Why Don't Barbarians or Fighters Get Bonus Skills?

One thing I noticed that bugs me is that every class gets one or more bonus skills, except for the Barbarian and Fighter classes. Monks get two of Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Listen, Sneak, Spot or Tumble. Rogues get 4 bonus skills, depending on their scheme. Clerics and Wizards get a bonus knowledge skill.

But the Barbarian and Fighter? Nothing. I think this should change. I'm tired of the idea that Barbarians and Fighters are just dumb brutes. They should gain training in class appropriate things just like everyone else!

I think Barbarians should get two of the following: Climb, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Knowledge (nature), Ride, Spot or Survival.

I think Fighters should get two of: Climb, Drive, Handle Animal, Knowledge (warfare), Ride, Spot, or Swim.

What do you think? 

It seems like a good idea to me.  But I was never a fan of low skills for fighter types.
Rogues should have the most but I think everyone needs more skills if there isn't going to be a way to pick up new skills later on without taking a feat. Maybe every character should get bonus skills based on their intelligence modifier, and they can be selected from a certain set per class (in addition to the extra four in the Rogue's case).

I know they're trying to reduce dependence on ability scores (even though most roll modifiers come directly from them now), but I think bonus spells, bonus skills and bonus languages would really improve this game.
I would love to see skills for Fighter and Barbarian. Any of the physical skills makes sense for the fighter, and the Barbarian could add Knoweldge: Nature and maybe Listen.
Agreed, and a good list in the OP.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
"Why dont Barbarians or Fighters get bonus skills?"

Because giving that to them would make too much sense.

"Why dont Barbarians or Fighters get bonus skills?"

Because giving that to them would make too much sense.



Becuase the designers want '"Jock" characters to be dumb?
Yup, sign me up for this as well. I don't think this is a deliberate attempt to dumb down the Fighter or Barbarian, just a bit of an oversight. To be frank there is an argument to say that Barbarians and Fighters should get two extra skills like a Monk as Mages and Clerics gets spells to add some out of combat utiity? However at a basic minimum I feel  a Fighter should get Knowledge (Warfare) just like Clerics get Knowledge (Religion) and Wizards get Knowledge (Arcana).
Fighters getting Knowledge (warfare) and Barbarians getting Survival or Knowledge (nature) seems appropriate. I'd make a small list to pick from, since there are a fair number of skills that would be reasonable.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Real reason(s):

Because most likely the designers are fearful of placing any noncombat based flavor on either class. Well the barbarian is unfinished. But giving the fighter a skill list does impose a direction of fluff for a class that they may perfer to be very general.

OR

They could be balancing the ombat features of the classes with the noncombat. The fighter and barbarrian are heads and shoulders above the other classes in the combat tier currently. They are the only classes with offensive and defensive power at the same time.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

"Why dont Barbarians or Fighters get bonus skills?"

Because giving that to them would make too much sense.



Becuase the designers want '"Jock" characters to be dumb?



I really wish it wasn't so easy to think this was part of it.
To be fair, I suspect it is because how much come "olde school" types howl, using the justification that fighters are better at low levels, so it is fair that they become boring later. You know the sort.. tend to have Ayn Rand quotes in their sig, and think that saving throws encorage weak roleplaying.

i love saving throws not just the new versions of them thats part of what made a fighter better at higher levels he could take a dragon breath attack and still be swinging away. also at high levels a fighter has a few followers so he has a group of people he is mentoring and that along with his reputation give him respect in any town he goes too. a fighter also has weapon specilization which no other class should have so he gets higher to hit and damage bonuses and finally he can be given land and title by the nobility and then has the challenge of keeping monsters away from the people and land he is responsible for. i know some of those things may not be included in newer editions but they not only are great roleplaying options for him but make being a high level character worth it when they get to be given important duties
I'm in favor of adding additional skill training to all characters, as a way of reducing "dead" levels.

