Unadvisedgoose
First Post
You can play one, but not effectively. Because the D&D rules favor the stand-in-place in your armor fighters.
I completely disagree. Your position is that only one type of fighter can be an effective fighter. There's no reason for that to be true.
I think you're missing the point. Your answer to my point that the swashbuckler trope has been consistently neglected by D&D over the years; either absent, or poorly implemented, is that D&D has a trope of fighters being heavily armored to be successful.
Well, yes. Exactly my point. Thank you for the completely circular discussion.
There are few things more irritating than pointing out a consistent problem with D&D rules (another one would be lack of good chase rules, but that's neither here nor there) just to have someone tell me that clearly I need to be playing some other game then, because D&D doesn't address my problem.
No kidding. That's why I'm expressing the problem. And the notion that the only solution is "bloat" is simply not true.
Clearly MMdoesV.
It probably seems like I'm being confrontational at this point but I promise I'm just curious. What about the fighter's features seems to heavily suggest using heavy armor? As far as I can tell, there aren't any features that actually have anything to do with the type of armor you're wearing. And the vast majority don't even imply you must be in melee. Am I missing something?