied into the Level and Class System. If you give Fighters more Skill Points, you need to do so for other Base Classes.

Balesirion
2007-01-07, 03:10 PM
Fighters only get 2 skill points per level because their entire purpose is fighting, not skill use. What would a fighter do with more skill points?

Valairn
2007-01-07, 03:16 PM
He would ride his horse better! JEEZ its so obvious!

squishycube
2007-01-07, 03:20 PM
He would intimidate better, ride better, listen better, spot better, swim better, just to mention some things I see some types of fighters use.
Go give more skill points to fighters, its not as if they are overpowered at the moment.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-07, 03:21 PM
Fighters only get 2 skill points per level because their entire purpose is fighting, not skill use. What would a fighter do with more skill points?

Buy a craft or profession skill since he can afford to spend skill points on fluff?

Buy Tumble cross-class?

Buy Handle Animal?

Saph
2007-01-07, 03:27 PM
I guess the way it was designed was that fighters were supposed to be the Feat Class but with no skills, while rogues were supposed to be the Skill Class but with no feats (or not enough, anyway).

That said, the fighter's skill list is pretty limited anyway. If you do want to buff fighters, a simple, small way to do it is to give them 4 skill points per level and give them Spot and Listen as class skills - it makes sense that a soldier would be good at spotting enemies.

- Saph

Thomix
2007-01-07, 03:34 PM
If you want to tumble with a fighter, just take the Versatility feat.

Pegasos989
2007-01-07, 03:38 PM
If you want to tumble with a fighter, just take the Versatility feat.


Where is it from?

CaptainSam
2007-01-07, 03:45 PM
Complete Adventurer

MrNexx
2007-01-07, 03:52 PM
Hmmm... skills that might have reasonably been added to a Fighter's class skill list:

*Escape Artist: One of its primary uses is getting out of grapples.
*Heal: Gee, I have just cut someone with my sword/just been bashed really hard in the knee. Too bad I have no clue as to how to fix myself.
*Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering: Tell the Roman Legions that you don't know how to make fortifications.. much less the first thing about aqeducts or bridges.
*Knowledge: History: Fighters don't know about ancient wars why?
*Knowledge: Local: I'm unsure why this isn't a class skill for everyone, truthfully.
*Listen, Spot, Search: Aside from the "Why aren't these for everyone", there's the obvious point of "Fighters are warriors. Warriors stand guard. People who stand guard without Listen, Spot, and Search are useless."
*Profession: We are, we are, we are, we are the Combat Engineers... or not. Because we can't be.
*Sense Motive: I can accept that they don't have Bluff... there's more to bluff than feinting. However, knowing what your opponent is going to do by the way he's looking at you is a classic part of being a warrior. So classic, it's cross-classic, apparently.
*Tumble: Yes, I know they're supposed to wear heavy armor. That doesn't mean they always will be. Combat movement should be part of their training, though I'm not as married to this one.


That's 11 (10 really) more skills that a fighter probably should have on his class list.

Thomix
2007-01-07, 04:40 PM
Where is it from?

I take it from Rokugan campaing setting.

MrNexx, if u go like this, all class should have 5 or 10 more class-skill...

danielf
2007-01-07, 04:43 PM
what skills a fighter can get? ride? climb? jump?
i think 2 skills is good enought. if you want to get it better make a change in another thing, give more feats or something, skills will not help fighters very much.

MrNexx
2007-01-07, 07:20 PM
MrNexx, if u go like this, all class should have 5 or 10 more class-skill...

Quite probably.

Jimp
2007-01-07, 08:27 PM
what skills a fighter can get? ride? climb? jump?
i think 2 skills is good enought. if you want to get it better make a change in another thing, give more feats or something, skills will not help fighters very much.

You can never have too many skill points. EVER.

Stormcrow
2007-01-07, 08:35 PM
I believe its a relevant point that they have less skill points per level because they are a straight combat class and VERY specialised. But i too believe that they should have a larger list of class skills because its inherant in the nature of a highly specialised character to have a highly specialised role. Two fighters should have different specialites, they shouldn't all be intimidating guys (or girls) who can jump and swim.

*exhales*

clarkvalentine
2007-01-07, 09:01 PM
MrNexx, if u go like this, all class should have 5 or 10 more class-skill...