In fact, I would like to see the Advanced Rules open up character development in such a way as to allow the player to pick what benefit he gains at most levels:
































































































Advancement Options per Experience Level
LevelAdvancement Options
1Base Class Feature, Background (4 Skills), Specialty (1 Feat), Racial Ability Adjustments
2Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
3Additional Skill or Spell Slot
4Additional Feat or Spell Slot
5+1 to two Ability Scores or Spell Slot
6Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
7Additional Skill or Spell Slot
8Additional Feat or Spell Slot
9+1 to two Ability Scores or Spell Slot
10Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
11Additional Skill or Spell Slot
12Additional Feat or Spell Slot
13+1 to two Ability Scores or Spell Slot
14Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
15Additional Skill or Spell Slot
16Additional Feat or Spell Slot
17+1 to two Ability Scores or Spell Slot
18Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
19Additional Skill or Spell Slot
20Capstone Ability or Spell Slot
Sign me me up for this.
I'm in favor of adding additional skill training to all characters, as a way of reducing "dead" levels.

In fact, I would like to see the Advanced Rules open up character development in such a way as to allow the player to pick what benefit he gains at most levels:
































































































Advancement Options per Experience Level
LevelAdvancement Options
1Base Class Feature, Background (4 Skills), Specialty (1 Feat), Racial Ability Adjustments
2Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
3Additional Skill or Spell Slot
4Additional Feat or Spell Slot
5+1 to two Ability Scores or Spell Slot
6Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
7Additional Skill or Spell Slot
8Additional Feat or Spell Slot
9+1 to two Ability Scores or Spell Slot
10Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
11Additional Skill or Spell Slot
12Additional Feat or Spell Slot
13+1 to two Ability Scores or Spell Slot
14Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
15Additional Skill or Spell Slot
16Additional Feat or Spell Slot
17+1 to two Ability Scores or Spell Slot
18Additional/Improved Feature or Spell Slot
19Additional Skill or Spell Slot
20Capstone Ability or Spell Slot



Definately an advanced rules module.  Sounds like "Skills and Powers" for 5E.

I probably wouldn't use it - but if I had a player who wanted to, I"d let them.


Carl

One thing I noticed that bugs me is that every class gets one or more bonus skills, except for the Barbarian and Fighter classes. Monks get two of Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Listen, Sneak, Spot or Tumble. Rogues get 4 bonus skills, depending on their scheme. Clerics and Wizards get a bonus knowledge skill.

But the Barbarian and Fighter? Nothing. I think this should change. I'm tired of the idea that Barbarians and Fighters are just dumb brutes. They should gain training in class appropriate things just like everyone else!

I think Barbarians should get two of the following: Climb, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Knowledge (nature), Ride, Spot or Survival.

I think Fighters should get two of: Climb, Drive, Handle Animal, Knowledge (warfare), Ride, Spot, or Swim.

What do you think? 




+1 
I also noticed the same thing and mentioned it to the Playtest Survey.
I would also add Profession (Blacksmith / Bowyer - Fletcher) to the Fighter list  and Track for the Barbarian. 
@lawrencehoy: I had posted a similar framework a few weeks ago. I'll see if I can dig it up. It's a flexible framework for going class-lite, with essentially only 3 "core" classes of martial, magical, and mixed. Martial levels have you gain MDD, magical gain spells/spell levels, and mixed gives a little of both.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Seems to me that since the fighter covers so much ground they would have a mostly unrestricted list of skill choices. Else I think it would need to come as part of a package the way cleric domains or rogue schemes are given.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
I'd rather see the classes get unique features for their class and scale up appropriately than get a bunch of meh skills that really don't help their higher level play issues.
"Why dont Barbarians or Fighters get bonus skills?"

Because giving that to them would make too much sense.



Becuase the designers want '"Jock" characters to be dumb?


This is a hold over from the 70s and 80s, when being a nerd or a geek was something the other kids laughed at you for.  It was invalid then, it's invalid now.  More skills for the Fighting Men of D&D.
Rogues should have the most but I think everyone needs more skills if there isn't going to be a way to pick up new skills later on without taking a feat. Maybe every character should get bonus skills based on their intelligence modifier, and they can be selected from a certain set per class (in addition to the extra four in the Rogue's case).

I know they're trying to reduce dependence on ability scores (even though most roll modifiers come directly from them now), but I think bonus spells, bonus skills and bonus languages would really improve this game.



Rogues should not have more skills than others. This trend started in 3E when they folded the Rogue features into the skill list. Instead lets separate them back out and make them Rogue class features:

Thievery
As a Rogue you know how to expertly pick locks, find and remove traps, and become stealthy.
Effect: When attempting to pick locks, find and/or remove traps, or become stealthy you can roll your skill dice and add them to the roll whether you have these skills trained or not.

