D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5E] Will Warriors be on equal footing with casters?

[Fenes 2]

What is "Four levels of improved crit."? Improved critical does not stack with itself, it applies to another weapon if taken a second time.

 

[Belen]

Ok, he has improved crit, keen weapon, and two PrC's that increase his threat range to give him a whole lot o' nasty.

 

[Shaele]

Originally posted by BelenUmeria If sounds as if a lot of people are using numbers to roleplay now and that just sickens me.

I have a +30 diplomacy, so I get to roleplay and the fighter doesn;t speak? Who plays in those games!?
Dave [/B]

Not to side-track too much, but that's the point of having "social" skills in the game. The fighter is certainly free to interact with NPCs, but he shouldn't be as effective as someone who's built up the skills. A bard with 30 ranks in Diplomacy should be much more likely to get a discount from a merchant, or convince the dragon to let the party live, or help forge a peace treaty between warring nations. Roleplay it out, but use the dice to help determine NPC reactions.

(When DM'ing, I typically set a DC, have the PC interacting roll against it and adjust NPC reactions accordingly. We have a high-charisma, Diplomacy specialized fighter in our campaign who does all of the bargaining, because she tends to get better deals from merchants than other party members. It makes sense, and lets her exercise one of her character's strengths).

Would you prefer the converse? Player 1's bard has sunk all of his skill points into Diplomacy and related social skills, but NPCs react more favorably to the charisma 8 fighter because the Player 2 is a more effective roleplayer??

 

[hong]

Yes, the fighter's minimum is 23 per hit. The fighter has four levels of improved crit. Disgusted yet?

Improved Crit doesn't stack.

 

[Belen]

I know that it doesn't stack!

Ok, he has improved crit, keen weapon, and two PrC's that increase his threat range to give him a whole lot o' nasty.

I am not advocating dissing people's stats because someone else is a better roleplayer. I am saying that people who complain that fighters cannot do anything outside of combat seem to have no clue.

Just because a fighter does not shine in non-combat situations does not mean that they have nothing to do. Anyone who says different is crunching numbers rather than roleplaying.

Dave

 

[Fenes 2]

Would you prefer the converse? Player 1's bard has sunk all of his skill points into Diplomacy and related social skills, but NPCs react more favorably to the charisma 8 fighter because the Player 2 is a more effective roleplayer??

I think you misunderstood him. The point is, even without ranks in diplomacy you can still roleplay. Just because you don't have as much (or any) chances to succeed as the minmaxed social animal does not impede you from having fun roleplaying. Matter of fact, seeing a barbarian trying to court a noble lady is often more fun than seeing the slick bard do it.

The bard may (and should) be more effective, but both should be able to try, and have fun roleplaying it.

 

[Belen]

Amen, Fenes!

 

[Shard O'Glase]

yeah and a wizard should be able to wade into mellee combat wihtout any spells backing them up.

I think the fighters can group are missing the point a lot more than the fighters can't group. The fighters can't group isn't saying they physically can't try diplomacy just that they suck at it and unless its a routine check they wouldn't have much of a chance. And if you mean well outside of combats fighters can participate in routine checks by rolepalying well zippy, because my 10th level wizard can wade into combat with his staff against no level kobolds.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

"Fighter is useless outside of combat".

Well, ummm, the name of the class is, ummm, you see, FIGHTER. If your campaign, like mine, has long periods without a single fight, then the party fighters can multiclass a bit. Anyway, they are only useless if they need to make a check - and at least IMC there is plenty to do that doesn't involve rolling dice or that has a pitiful DC.

I've said this in every thread like this that I've noticed comments like this, but I guess it bears repeating.

Well the wizards name is like wizard if you want him to be able to fight multiclass a bit..oh wait wizards already out fight the fighters..

Well the rogues name is rogue, you know he should be doing rogue like things like pickpocketing, bluffing people, if he wants to fight he should multiclass a bit.. oh wait the rogue can fight like a bad ass already...

Look it would be perfectly cool if the fighter couldn't do non combat things worth a damn if he absolutley ruled the combat arena. The fighter doesn't even come close to ruleing the combat arena so there's no excuse for them sucking so bad out of combat. Some high level combat feats which probably wont happen would help the fighter into ruleing the combat arena, especially if there were some feats you needed beyond mid bab to reach. And heck the fighters could use a few more class skills.

 

[Belen]

I do not think we're missing the point at all. Fighters do rule the combat arena. And if they want to use some of those godawful amount of feats for non-combat stuff, then they can. Ever hear of skill focus?

Yes, if you ROLL-play and not roleplay, then the fighter can never do anything out of combat.

Of course, all the people saying that fighters are so maligned, I'll bet they never thought about placing a higher stat in intelligence and earning more skill points that way. Nope, you want a combat monster AND more points without asctually assigning a higher INT stat.

The fighter in my game rules the combat arena with massive damage that NO other class can manage and he participates just as much in non-combat despite the lower skill points.

Yes, if all you do in non-combat is roll dice for skill checks, then I pity your fighter. No class is supposed to shine ALL the time. The fighter is not supposed to be the tank and the diplomat.

Besides, it already appears as if 3.5 has nerfed casters in favor of melee types.

And, wizards are not diplomat's either, so that argument is bunk. They cast spells, not capture men's hearts!