Either that, or Roman combat engineers had a few levels of expert as well as fighter. :smallwink:

MrNexx
2007-01-07, 11:25 PM
Either that, or Roman combat engineers had a few levels of expert as well as fighter. :smallwink:

The legion engineers were expected to keep up with everyone else.

F.H. Zebedee
2007-01-07, 11:47 PM
I think three per level would not be unreasonable. Add at least half of the skills listed by Mr. Nexx, and up it by one per level. That won't be game breaking, would it?

clarkvalentine
2007-01-07, 11:54 PM
The legion engineers were expected to keep up with everyone else.

Of course. But I wouldn't model every Legionary as all fighter, either. The guy standing next to the fighter 4 might be fighter 2/expert 2 - he can still swing a sword well enough to hold his own, and he also knows enough math to compute how many logs they'll need for their stockade that night.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-07, 11:56 PM
Hell, why not let the fighters choose from different skill "sets"? Fighters are supposed to cover a pretty large area of expertise, and they're meant to be modular combatants, right? So why not have different sets of skill expertise? Like cavalry, footsoldier, archer, engineer, etc?

Valairn
2007-01-08, 02:57 AM
*Tumble: Yes, I know they're supposed to wear heavy armor. That doesn't mean they always will be. Combat movement should be part of their training, though I'm not as married to this one.


Does know one else watch the history channel? You can do cartwheels and pretty amazing things in full plate mail.

magic8BALL
2007-01-08, 06:14 AM
Sorry, I lost it at the "fighters are underpowered" part. They are the benchmark. Show me a non caster PrC that isn't achieved faster without a dip into fighter. Gimmie Weapon Spec! Gimmie the feats! Underpowered? Balanced, stable, and ripped off at Epic levels.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-08, 06:43 AM
Sorry, I lost it at the "fighters are underpowered" part. They are the benchmark. Show me a non caster PrC that isn't achieved faster without a dip into fighter. Gimmie Weapon Spec! Gimmie the feats! Underpowered? Balanced, stable, and ripped off at Epic levels.

Fighters aren't any kind of benchmark. "PrC achieved faster with a dip" does not make a class balanced, Weapon Spec sucks, and the feats just aren't enough to let a fighter compete at high levels.

Fighters are horrifically underpowered. By level 20, there are many fights in which they can't contribute at all. Zero.

goken04
2007-01-08, 06:56 AM
True, BWL, but the guy brings up a good point with the dip. Perhaps the 2 skills/level is there to deter multi-classing. While increasing the Fighter's skills per level isn't going to do much to bring up a straight fighter to other even melee classes in power (even if you add Nexx's skills to his class list), those extra 2 skill points are going to let us see even MORE 2 level fighter dips, especially from swash/rogue types. Something that stops our rogues from taking half their levels in fighter are the sucky skill points/sucky class skills. It'd be increasing the power of a fighter in a multiclass build significantly, without significantly increasing the power of the fighter as a stand-alone class, which is where the problem lies.

Corlindale
2007-01-08, 06:58 AM
For my upcoming campaign I'm giving fighters 4 skill points/level, giving them Heal as a class skill(makes sense that one dedicated fighting would learn to patch up himself and his comrades), and adding Skill Focus to their list of bonus feats. Then I've altered skill focus to either let it give the normal +3 to a skill, OR to let it turn a cross-class skill into a class skill and give 1 free rank in it. Can still only apply once for each skill.
The main problem with the fighter as it is is that there is pretty much nothing he can contribute with out of combat, making him a bit boring to play. This way the player can personalize him a little bit more, and give him some aspect of a versatile skill-monkey if they sacrifice some combat prowess.

Zeb The Troll
2007-01-08, 07:33 AM
*Escape Artist: One of its primary uses is getting out of grapples.
A fighter isn't supposed to escape from a grapple. He's supposed to break out of it or win it.


*Heal: Gee, I have just cut someone with my sword/just been bashed really hard in the knee. Too bad I have no clue as to how to fix myself.
It's an untrained skill with fairly low DC's for anything you would expect a fighter to do with it. Give yourself a decent Wis score if you actually are concerned about binding wounds otherwise leave it to the healer in your party.


*Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering: Tell the Roman Legions that you don't know how to make fortifications.. much less the first thing about aqeducts or bridges.
Even in today's fighting forces the engineers and the fighters are two distinctly seperate units. Beyond that, I'm no history expert but I'm pretty certain it wasn't the Roman Legion that engineered the aqueducts. Belonging to a society that has a technology doesn't mean that all members of that society inherently know everything, or anything, about that technology.


