PDA

View Full Version : Alas for my poor skill list!



TempusCCK
2008-01-15, 08:16 PM
Making up a new character for a campaign I'm starting this weekend, and (DM'ing aside) it's the first time I'm playing a non-skillmonkey(ish) class (Fighter is the class, by the way).

I don't think the transition will be that rough, but not having Hide and Move Silent to fall back on is going to suck.

Also, it's completely illogical to me to have a monk have 4 skill points a level and a fighter have only 2? I mean, how do you justify that, sure, the fighter may need to be dedicated to things other than learning how to pick locks and the like, but honestly, how does the monk get so much more crap? Fluffwise, he is even more dedicated to his art than a fighter is.

Fighter should be 4 skill points and things like spot and listen should be on his list... I mean, come on, since when do smart people stop showing their freaking warriors how to notice enemies?! Survival should be there as well, for commando type fighters. What jerkoff is training these guys?

"What, what do you mean you want to learn to how to hunt in case you get caught behind enemy lines?! That's poppycock! Huh, did you say you want some training on how to know if someone is sneaking up on your camp in the middle of the night! That's just madness, nobody fights that way, next you'll be telling me that it's way more effective to quietly move in and get the jump on your opponents!

Go swing your sword some more! Only two more years of training before you finally get that +1 bonus to attack!"

Please tell me that someone else is feeling my pain here.

KillianHawkeye
2008-01-15, 08:30 PM
Monks get more skill points because they have more class skills than Fighters. I agree about Spot and Listen, and I make them class skills for everyone in my games. I don't know about Survival, though. That's kind of the Ranger's special skill. If you're an intelligent enough Fighter, you can put cross-class ranks into Survival, and that would pretty much cover you just for the purposes of hunting for food and basic survival.

graymachine
2008-01-15, 08:34 PM
Well, I can see what you are getting at, but I think that it's a confusion between the Fighter and Rogue classes. Commandos would typically be multi-classed between fighter and rogue, if not straight rogue into an appropriate PrC. Fighters are generally trained to, well, fight. You could imagine this in the sense of a standing army. None of the soldiers forage for their food, nor do they have to notice hidden things, since approaching armies are typically rather visible. Fighter training reflects this; fighters aren't trained to use skills, they are trained to use feats. Hence, the fighter bonus feats. As for skills, fighters get skills that they would be expected to use as a soldier, such as ride. Raising the fighter's skill points simply is going to take away from what other classes do since the extra skill points would make the class more attractive. Also, keep in mind a human gets the four extra skill points at first level and one at all of the other levels. If you really want some more skills then you could always take Able Learner and just suck up the cross-class cost. It seems like you would be more interested in a rogue that fights.

TheThan
2008-01-15, 08:38 PM
I agree, you’d think they’d pick up some ranks in spot and listen from standing around on sentry duty all night.

Voyager_I
2008-01-15, 08:38 PM
[Stuff]

Because nobody in the army stands watch or forages while on campaign?

And yeah, I personally find the anemic skill points quite frustrating. It seems to push a lot of flavorful but sub-optimal or conditional skills (like Jump) out of the limelight when you can count your first-level skill points on one hand...

TempusCCK
2008-01-15, 08:55 PM
Well, I can see what you are getting at, but I think that it's a confusion between the Fighter and Rogue classes. Commandos would typically be multi-classed between fighter and rogue, if not straight rogue into an appropriate PrC. Fighters are generally trained to, well, fight. You could imagine this in the sense of a standing army. None of the soldiers forage for their food, nor do they have to notice hidden things, since approaching armies are typically rather visible. Fighter training reflects this; fighters aren't trained to use skills, they are trained to use feats. Hence, the fighter bonus feats.

Yes, but that assumes that your army/Kingdom only fights in one certain archaic style. Certainly with the ability to research massive world changing higher level spells, someone high up in an advisory position might realize "Hey, why don't be stop lining up and charging at each other and spend a few extra days showing our boys how to be a little cautious and use much more effective guerilla warfare?"

This merely reflects the inflexibility of the system.


As for skills, fighters get skills that they would be expected to use as a soldier, such as ride. Raising the fighter's skill points simply is going to take away from what other classes do since the extra skill points would make the class more attractive. Also, keep in mind a human gets the four extra skill points at first level and one at all of the other levels. If you really want some more skills then you could always take Able Learner and just suck up the cross-class cost. It seems like you would be more interested in a rogue that fights.

