Nyarlathotep5150 said:
Writeup?
I don't hate soldiers, I just would hate playing one. Here's a list of skills I rolled in our last session in which at least one roll was a success:
Appraise
Bluff
Craft (Herbalism)
Diplomacy
Heal
Knowledge (Arcana)
Knowledge (Local)
Knowledge (Nobility)
Knowledge (Religion)
Knowledge (Rumors)
Sleight of Hand
Spot
There were six other skills in which I failed every attempt, after all, we were only playing 4th level characters.
But, let's put aside that every other "fighter" has twice as many skill ranks per level.
The claim is that a soldier will be better in combat than a like level barbarian. Okay. And? An argument can be made that that isn't true, but suppose it is. It's not a question of whether a soldier isn't capable of killing a barbarian; it's that a barbarian can kill a soldier and a soldier doesn't perform better in any other category except (possibly) combat.
So, if someone's campaign is just a bunch of straight up fighting where standing around in heavy armor and parrying a lot is awesome, then, sure, go ahead and play a soldier.
Meanwhile, the other fighters all get good Reflex saves. While Reflex saves may not come up all that often in people's campaigns, I'm sure not as often as in our campaigns, it does mean that all other fighters have better initiative, which theoretically matters. Okay, soldier spends one of its feats on Improved Initiative and probably comes out ahead ...
Somehow, all of the various freebies that soldiers don't get are considered inferior to extra combat feats. I have two problems with this line of thinking.
First, there's significant diminishing returns in combat feats. Power Attack and Cleave are all you need to murder your enemies. First level barbarian can have those just like a first level soldier. A soldier can certainly do much fancier things in combat than other classes, but do those fancy things matter? Maybe they do in other people's campaigns, in ours, what matters is massacring, which is easily achieved with Power Attack and Cleave and, when you get "older" (i.e. higher level), throw in Great Cleave. After a certain point, an additional combat feat is fairly meaningless. And, soldiers are only getting those feats every other level.
Meanwhile, the second problem is that other classes get stuff, too, sometimes crap, sometimes good, sometimes awesome. The barbarian clearly gets the best of this stuff, which is why the barbarian is strictly superior to the borderer and nomad and why comparing soldier to barbarian is different from comparing to the latter two. I can see an argument that goes that the Tracks, Endurances, Die Hards, Mobilitys (Nomad) aren't any more special than additional combat feats. But, then, the barbarian gets all of those plus: Fearless, +2 Will saves to the most common Will saves we have had to made, far more common at lower levels, my 18th level character took a level of barbarian because of this "halfway Iron Will" as the price for failing Terror rolls can easily be TPKs; Uncanny Dodge, the best combat ability in the game; higher level abilities that can be mostly ignored since high level play seems rare.
Then, let's say a soldier uses normal feats for noncombat stuff and soldier feats to cover brutality. There are feats better than the +2/+2 feats, for sure, but they are a middle of the road benchmark. So, using these rather than getting into even more problematic comparisons, say a soldier takes two of these at first level and uses first and second level combat feats to cover Power Attack and Cleave. At second level, the soldier has the equivalent of 18 skill ranks, another fighter 20. A lot of that awfulness is due to the ridiculous 1st level skill rank rules, which distort character creation so severely that, while the sly soldier can outperform the filching fighter by giving each comp a first level of thief, that has a lot more to do with how awesome starting out as a thief is than anything else.
Once you get into multiclassing, you really start losing comparable characters. Could I see a thief/soldier or scholar/soldier character being viable? Yeah, sure. Would I still rather play a thief/barbarian or scholar/barbarian? Of course - more skill ranks, better saves, better noncombat abilities. What's going to provide more value to my party? A dude who tanks well, anchors a battle line, and is useless outside of combat or a far more well-rounded character who can still exterminate the enemy?