*Knowledge: History: Fighters don't know about ancient wars why?
I've known a lot of soldiers in my time. I can name exactly one (below the rank of Lieutenant) who had any special knowledge of military history. And officers are taught this in military schools and academies (West Point the Officer Advanced Course, for example) as part of their career progression. Your average Joe Soldier doesn't know any more than your average Joe Citizen.


*Knowledge: Local: I'm unsure why this isn't a class skill for everyone, truthfully.
*Listen, Spot, Search: Aside from the "Why aren't these for everyone", there's the obvious point of "Fighters are warriors. Warriors stand guard. People who stand guard without Listen, Spot, and Search are useless."
Okay, I agree with these.


*Profession: We are, we are, we are, we are the Combat Engineers... or not. Because we can't be.
See my comment about Architecture and Engineering.


*Sense Motive: I can accept that they don't have Bluff... there's more to bluff than feinting. However, knowing what your opponent is going to do by the way he's looking at you is a classic part of being a warrior. So classic, it's cross-classic, apparently.
Outside of the very specific event of fighting a rogue, how is this applicable?


*Tumble: Yes, I know they're supposed to wear heavy armor. That doesn't mean they always will be. Combat movement should be part of their training, though I'm not as married to this one.
Again, a fighter should not be avoiding combat. He should be wading through it (or firing into it if that's your thing).

Dausuul
2007-01-08, 08:26 AM
A friend of mine house-rules that all classes get 4 extra skill points per level (and 16 at first level). We both think D&D needs to be way more generous with the skills... though we have different approaches to solving the problem. (My approach is to run Iron Heroes instead. :) )

On the subject of fighters specifically...


A fighter isn't supposed to escape from a grapple. He's supposed to break out of it or win it.

What about Dex-based fighters?


It's an untrained skill with fairly low DC's for anything you would expect a fighter to do with it. Give yourself a decent Wis score if you actually are concerned about binding wounds otherwise leave it to the healer in your party.

It seems kind of silly to me that a fighter who wants to know how to bind wounds must subject himself to MAD (or else burn his precious few skill points on a cross-class skill) just for that. And I'm in favor of anything that reduces the tendency of D&D parties to be utterly dependent on their clerics.


Even in today's fighting forces the engineers and the fighters are two distinctly seperate units. ...

I've known a lot of soldiers in my time. I can name exactly one (below the rank of Lieutenant) who had any special knowledge of military history. And officers are taught this in military schools and academies (West Point the Officer Advanced Course, for example) as part of their career progression. Your average Joe Soldier doesn't know any more than your average Joe Citizen.

Hmm. While I agree that such knowledge would not be a common skill for fighters, I don't know that I think we need a whole separate character class for officers. Surely, it would be simpler just to make them into fighter class skills, and have officers be the ones who put ranks in Knowledge (History) and the like, while engineers pick up Knowledge (Engineering), and grunts are the ones who put ranks in Profession (Gambler).

But then, WotC and I have fundamentally different ideas on how character classes should work. I think classes should be broad-based and accommodate a range of different concepts. WotC is a proponent of the "a distinct class for every concept" model.


Again, a fighter should not be avoiding combat. He should be wading through it (or firing into it if that's your thing).

Again, I think Dex-based fighters should have the option.

MrNexx
2007-01-08, 12:42 PM
Does know one else watch the history channel? You can do cartwheels and pretty amazing things in full plate mail.

I spend my time learning the difference between "no" and "know". And I didn't need to watch the history channel to know these things; I was busy getting a degree in medieval history, and teaching it for three years.

However, since you're feeling pedantic...

Just because someone _can_ do these things in plate, doesn't mean it's practical to do them in the middle of combat. From a pure game mechanics standpoint, there's the Armor Check Penalty. Yes, you can get Mithril or other lightened versions which reduce the ACP, but that's going to put a crimp in rolling around the battlefield, especially at low levels... by the time you can afford that on your heavy armor, you're starting to overcome the ACP with your skill bonus. From a non-mechanical perspective, you never know what you're diving into, and unless you've got great lighting and have scouted the area before, you've got a good chace of injuring yourself if you dive between a minotaur's legs to come up behind him.

Dragonmuncher
2007-01-08, 01:02 PM
The whole "fighters are fighters, not skill-users" thing has always bugged me. Every class is designed to be of use in a fight- even the Bard. Skills are just "everything that's not a direct component of fighting."