Then drop skill mastery except for the Skill Monkey Rogue Scheme and you have a balanced class...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Real reason(s):

Because most likely the designers are fearful of placing any noncombat based flavor on either class. Well the barbarian is unfinished. But giving the fighter a skill list does impose a direction of fluff for a class that they may perfer to be very general.

OR

They could be balancing the ombat features of the classes with the noncombat. The fighter and barbarrian are heads and shoulders above the other classes in the combat tier currently. They are the only classes with offensive and defensive power at the same time.



Actually several people ran the numbers and the Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue are almost dead even in combat. With the Rogue pulling well ahead out of combat followed distantly by the Monk and Barbarian and the Fighter coming in a distant last place...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Rogues should have the most but I think everyone needs more skills if there isn't going to be a way to pick up new skills later on without taking a feat. Maybe every character should get bonus skills based on their intelligence modifier, and they can be selected from a certain set per class (in addition to the extra four in the Rogue's case).

I know they're trying to reduce dependence on ability scores (even though most roll modifiers come directly from them now), but I think bonus spells, bonus skills and bonus languages would really improve this game.



Rogues should not have more skills than others. This trend started in 3E when they folded the Rogue features into the skill list. Instead lets separate them back out and make them Rogue class features:

Thievery
As a Rogue you know how to expertly pick locks, find and remove traps, and become stealthy.
Effect: When attempting to pick locks, find and/or remove traps, or become stealthy you can roll your skill dice and add them to the roll whether you have these skills trained or not.

Then drop skill mastery except for the Skill Monkey Rogue Scheme and you have a balanced class...Smile



Actually the trend started in OD&D when rogues were the only class with skills....


Carl
Rogues should have the most but I think everyone needs more skills if there isn't going to be a way to pick up new skills later on without taking a feat. Maybe every character should get bonus skills based on their intelligence modifier, and they can be selected from a certain set per class (in addition to the extra four in the Rogue's case).

I know they're trying to reduce dependence on ability scores (even though most roll modifiers come directly from them now), but I think bonus spells, bonus skills and bonus languages would really improve this game.



Rogues should not have more skills than others. This trend started in 3E when they folded the Rogue features into the skill list. Instead lets separate them back out and make them Rogue class features:

Thievery
As a Rogue you know how to expertly pick locks, find and remove traps, and become stealthy.
Effect: When attempting to pick locks, find and/or remove traps, or become stealthy you can roll your skill dice and add them to the roll whether you have these skills trained or not.

Then drop skill mastery except for the Skill Monkey Rogue Scheme and you have a balanced class...Smile



Actually the trend started in OD&D when rogues were the only class with skills....


Carl



They weren't skills then, they were class features such as weapon specialization, spells, or tracking and survival on the Barbarian. Nice try though...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Rogues should have the most but I think everyone needs more skills if there isn't going to be a way to pick up new skills later on without taking a feat. Maybe every character should get bonus skills based on their intelligence modifier, and they can be selected from a certain set per class (in addition to the extra four in the Rogue's case).

I know they're trying to reduce dependence on ability scores (even though most roll modifiers come directly from them now), but I think bonus spells, bonus skills and bonus languages would really improve this game.



Rogues should not have more skills than others. This trend started in 3E when they folded the Rogue features into the skill list. Instead lets separate them back out and make them Rogue class features:

Thievery
As a Rogue you know how to expertly pick locks, find and remove traps, and become stealthy.
Effect: When attempting to pick locks, find and/or remove traps, or become stealthy you can roll your skill dice and add them to the roll whether you have these skills trained or not.

Then drop skill mastery except for the Skill Monkey Rogue Scheme and you have a balanced class...Smile



Actually the trend started in OD&D when rogues were the only class with skills....


Carl



They weren't skills then, they were class features such as weapon specialization, spells, or tracking and survival on the Barbarian. Nice try though...Smile




I dunno.  Open Locks, Remove Traps, Pickpocket, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows and Hear Noise sure sound like skills to me.  With percentile chances for succes, rather than a d20 roll.  But still - they sure sound like skills.


Carl
They weren't "skills" because they were "rogue only" class features that they got to choose from. Weapon Mastery wasn't a skill, for instance.

