Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5681695" data-attributes="member: 22779">[MENTION=50895]gamerprinter[/MENTION] - just a thought about building the light armored fighter.  Why fighter?  Why did you pick that specific class? At a guess, I'd say that it had a lot to do with the full BAB.  Makes sense.  You want a guy who's kicking the crap out of things, so, missing all the time isn't going to get that done.Thing is, when building in 4e, that particular criteria no longer exists.  Pre-4e, the fighters hit more often than everyone else (and by fighter's, I'm talking about anything with a full BAB).  In 4e, everyone has the same BAB.  There's no distinction made with class.  So, one of the main criteria for choosing that particular class in 3e no longer exists in 4e.  You still pick a class that best fits the concept, but, now, you're no longer limited to a single tree of classes because of BAB (whether that be 3e BAB, or earlier edition THAC0).  When someone looks at your concept and suggests something that's not a fighter, it's not that fighter's are a particularly bad fit for your concept.  It's that 4e has narrower class archetypes, but, quite a lot more classes.  Your concept sounds like a striker.  In 4e, you'd look at Martial strikers (in the PHB, that would be Ranger or Rogue, Essentials, I dunno) and go from there.  A highly mobile guy with little or not armor that hits a lot and kicks ass?Rogue.  All the way.  And, unlike 3e rogues, Rogues don't come with a lot of "Thief" baggage like being the only one who can find/remove traps and that sort of thing.  Your specific concept would be pretty easy to make in 4e.  It just has different names than in 3e because the organization is different.But, at the end of the day, it wouldn't play out hugely different.  Probably a lot more mobile in 4e since 4e focuses on in combat movement to a much larger degree.  But, not terribly different in execution.</blockquote>

Verification