Listen, Spot, and Profession, I can get behind. Listen and Spot are vital for standing guard, but it doesn't take away from the scouting-types because they don't have Hide or Move Silently. Everyone should get Profession- it's what you do when you're not adventuring.

I disagree about Architecture and the like- building a hasty fortification is different than building cities. Cross class seems perfect for this- something a fighter might want to learn, but is never really going to specialize in.

Valairn
2007-01-08, 01:19 PM
My question is going to come down to, how did me mentioning that something was possible, jump to me saying that one should engage in idiocy? All I said was its possible. Not that its should be done, a rogue shouldn't do cartwheels in the middle of a fight either, though dive rolling may come into play. And poor lighting is bad for everyone, regardless of armor.

MrNexx
2007-01-08, 01:37 PM
A fighter isn't supposed to escape from a grapple. He's supposed to break out of it or win it.

Or, you know, learn how to get out any way he can if he's not set up for grappling, so he can fight the way he's supposed to.



It's an untrained skill with fairly low DC's for anything you would expect a fighter to do with it. Give yourself a decent Wis score if you actually are concerned about binding wounds otherwise leave it to the healer in your party.

It's a skill anyone who throws themselves in harms way should be professionally interested in.



Even in today's fighting forces the engineers and the fighters are two distinctly seperate units. Beyond that, I'm no history expert but I'm pretty certain it wasn't the Roman Legion that engineered the aqueducts. Belonging to a society that has a technology doesn't mean that all members of that society inherently know everything, or anything, about that technology.

And not all fighters would... only those who took ranks in it.



I've known a lot of soldiers in my time. I can name exactly one (below the rank of Lieutenant) who had any special knowledge of military history. And officers are taught this in military schools and academies (West Point the Officer Advanced Course, for example) as part of their career progression. Your average Joe Soldier doesn't know any more than your average Joe Citizen.

Fighters aren't just grunts. The grunts are warriors. Fighters are the elite, who have trained extensively in all arts of war. The Joe Soldiers are warriors.



Outside of the very specific event of fighting a rogue, how is this applicable?

Because fighters look at more people than rogues? Because they get used to picking up what people are thinking and about to do from how they're standing and moving?



Again, a fighter should not be avoiding combat. He should be wading through it (or firing into it if that's your thing).

So, it is your contention that a fighter should be provoking those attacks of opprotunity, even if he has the means to avoid it through clever footwork?

Wolf53226
2007-01-08, 01:50 PM
In the tabletop game I will be starting soon, I have given all classes 2 bonus skill points per level and things like spot, listen, use rope, and some others based on the campaign as class skills. I see no issue with doing this, as even the DMG supports making changes based on the world you are running the game in.

Orzel
2007-01-08, 02:07 PM
Fighters only get 2 skill points + INT a level because fighter spend a lot of their practice time on non-skills.

A fighter's practice schedule could be:
50% Combat training
40% Feats
0% Spellcasting
0% Other Class Features
10% Skill training

a ranger would be more like
20% Combat training
20% Feats
10% Spellcasting
20% Other Class Features
30% Skill training

and a wizard
0% Combat training
20% Feats
70% Spellcasting
0% Other Class Features
10% Skill training

Fighter spend so much time on fighting, they can't learn many spells without being quick learners (Med-High INT). Same with spellcasters except with spellcasting and class features. Hybrid classes and classes with little combat or magic abiliy (rogues) have more time to learn to use ropes and sneak around.

Ebonwoulfe
2007-01-08, 03:23 PM
If you're really up for changing up the skill system, give bonus skill points based on half his ability modifier for each particular stat to spend only on skills of that variety. In other words, an 18 dex rogue would get 8 skill points from rogue, and at least another 2 skill points to spend on just dex skills, not to mention whatever other bonuses he might get. 14 charisma? Here's a skill point for charisma based skills.

Thomas
2007-01-08, 03:38 PM
A fighter isn't supposed to escape from a grapple. He's supposed to break out of it or win it.

Indeed, because the Fighter class represents only and precisely one single specific combat style and approach to martial challenges, adopted by every single Fighter!


Fighters only get 2 skill points + INT a level because fighter spend a lot of their practice time on non-skills.