I don't want the rogue to be the only one who can do thiefy things, though. While multiclassing to get it is an option, it just doesn't "feel" right.

Then again ... to learn magic you have to pick up a caster class ... if to learn weapons and armor you have to pick up a warrior class, we might be onto something. 
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
Rogues should have the most but I think everyone needs more skills if there isn't going to be a way to pick up new skills later on without taking a feat. Maybe every character should get bonus skills based on their intelligence modifier, and they can be selected from a certain set per class (in addition to the extra four in the Rogue's case).

I know they're trying to reduce dependence on ability scores (even though most roll modifiers come directly from them now), but I think bonus spells, bonus skills and bonus languages would really improve this game.



Rogues should not have more skills than others. This trend started in 3E when they folded the Rogue features into the skill list. Instead lets separate them back out and make them Rogue class features:

Thievery
As a Rogue you know how to expertly pick locks, find and remove traps, and become stealthy.
Effect: When attempting to pick locks, find and/or remove traps, or become stealthy you can roll your skill dice and add them to the roll whether you have these skills trained or not.

Then drop skill mastery except for the Skill Monkey Rogue Scheme and you have a balanced class...Smile



Actually the trend started in OD&D when rogues were the only class with skills....


Carl



They weren't skills then, they were class features such as weapon specialization, spells, or tracking and survival on the Barbarian. Nice try though...Smile



Close enough.  Because one of the very initial questions we asked as 10 year olds playing BECM was "Why can't my (non-thief) figure out how to pick a lock?"   
Then AD&D introduced the Non-Weapon Proficiencies.  After that one of the standing house rules we had was that the "thief skills" were each available as single NWPs.  They cost 1 each & were available to all.
So if you wanted your ____ to be able to pick locks?  You'd spend your 1 NWP & add it to your sheet.  Your % chance of success was that of a 1st lv thief.  And as you levled up?  Any thief skills you bought levled up as well.  If you took several thief skills over the course of several lvs you ended up with thief abilitities of differing levels.
Thieves of course started the game with all of their skills.  The bonus of picking that class....
Rogues should have the most but I think everyone needs more skills if there isn't going to be a way to pick up new skills later on without taking a feat. Maybe every character should get bonus skills based on their intelligence modifier, and they can be selected from a certain set per class (in addition to the extra four in the Rogue's case).

I know they're trying to reduce dependence on ability scores (even though most roll modifiers come directly from them now), but I think bonus spells, bonus skills and bonus languages would really improve this game.



Rogues should not have more skills than others. This trend started in 3E when they folded the Rogue features into the skill list. Instead lets separate them back out and make them Rogue class features:

Thievery
As a Rogue you know how to expertly pick locks, find and remove traps, and become stealthy.
Effect: When attempting to pick locks, find and/or remove traps, or become stealthy you can roll your skill dice and add them to the roll whether you have these skills trained or not.

Then drop skill mastery except for the Skill Monkey Rogue Scheme and you have a balanced class...Smile



Actually the trend started in OD&D when rogues were the only class with skills....


Carl



They weren't skills then, they were class features such as weapon specialization, spells, or tracking and survival on the Barbarian. Nice try though...Smile



Close enough.  Because one of the very initial questions we asked as 10 year olds playing BECM was "Why can't my (non-thief) figure out how to pick a lock?"   
Then AD&D introduced the Non-Weapon Proficiencies.  After that one of the standing house rules we had was that the "thief skills" were each available as single NWPs.  They cost 1 each & were available to all.
So if you wanted your ____ to be able to pick locks?  You'd spend your 1 NWP & add it to your sheet.  Your % chance of success was that of a 1st lv thief.  And as you levled up?  Any thief skills you bought levled up as well.  If you took several thief skills over the course of several lvs you ended up with thief abilitities of differing levels.
Thieves of course started the game with all of their skills.  The bonus of picking that class....


Just because YOU houseruled it that way doesn't mean they were skills.  Please realize that your way was not the only way to play.
Why doesn't the rogue get heavy armor, martial weapons, or the like? Why doesn't the wizard get heavy armor? That is why the fighter doesn't get bonus skills. 
Why doesn't the rogue get heavy armor, martial weapons, or the like? Why doesn't the wizard get heavy armor? That is why the fighter doesn't get bonus skills. 



