Fighters -must- wear heavy armor

[sinecure]

Haven't fighters been better in heavier armors since the beginning of D&D? I don't see this as a problem. It's practically a tradition. Especially if adding back in d20's max stack system works just as well.

By max stack I mean the armor /shield bonuses + dexterity bonus maximums to AC.

 

[pawsplay]

Isn't Fighters in heavy armor something that's been indicative of D&D since it began? I don't see this as a problem. Especially if adding back in d20's max stack system works just as well.

By max stack I mean the armor /shield bonuses + dexterity bonus maximums to AC.

Actually, under Basic D&D you could expect to spend a lot of time in chain armor. "Plate mail" was a nice idea, but it was expensive to buy and hard to find in magical form. And magical "full plate?" Forget about it. Plus, Str scores tended to be modest, and encumbrace can do you in.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I think that's how a lightly armored character should work. As I understand it, the point of a fighter is to draw attacks that are directed towards other characters. In short, he goes out of his way to not avoid attacks.

And that is why it assumes he has heavy armor/high AC.

Yeah, I can see that from the 4E point of view with its focus on roles.

Myself, I am used to 2E's approach, where the fighter class is just a set of abilities that can be used to model dozens of archetypes. "The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king..." The fighter was also the best class to use for an archer because of weapon specialization's effect on ROF. Then there were the kits that fighters could take: swashbuckler, gladiator, samurai, barbarian, and many more. While I certainly understood that some types of fighters would be in the thick of things trying to draw attacks, others would work more at avoiding attacks.

Starting in BECMI, I probably did have a pretty limited view of what the fighter class was. Then 2E showed me "The fighter class is ALL of these things, not just the tank." 3E kept that going, with its very flexible multiclassing system and the benefits to playing a mobile, tactical fighter.

 

[Primal]

Where's the funny? What if someone liked Rangers with spells? Now he has to houserule that.
The new Ranger isn't any more flexible than the old...

And why is bad to play a Rogue or Ranger if you want to play a lightly armored character? The Rogue & Ranger class obviously excel at fighting lightly armored - why need a third class that can do that, too
Or do you just think that any one that is fighting with a melee weapon should be a Fighter, regardless of the rest of his equipment?

I think he might refer to being able to create a lightly-armored melee combatant with better BAB and better access to Feats/Weapon Tricks/Combat Talents. If you can build a Rogue who has all the "Fighter Goodness" (including the same BAB) then I think most fans of the Dex-based fighters will be satisfied.

It's also important to consider that Rogue might have Class Abilities that do not fit your own concept of a light-armored melee combatant, so it's understandable if some people think the class actually matters.

 

[Irda Ranger]

And if you want to play a fighting guy without the other baggage of a rogue or ranger and still don't want heavy armor? Say you want to be strength focused rather than dex focused, for example. ... The 4e response seems to be 'go do something biologically impossible to yourself'.

More like "Go play GURPS."

Look, there are limits to how flexible a class can be before it becomes a classless, point-buy system disguised as a class. They're supposed to be archetypes. The Fighter class is the heavy armor, toe to toe, "Come get some!" Archetype. You can't dilute that without making the whole class system pointless.

And relax, man. They're presenting the most popular Archetypes in the PHB1, but you know that eventually 4E will have just as much splat at 3E did. It's inevitable. There'll be dozens more base classes than anyone could ever possibly need by the time 5E comes around and gives you a new reason to get all self righteous.

The lightly armored fighter who uses a weapon in one hand and nothing in the other, while functioning as a defender, is a strong, popular archetype. If its not possible out of the box, popular opinion will demand it.

That's just how it is, like it or not.

I'm not sure that "a weapon in one hand, and no armor or shield to speak of" really combines well with "while functioning as a defender." I mean, "realistically" of course. From a gamist point of view you can do anything you want; but I can't help but think that if I've got a rapier and some dude with chainmail, a broadsword and a large roundshield is bearing down on me, that I've got a chance in hell (assuming equal skill at arms, of course). My best bet is to use my mobility to get the heck out of the way and never, ever let him close with me in a "toe to toe" manner.

Personally I think that people are going to see the Rogue and realize that with the proper Feat/Talent choices and/or multi-class dabbling that it meets all reasonable Swashbuckling needs.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Now let's not kid ourselves. Fighters (pure Fighters) that were Dexterity-based were completely ineffective in 3.x. Their damage levels were very non-threatening. Most of your Spring Attack-type light Fighters had levels in another class, such as Rogue, Scout or Duelist.

You HAD to multiclass to be an effective light-armored warrior in 3.x. At worst, 4e will be no different.

But wait! 4e has Class Training feats, which will let you pick up some of a class' abilities without actually multiclassing, and you don't lose a step in your single class, should you wish to stay so.

And since characters are probably going to get a lot more feats in 4e, what this means is that pure Fighters who want to be light-armored warriors can take some Rogue Training or Ranger Training feats.

Also keep in mind that Fighters have all the weapon-based tricks in their power lists, so you can bet he'll be able to do some things with a rapier that a pure Rogue or Ranger won't do (unless conversely THOSE classes take Fighter training feats).

So, in conclusion:

3e light "fighters": Fighter/Rogues, Fighter/Scouts, Swashbucklers (again, different class), builds revolving around the Duelist prestige class.

4e light "fighters": Fighters taking Rogue or Ranger Training Feats, or conversely, Rogues and Rangers who take Fighter Training feats.

 

[Cadfan]

And since characters are probably going to get a lot more feats in 4e, what this means is that pure Fighters who want to be light-armored warriors can take some Rogue Training or Ranger Training feats.

I hope, desperately, that 4e avoids the trap that doomed 3e duelist types, the trap you describe right here- forcing swashbucklers and duelists to pay for the right to be suboptimal.

"Don't worry! You can play a duelist in 3e! Just play a fighter, wear light armor, put ability score points in dexterity, and then use Weapon Finesse!"

"But those ability score points have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere probably going to be strength. Doesn't that mean that I'm giving up strength bonus damage and attack bonus in order to have the same armor class that a regular fighter gets for the cost of good armor? And then on top of that, I'm spending a feat to get the attack bonus back, but not the damage? So in the end, I've got the same AC, the same attack bonus, lower bonus damage, a smaller weapon, and one fewer feat?"

"...Yes."

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Possibly. I just tossed them in at the end because I knew a significant number of people were enthralled by the Movie of Garbage. There are pretty good odds that someone wants to play out a scene from 300, which involved, uh, scanty armour.

If it's a setting conceit, as it was in 300, then the DM can add something in (like, say, an AC modifier) so you can have loincloth-wearing fighters holding the line and still be able to fulfill their party role.

Brad

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I have a bit of trouble deciding how I feel about this.

One thing that strikes me is that it seems a bit out of place with the purported Points-Of-Light notion. In a real world context, heavy armor is rare and exceedingly expensive- the noblemen could afford it and wear it, the rank and file couldn't. I wouldn't think a POL setting- where civilization is clustered in small groups, and (presumably) trade and commerce would be similarly confined- that things would be any different.

Of course, this is fantasy, so I suppose trying to make RW comparisons is kind of silly.

(*cough* Halflings too weak for their size in the RW *cough*)

Sorry, had to get that out. I'm done.

 

[Lackhand]

PCs are rockstars. I mean, they have glowing swords and stuff. So, yeah -- I'd say that they count as among the few that have access to heavy armor

It's also possible that there are a few more fantastic types of heavyish armor -- hides, mostly -- which fill the same slot, but leave ferrous armors as still desirable.

But, yeah, I agree with your point: Armor should be rare. So should Fighters be.