A fighter's practice schedule could be:
50% Combat training
40% Feats
0% Spellcasting
0% Other Class Features
10% Skill training

a ranger would be more like
20% Combat training
20% Feats
10% Spellcasting
20% Other Class Features
30% Skill training

and a wizard
0% Combat training
20% Feats
70% Spellcasting
0% Other Class Features
10% Skill training

Did you know that 90% of statistics are made up on the spot to disingenuously support an argument that has no real basis? :smallamused:

Those statistics are based on absolutely and precisely nothing. Nowhere in the books does it say that Fighters need to train; in fact, it runs very much contrary to a host of fiction examples.


On to the actual point:

D&D mechanics limit roleplay and non-combat challenges in the game, and the skill system is part of that - or, rather, the lack of skill points. It's ridiculous. In other d20 games - Conan, Call of Cthulhu, Masque of Red Death - all classes get a bunch of skill points, even though the amount of skills is not materially increased. This lets every character be good at a bunch of stuff aside from, say, fighting, and that is just great.

But once you start houseruling this, I don't see any real need to make class skill lists, even. Just attach a number to each class - "8 class skills" or "15 class skills" (in addition to Craft and Profession) - and let every player present their desired list to you. (Or make ready "packages" for the classes; two or three each, at least. These will make creating NPCs easier, too.) You approve the list or revise it as appropriate.

Increase skill points, increase class skills. Every class should get some sort of Knowledges (and there should be more different Knowledges).

Desaril
2007-01-08, 10:52 PM
Reading the many posts I understand both sides of this debate. On one hand many posters and gamers see fighters as a very specialized combat machine designed to focus on melee attacks and heavy armor. This is the basic archetypical view of fighters espoused by D&D tradition.

Others view fighters as representing a broader notion of a soldier or mercenary and therefore think that fighters should also be dexterous or wily or perceptive. I agree with this school of thought, but WOTC disagrees with me. I think that the fighter as written is not a skilled warrior, just a sword (or mace or axe) swinger. If you want to be calvary, or a bodyguard or Roman Engineer, you have to multiclass.

That may not be satisfying, but it definitely encourages you to buy additional products.

Tor the Fallen
2007-01-09, 01:04 AM
If monks get 4 skill points per level, fighters do too. There's no reason they shouldn't!

Orzel
2007-01-09, 02:04 AM
2+Int is the base level for skill learning. This means that the average character can only get better in 2 skill ranks in 1 levels unless they are fast learners.

Look at the 2 skill base classes. All o' them are the specialists of their combat style and have all the main aspects of thier style.

Look at the 4 and 6 skill base classes. All o' them are the hybrid of their combat style and lack big chunks of their syle. Ranger lack combat defense. Barbs lack combat skill. Bard spells go up to 6 level. The time not spent on training fully is spent on skills.

And rogue are running most on SA for nonskill class features. If characters train, rogue train skills the most. If they learn by usage,same result.

Full BAB, Simple and martial weapons, all armors and sheilds, and a d10 HD is a lost to maintain in DnD. Same with 9 levels of spells, and full caster levels (druids get too many skil points). Full combat or magic power sucks away your chance of above average skill points.

With a good portion of fighters having positive INT and the ability to not use normal feat spots for conbat feats, a nic percentage of fighter should have a good amount of skills anyway.

Zeb The Troll
2007-01-09, 02:29 AM
What about Dex-based fighters?If you're dex based you still get to use that to your advantage while in a grapple. Your weapon finesse still works for the dagger you're probably wielding in your off hand while grappling.


It seems kind of silly to me that a fighter who wants to know how to bind wounds must subject himself to MAD (or else burn his precious few skill points on a cross-class skill) just for that. And I'm in favor of anything that reduces the tendency of D&D parties to be utterly dependent on their clerics.Three ranks and a healing kit and you can take 10 to bind wounds. Fewer if you've got higher than an 11 Wisdom. That's not enough to justify making it a class skill.


Hmm. While I agree that such knowledge would not be a common skill for fighters, I don't know that I think we need a whole separate character class for officers. Surely, it would be simpler just to make them into fighter class skills, and have officers be the ones who put ranks in Knowledge (History) and the like, while engineers pick up Knowledge (Engineering), and grunts are the ones who put ranks in Profession (Gambler).It not being a common skill is what, for me, defines it as cross class. And I'm not suggesting a seperate class for officers. In fact, what may not have come across is that not even a lot of officers have that taught to them until they've been one for 10+ years. My point is that it's not as common as you think for a soldier to know anything about military history. Less so for someone who isn't a soldier. Most fighter PC's aren't soldiers. As for engineering, that's a specialty that is outside the realm of being a fighter.