So, no real reason other than the stereotype that a fighter or barbarian must be an uneducated lout.

Not a valid reason.
Why doesn't the rogue get heavy armor, martial weapons, or the like? Why doesn't the wizard get heavy armor? That is why the fighter doesn't get bonus skills. 



So, no real reason other than the stereotype that a fighter or barbarian must be an uneducated lout.

Not a valid reason.


Here's something, every single 'Fighter' in fantasy literature or other media is a serious cut above humanity.  They tend to be faster, tougher, stronger and more cunning than anyone else around them.  And, unlike the other classes, has to face Death in the face every single time they have to fight.  Every other class in D&D has a coping mechanism (Faith, Magic, Stealth, Rage, 'Perfection'), but not the Fighter.  He gets to deal with it personally.

Not to mention that a lot of them are also resistent to illusions and domination effects. 
Why doesn't the rogue get heavy armor, martial weapons, or the like? Why doesn't the wizard get heavy armor? That is why the fighter doesn't get bonus skills. 



So, no real reason other than the stereotype that a fighter or barbarian must be an uneducated lout.

Not a valid reason.




You can't have everything. You don't get to have the most hit points, the best armor, the best weapons, and expect to have as many skills as everyone else as well. In order to gain their bonus skills, bonus feat, and skill mastery rogues have to give up heavy armor, most martial weapons, and they use the same HP progression as a wizard. It is less about stereotypes and more about the fact that no class gets to have everything. As fighters and barbarians get more features when it comes to boosting their abilities in combat, they get fewer features when it comes to abilities outside of combat. Though, barbarians do get a number of features that help them out of combat too (they just don't get those features in the form of bonus skills).


And, getting fewer trained skills doesn't make you an uneducated lout. You can pick knowledge skills as your trained skills. You can even pick high Int as one of your stats for your fighter if you so choose. Meanwhile, a rogue can pick 8 skills that all have almost nothing to do with what we understand as education (and have a dirt low Int to boot). The relationship between your character, their intelligence, and their education is a little more complex than merely being determined by how many skills they get to train. 




Why doesn't the rogue get heavy armor, martial weapons, or the like? Why doesn't the wizard get heavy armor? That is why the fighter doesn't get bonus skills. 



So, no real reason other than the stereotype that a fighter or barbarian must be an uneducated lout.

Not a valid reason.




You can't have everything. You don't get to have the most hit points, the best armor, the best weapons, and expect to have as many skills as everyone else as well. In order to gain their bonus skills, bonus feat, and skill mastery rogues have to give up heavy armor, most martial weapons, and they use the same HP progression as a wizard. It is less about stereotypes and more about the fact that no class gets to have everything. As fighters and barbarians get more features when it comes to boosting their abilities in combat, they get fewer features when it comes to abilities outside of combat. Though, barbarians do get a number of features that help them out of combat too (they just don't get those features in the form of bonus skills).


And, getting fewer trained skills doesn't make you an uneducated lout. You can pick knowledge skills as your trained skills. You can even pick high Int as one of your stats for your fighter if you so choose. Meanwhile, a rogue can pick 8 skills that all have almost nothing to do with what we understand as education (and have a dirt low Int to boot). The relationship between your character, their intelligence, and their education is a little more complex than merely being determined by how many skills they get to train. 







They don't 'have everything'.



They don't have spells.

They don't have channel divinity.

They don't have skill tricks.

They don't  have ki.


They don't have rage.
  

and they don't have skils.


It  seems like maybe they could get that last one without being accused of wanting everything.

Carl   


 
They don't get to focus on one primary ability like a wizard or cleric that also effects the DC of spells, in addition to not getting attacks that require saving throws. And since AC has the strict bounds, who cares if you wear the best armor.  
The Fighters does not really get the best armour or weapons. They get the most choice certainly, but not the best if you take into account ability scores.

If we take take the Pre Gen martial characters and covert then all to Human to give a better basis of comparision. 

