More fighter hate.

[RandomCasualty2]

I think the rogue and fighter could stand to remain separate. The rogue is supposed to be the "skill man" and the fighter (from the PHB) is supposed to be the combat feat guy.

Well no. Being the "skill man" has very little to do with combat. Skills are for the most part, an out of combat thing. As written, rogues combat abilities are sneak attacks and fighter's combat abilities happen to come from feats (though really I prefer giving out manuevers ToB style as opposed to feats). Though unlike the rogue, the fighter doesn't get any out of combat stuff at all.

The idea that somehow using skills as your out of combat schtick means you have to be a sneak attack machine is rather nonsensical to me. It's okay to say that spellcasters shouldn't get good skills because they have divinations and utility spells. But fighters need some noncombat abilities too.

[MGuy]

Granted and I do agree. I'm not saying fighters shouldn't get skills. As is everyone gets skills. I'm more thinking specialization. A wizard can get skills, feats, and spells. Thus they have access to 3 different subsystems but they primarily use spells over the others. What I'm saying/thinking is that all 3 should be able to dip into thee 3 subsystems (and if you count using magic items they already do but I think it could be better) yet specialize/be more proficient in/have more access to one subsystem over the others. So while all 3 could use skills feats and spells, the rogues are more skillful, fighters can pull off more feats, and wizards can better cast spells. Though as I said, it wouldn't work as written and there'd have to be substancial changes made.

[tzor]

Grand unified theories almost never work, so we need to totally forget the notion of “in combat” and “out of combat” as a package we get to balance completely. We need to treat them each separately. For the moment, let’s stick to “in combat” balancing. (In fact I could make the point that “class” is really all about “in combat” balancing and that “out of combat” balancing needs a different mechanic. Fafhrd is a fighter, not a “bard” by all combat definitions of the word, but he has the skills of a bard out of combat.)

Given that, let’s chuck this stupid notion of “skills” in combat right out the window. Yes there might be a situation where the thief has to pick the lock while the battle with the demons take place, but that’s a mechanic that so oil and water that it is a bitch to design (and if you want proof, look at how 4E does it … PURE CRAP).

Now I know there isn’t a lot of love for 4E here and a lot of ideas in 4E were badly implemented but I think the basic divisions of classes in terms of combat is key to the understanding of the roles of classes within combat. Defender (aka tanks) are the basic units of stand up and fight combat mechanics. (Note a ranged fighter is technically possible; that’s what a “real” tank is.) Strikers (ranged and melee varieties) are those who are constantly moving around the battlefield to gain the best advantage. Leaders (although this is something that WoTC didn’t implement) optimize the battlefield to give the best tactical advantage to friendly units. Controllers optimize the battlefield to screw up the enemy.

The problem develops when one tries to take a “class” and make it the jack of more than one trade. In classic 1E AD&D, this can be seen in the Cleric class, who is both a Defender (with a good amount of tank power) and a Leader potential thrown in (although in 1E leader role type feats are somewhat limited, indeed friendly unit movement aids is a concept unique to 4E). Various editions also removed the controller aspect of wizards and moved them towards the striker aspect. (You know, the old days in which webs and grease flew everywhere in low level combat were kind of interesting, from a combat perspective, even if there was no notion of strikers and everyone mostly stood in one place and fought for rounds on end.)

[CatharzGodfoot]

1. Dump the fighter class entirely.
2. Explain in the DMG that DMs need to put in crazy magical artifact equipment that upgrades the martial classes into doing level-appropriate things.

I think that Disney's Aladdin is a perfect example of what a D&D fighter should look like.


Note the rogue-like skill list out of combat, the swashbuckling moves in combat, the familiar, the flying carpet, and the planar cohort with access wish. Jasmine gets the same swashbuckling (in the cartoon series, at least), the rogue skills, and an animal companion. Overall she's a bit under powered, which is why I say that Aladdin should be the model.

[Edit] Oh yeah, and he's going to be a king.
But I still don't like the name "fighter". Aladdin is a Scoundrel/Swashbuckler/Prince of Thieves. [/Edit]

[MGuy]

I can do with concentrating on one over the other (out of combat vs in combat). But there are plenty of ways to utilize skills in combat. I say this being inspired by Tarkis's work and the skill uses I saw in Fantasy Craft. I'm not talking about picking a lock during combat I'm talking about really using skills to do something when shit hits the fan. Something like using tumble to move without provoking and avoid AoE effects. Balance to resist maneuvers like bull rush and trip along with various spells that make you fall down go boom. Escape Artist to escape grapples and trample along with various binding spells and abilities. Things like that can make having skills much more attractive in combat. But they don't all have to be defensive maneuvers, Use Rope to bind an enemy as if it were a binding type spell, Sense Motive to allow you to catch an enemy flatfooted, intimidate already plants fear affects and there are lots of ways to improve that aspect, Let animal Handling allow you to do something akin to mind controlling animals, sleight of hand allowing you quicker disarms and even the ability to snatch projectiles out of the air, steal spell components, screw up sigils, throw dirt or spit in someone's eyes to blind them temporarily. Allow disable device to quickly (standard action) render a magic item (or mundane item) useless for a brief (1d4 rounds or so) period.

[Psychic Robot]

But I still don't like the name "fighter". Aladdin is a Scoundrel/Swashbuckler/Prince of Thieves.

My point exactly, good sir.