Or, you know, learn how to get out any way he can if he's not set up for grappling, so he can fight the way he's supposed to.Just because you're involved in a grapple doesn't mean you're helpless. Far from it. Especially for a fighter who is in the favorable position of being able to deal as good as he gets while in a grapple. Even if he's dex based.


It's a skill anyone who throws themselves in harms way should be professionally interested in.Again I say that the fighter is not supposed to be the guy who's curing diseases after the battle. That's just not his job. Or the rogue's or the wizard's for that matter. Two or three ranks is sufficient for any PC to keep his allies from bleeding to death without even having to roll on it.


And not all fighters would... only those who took ranks in it.Maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough. The fighters are not the ones who do this. The combat engineers are not the fighters. They are specialized professionals. If a high level fighter is building an army to mount an assault and he feels he's going to need bridges built or destroyed along the way, he doesn't recruit fighters to do this. He recruits experts and then defends them while they do their job.


Fighters aren't just grunts. The grunts are warriors. Fighters are the elite, who have trained extensively in all arts of war. The Joe Soldiers are warriors.To begin with, I disagree with your categorization of warriors and fighters. In my view the difference between warrior and fighter is similar to the difference between a conscripted soldier and a volunteer soldier. Furthermore, being an elite trained fighter does not imply or necessitate being an educated person in any way. Even the Special Forces and Rangers do not get any special training in history, military or otherwise. (And I would liken these types of soldiers to a prestige in any case.) Broad spectrum, infantry and elite, it is not necessary or helpful for a fighting person to be knowledgeable in military history in order to do their job with the utmost skill. (The people who benefit from this type of knowledge are the military leadership and if your campaign has these, I would recommend making a homebrew PrC for it that does include this type of knowledge as a class skill and spell out what benefit it has from a mechanics standpoint.) It is not a factor and it is not common even in today's educated fighting forces for them to know anything about it, let alone in a medieval setting. If you want your fighter to have it, spend the points on it and be exceptional.


Because fighters look at more people than rogues? Because they get used to picking up what people are thinking and about to do from how they're standing and moving?I meant from a mechanics perspective. During a fight, where would a sense motive check come into play other than to counter a rogue trying to feint?


So, it is your contention that a fighter should be provoking those attacks of opprotunity, even if he has the means to avoid it through clever footwork?Not at all. I'm saying that the fighter shouldn't be moving through threatened squares, he should be moving into them and engaging. Perhaps I just have a narrow concept of what a fighter is and what his role in the party is. As has been mentioned, if you want your character to leave these narrrow confines, there is a whole PILE of PrC's to take that will broaden/shift this purpose.

Wow, I honestly didn't expect to get this kind of backlash from my post. Please understand that I'm not trying to belittle anyone's point of view, only to defend my own. If I were presented with any of these other ideas when I joined a game I wouldn't think twice about it. It just wouldn't occur to me to make any of these changes if I were running a campaign.

As for the whole modular character concept and allowing more customization at character creation, I had an idea while I was writing this response. What if, instead of making any of these specific changes to one or any classes, the GM just allowed a player to take the number of class skills normally afforded to a core class and pick that number of skills to be their class skills? For example, a core fighter gets 7 class skills so a player making a level one fighter would just choose which 7 skills he's going to use as class skills until such a time as he stops being a fighter (through either multiclassing or taking a PrC)?

EIDT: Hmm, looks like Thomas proposed this already. Oh well.

Sam K
2007-01-10, 03:16 AM
Personally, Im in favor of giving fighters more skill points (and a somewhat extended skill list) for 3 reasons:

1. Fighter is one of the widest classes out there, representing everything from knights to officers to mercenaries.
2. Allowing figthers a wider set of skills would allow players to different between different kinds of fighters in a very real way.
3. It really wouldn't over power the class.