Then we get a
t Level 1

Barbarian = AC 17 (Scale + Shield) Damage (Longsword etc) 1d8 +4 + 1d6

Fighter = AC 17 (Chainmail + Shield) Damage (Longsword etc) 1d8 +4 +1d6

Monk = AC 16 (None) Damage (Quarterstaff) 1d8+4 +1d6  (or could use hands for 1d6 + superior Flurry of Blows). Can have AC 17 if two weapon defense

Rogue = AC 16 (Leather + dagger) Damage (Rapier) 1d8 +4 + 1d6. Could have Shield if an Assassin, or Artful Dodger if Rake giving a superior effective AC if playing a more martial Rogue.

At Level 20

Barbarian = AC 19 (Fur booties + Shield) Damage (Longsword etc) 1d8 +5 +20 + 6d6

Fighter = AC 19 (Plate + Shield) Damage (Longsword etc) 1d8 +5 +20+ 6d6

Monk = AC 20 (None) Damage (Quarterstaff) 1d8+5+20 +6d6  (or could use hands for 1d6 + superior Flurry of Blows). Can have AC 21 if two weapon defense

Rogue = AC 19 (Mithril shirt + dagger) Damage (Rapier) 1d8 +5+20 + 1d6. Could have Shield if an Assassin, or Artful Dodger if a Rake giving a superior effective AC if playing a more martial Rogue.

* Note these are the standard character that designers assume. Also the default array is less benefical than rolling to both the Barbarian and Monk as they gain more benefits for higher statistics (and the 4d6 method generates higher stats on average).


Therefore, it can be seen that what Fighters have is simply more choice in how to describe why they have a AC of 17 and deal D8 damage at 1st level etc. This is not really a meaningful advantage in game baance terms. 

Of course making one choice means they are penalized on iniative, range of  ranged attack, 15 saves, most suggested skill checks, movement rate, sneak etc. 

They don't get to focus on one primary ability like a wizard or cleric that also effects the DC of spells, in addition to not getting attacks that require saving throws. And since AC has the strict bounds, who cares if you wear the best armor.  



And 'the best armor' is,  in most cases (except for wizards and a couple of cleric builids) only one or two points of AC.


If they had armor that was three or four points better - that argument might mean more. 


Carl     
Basically the fighter went from being the best warrior to being the baseline when everyone grabbed his MDD and MDB. Now all he's got is one or two maneuvers that the others don't get, a largely meh armor prof, and combat surge, arguably the worst daily ability in the game.

You know what the fighter needs? An extra reaction, or maybe he recharges his MDD at the end of his turn so that when he reacts he can use maneuvers/damage dice. 

They don't have spells.



But they do have maneuvers, which exist in the same design space. 

They don't have channel divinity.



But they do have a special class ability granted at first level, specifically parry, which exists in a similar design space. 

They don't have skill tricks.



But they do have maneuvers, which exist in the same design space. 

They don't  have ki.



But they are not forced to use a very limited selection of arms and armor, have better hit points, get parry, and monks are a little overpowered right now.  

They don't have rage.



But they do get maneuvers, which barbarians don't.
  

...and they don't have skils.



Nor should they. If you start giving fighters skills then I fail to understand why we don't give rogues d10 hit dice and all weapons. Rogues and fighters have the same MDD/MDB and BAB. Rogues and fighters gain skill tricks/maneuvers at the same rate. Rogues and fighters each get one special power at first level (parry vs. scheme). But fighters get better weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, and a hit die that is larger than what a rogue gets by two steps (d10 vs. d6). Rogues, in return, get 4 bonus skills, skill mastery, and a free feat. I am ok with that balance. That seems like a fair give and take. 
Basically the fighter went from being the best warrior to being the baseline when everyone grabbed his MDD and MDB. Now all he's got is one or two maneuvers that the others don't get, a largely meh armor prof, and combat surge, arguably the worst daily ability in the game.

You know what the fighter needs? An extra reaction, or maybe he recharges his MDD at the end of his turn so that when he reacts he can use maneuvers/damage dice. 



Um, the fighter does get all of his MDD and MDB on a reaction. Your MDD and MDB recharge every turn, not round. That means that you have full use of all MDD and MDB on a reaction, and Mike Mearls has confirmed that via twitter. I would be fine with fighters getting one extra reaction per round. That seems thematic.

You know what the fighter needs? An extra reaction  


 
Definitely... oh most definitely ...
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Compared to the rogue the fighter has +2 HP per level, about the same combat potential, and has about 35% of the out of combat capability.

It doesn't really seem like a fair trade.