Indeed, but this, especially the Rogue that Fights part, leads me to my biggest qualm with Rogues. Sneak attack, their trademark ability, implies that extra damage is dealt by a rogue who can attack an opponent PRECISELY where it's going to hurt more, yet when it comes to actually making an attack, they use an inferior bonus. It contradicts it's own concepts!

Rogues are skillful, and precise, having a crummy BAB implies that Rogues aren't so good at hitting (accuracy is a skill, ask anyone who has ever shot a bow or a gun). Counter intuitive.

Also something can be said for the amount of proficienies you get from taking the Rogue class.

Theli
2008-01-15, 09:03 PM
I agree, you’d think they’d pick up some ranks in spot and listen from standing around on sentry duty all night.

Crass-class training is the key to a well-rounded life!

graymachine
2008-01-15, 09:06 PM
Well, Mondo the Street Thug knows exactly how to twist a knife to make someone squeal, but that doesn't mean he's better at getting that in the person. I don't think I've ever really had a problem with my BAB in regards to any rogue I've built; Weapon Finesse and a race with a decent DEX boost usually makes up for it.

Chronos
2008-01-15, 09:08 PM
Certainly with the ability to research massive world changing higher level spells, someone high up in an advisory position might realize "Hey, why don't be stop lining up and charging at each other and spend a few extra days showing our boys how to be a little cautious and use much more effective guerilla warfare?"By the same token, some high brass might say "Hey, why don't we spend some time training our boys to cast world-changing spells?". Armies certainly can include folks trained to use spells: They're called wizards. And they can also include folks trained to scout out terrain and attack from ambush: They're called rangers.

And Sneak Attack is hardly the rogue's trademark ability. Their trademark ability is having a boatload of skill points that they can spend on a wide variety of useful skills. Sneak attack is just for when Plans A, B, and C all fail, and the rogue is forced out of its primary role and into combat.

TempusCCK
2008-01-15, 09:31 PM
By the same token, some high brass might say "Hey, why don't we spend some time training our boys to cast world-changing spells?". Armies certainly can include folks trained to use spells: They're called wizards. And they can also include folks trained to scout out terrain and attack from ambush: They're called rangers.

Well, as for the Wizards part... not everyone is cut out for wizardry, especially not an entire army. Indeed, I'm not sure what you're getting at here as my post said nothing about a fighter being able to do spellcaster things.

As for the Ranger part, touche. I had forgotten about one of my favorite classes.


And Sneak Attack is hardly the rogue's trademark ability. Their trademark ability is having a boatload of skill points that they can spend on a wide variety of useful skills. Sneak attack is just for when Plans A, B, and C all fail, and the rogue is forced out of its primary role and into combat.

That is entirely a perspective on how you play the Rogue. As well, one could argue that a trademark is something that one person ( in this case class) calls it's own. There are little to no other base classes that call "Sneak Attack" one of their class features. Perhaps more appropriate would have been "one of their trademark features."

Mr.Bookworm
2008-01-15, 09:35 PM
May I point you to the Thug variant? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug)

I've used it before, and I really like it.

ForzaFiori
2008-01-15, 09:44 PM
the monk gets those skills b/c their part of its dedicated training. Ask anyone who's taken a martial art, balance and other athletics (jumping, climbing, swimming, etc), and most training will work to improve your hearing and perception alot.

wadledo
2008-01-15, 09:46 PM
Crass-class training is the key to a well-rounded life!

No, variants are the spice of life.:smallwink:

Chronos
2008-01-15, 09:49 PM
Well, as for the Wizards part... not everyone is cut out for wizardry, especially not an entire army. Indeed, I'm not sure what you're getting at here as my post said nothing about a fighter being able to do spellcaster things.Not everyone is cut out for ambushes, either. My point is just that you're expecting the fighter to do things which are really better represented by other classes.

zaei
2008-01-15, 10:08 PM
Guerilla Warrior from Heroes of Battle adds Hide and Move Silently to your class skill list for all classes. Guerilla Scout from the same book does the same thing for Spot and Listen. Both feats grant additional benefits for those with the books =]

Theli
2008-01-15, 10:21 PM
Well, as for the Wizards part... not everyone is cut out for wizardry, especially not an entire army. Indeed, I'm not sure what you're getting at here as my post said nothing about a fighter being able to do spellcaster things.

I think it's odd to assume that the world's armies are necessary full of fighters as well.

Fighter is a PC class; a cut above the world's masses. The vast majority of most armies (baring campaign specific guidelines to the contrary) are most definitely warriors, with a few brigades of commoners thrown in for good measure. (In the case of drafted armies.)

DnD seems to assume that it's only moderately easier to become a fighter than it is to become a wizard, as far as the potential of the common man goes.