As it stands, most fighters take the same skills, since a few are very useful to adventurers. In a standard adventuring group, some skills tend to be needed just to get by: a fighter that lacks jump, climb and swim is going to find his life really complicated when he leaves the rank and file soliders for a life of adventure. The lack of useful skills in the fighter skill list, and the low amount of skill points they get, doesn't leave alot of room for background skills. Few fighter characters have anything that would actually indicate that the fighter was a professional solider at one point or another (and I do consider fighters professional soliders with a trade- militiamen, conscripted soliders and guards who never see any action are warriors). Since how, where and why a figther learned his trade is a big part of his history (and should influence his fighting style), I think it's only reasonable fighters have some room to diversify their skills. Lets look at some different fighters and what skills they would be likely to learn:

Bob the infantryman has spent most of his life as a professional solider in the Duke of Ankhs heavy infantry, and risen to the rank of sargeant. Basic exercise has made him a pretty fit guy (climb and jump skills), and because he needs to be decent at barking orders at the troops, he's picked up intimidation (AH AM NOT A SIR, YOU MOOOORON!). In addition, a life in the army has taught him profession: solider. Knowing who to salute, where to requisition gear, and what rules you have to follow is essential to someone who spends his life in the army.

Pete the knight fights in the same army as Bob does, but his life is completely different. As the son of a low ranking noble, he's expected to be both an officer and a gentleman. Obviously as a cavaleryman, he's expected to know his way around horses (ride and handle animal), but he also needs to know who is who among his peers (knowledge: nobility) and how to adress them (diplomacy).

Mike the city guard patrolls the bad side of town, seeing plenty of action (thus making him a figher, not a warrior). He needs to be alert (listen and spot), and his time on the streets has taught him much about the city he works in (knowledge: local). In addition, he constantly has to face down the lowlife of the city (indimidation).

Finally, Carl the mercenary has no steady employment but wanders from contract to contract and location to location. Since support is often horrible (noone cares about you once your contract is completed), he has to be able to look after his own gear (profession: blacksmith). By the same token, he has to look after himself (healing), since noone will hire a mercenary that doesn't look to be in shape to fight. As he often has to negotiate new contracts with less than benevolent employers, and since he's met alot of people from all walks of life, he has become a pretty good judge of character (sense motive), and his nomadic lifestyle means he is quite good at supporting himself if he has to (survival).

All of these characters are fighters. Hell, they could all wear the same armor, use the same weapons, and have the same feats, but they still have very different skills. Ofcourse, it could be argued that Bob doesn't NEED profession: solider and Carl could get by without survival, but in both cases I think it helps define the character and their background. Yes, they could get those skills as cross class skills, but now you're entering the point where you start punishing people for making belivable characters. "Sure, you can have skills that reflect your background and training, but then they'll be so low you usually wont be able to do anything with them."

Zeb The Troll
2007-01-10, 03:51 AM
Personally, Im in favor of giving fighters more skill points (and a somewhat extended skill list) for 3 reasons:

1. Fighter is one of the widest classes out there, representing everything from knights to officers to mercenaries.
2. Allowing figthers a wider set of skills would allow players to different between different kinds of fighters in a very real way.
3. It really wouldn't over power the class.

<snipped for brevity>

All of these characters are fighters. Hell, they could all wear the same armor, use the same weapons, and have the same feats, but they still have very different skills. Ofcourse, it could be argued that Bob doesn't NEED profession: solider and Carl could get by without survival, but in both cases I think it helps define the character and their background. Yes, they could get those skills as cross class skills, but now you're entering the point where you start punishing people for making belivable characters. "Sure, you can have skills that reflect your background and training, but then they'll be so low you usually wont be able to do anything with them."
That's exactly why something like what Thomas suggested (allot a number of class skills instead of predetermining them) would be a good way to work things. You could get as many different explanations for why a fighter, or any class, would have ranks in any skill as you would have people who make them.

Toliudar
2007-01-10, 10:45 AM
How is the argument in favour of diverse fighter concepts any different than say, a wide range of concepts for any other class?

I run a transmuter who comes from a wealthy merchant family and is an active part of that mercantile endeavour. Why shouldn't I have appraise, diplomacy, bluff, etc as class skills? If I'm playing a cleric of Fharlanghn who is dedicated to rooting out and stomping bandits who discourage travel and trade, why shouldn't I get spot, listen, tumble etc?

Multiclassing is a fine way of expressing a rounded focus for a character. Maybe the soldier who is also trained in engineering has taken a level of expert, rogue, whatever to do so - or taken the feat that makes more skills class skills. He's still a fine soldier, just maybe not quite as good in melee as one who focused exclusively on hitting things with a sword.

My sense is that giving fighters more skill points further gimps the ranger in comparison. I like the idea that the fighter class being a kind of baseline class that others are balanced towards.

Thomas
2007-01-10, 11:02 AM
I run a transmuter who comes from a wealthy merchant family and is an active part of that mercantile endeavour. Why shouldn't I have appraise, diplomacy, bluff, etc as class skills? If I'm playing a cleric of Fharlanghn who is dedicated to rooting out and stomping bandits who discourage travel and trade, why shouldn't I get spot, listen, tumble etc?

Exactly. Players should get to pick and choose class skills, and have them approved by the DM. A hedge wizard probably wouldn't have Knowledge (all) as an available choice; he might not even have Knowledge (arcana) available.

I like the CoC d20 system in this respect; everyone essentially chooses their class skills, and there's a range of "professional packages" listed (each with one to three free choice skills).

Telonius
2007-01-10, 11:33 AM
Hmmm... skills that might have reasonably been added to a Fighter's class skill list:

*Escape Artist: One of its primary uses is getting out of grapples.
*Heal: Gee, I have just cut someone with my sword/just been bashed really hard in the knee. Too bad I have no clue as to how to fix myself.
*Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering: Tell the Roman Legions that you don't know how to make fortifications.. much less the first thing about aqeducts or bridges.
*Knowledge: History: Fighters don't know about ancient wars why?
*Knowledge: Local: I'm unsure why this isn't a class skill for everyone, truthfully.
*Listen, Spot, Search: Aside from the "Why aren't these for everyone", there's the obvious point of "Fighters are warriors. Warriors stand guard. People who stand guard without Listen, Spot, and Search are useless."
*Profession: We are, we are, we are, we are the Combat Engineers... or not. Because we can't be.
*Sense Motive: I can accept that they don't have Bluff... there's more to bluff than feinting. However, knowing what your opponent is going to do by the way he's looking at you is a classic part of being a warrior. So classic, it's cross-classic, apparently.
*Tumble: Yes, I know they're supposed to wear heavy armor. That doesn't mean they always will be. Combat movement should be part of their training, though I'm not as married to this one.


That's 11 (10 really) more skills that a fighter probably should have on his class list.

I've got one suggestion to add to that - ditch "Swim" as a Fighter class skill (or have it as a class skill for everybody). Doesn't make sense to me that Fighters should be any better at swimming than anybody else, when most knightly-types wouldn't have been swimming as part of the training. Swap Swim out with one of your suggestions. Profession makes most sense to me (Bodyguard or Mercenary, maybe?)

Matthew
2007-01-10, 12:24 PM
I would just open up all Skills to everybody. Don't really see why they shouldn't be already.

Orzel
2007-01-10, 12:26 PM
You don't have to be a fighter to be a bodyguard, knight, mercenary or officer. My Ranger/bard refused a lord's fighter guards because "These guys can't stop arrows from hurting me without getting wounded".

Class skills are skills you'll commonly find in the members of the class. Crossclass skills are skill you have to search for to find someone you can do it in the class.

If you survey all the fighters in a setting and less than 10% of them have ranks in a certian skill, it should be crossclass.

Sam K
2007-01-10, 01:13 PM
How is the argument in favour of diverse fighter concepts any different than say, a wide range of concepts for any other class?


It's not, really. It is something that would likely have to influence every class eventually. I think the reason it is centered on fighters is that fighters feel the lack of skill points more than most classes. Fighters generally dont have much int, int being of limited use for them, and they have few skills based off of it. A warrior that wants more skills have to invest points in a stat which really doesn't give him anything else. A wizard, on the other hand, gets his extra skills as a side effect of his main stat. He needs high int for his casting, and many of his class skills are int based to boot. Wizards will, by default, have more skills than the base 2 points per level. Fighters wont. That being said, I belive all classes should have the option to have their background influence their skills.


If you survey all the fighters in a setting and less than 10% of them have ranks in a certian skill, it should be crossclass.

The question here is, do less than 10% of the fighters in the setting have a skill because it's not a typical fighter skill, is the fact that it's not a class skill for fighters cause less than 10% of the fighters to have ranks in it? It's quite possible alot of fighters would take certain skills if they could reasonably get good at them.

If I was gonna house rule it, I'd just let every character take 3 extra skills as class skills, to reflect their background. This is simple enough and doesn't require any major rule changes.

Thomas
2007-01-10, 01:34 PM
I would just open up all Skills to everybody. Don't really see why they shouldn't be already.

Yeah. For anything other than D&D-flavored monster-bashing and adventures in classic D&D settings, I prefer skill-based systems anyway. (RuneQuest ftw.)