Fighters -must- wear heavy armor

[fnwc]

Were they really completely ineffective? The rapier-wielder, maybe. But it looked to me like 3.5's system would have allowed the Spring-Attack polearm-using fighter to be very effective and a great deal of fun to play. Moving around, getting AOOs, trading attacks 2-for-1, doing almost as much damage per hit as the tank, and being mobile enough to get to the enemy caster or help out an ally when needed.

I wouldn't call light fighters ineffective, but they usually fulfill a role that isn't that of a typical heavy fighter. In my experience, light fighters can often do some interesting things and generally have better mobility. However, they sacrifice the ability to tank well and deal a large amount of damage comparable to a heavy armor fighter.

I think one of the best damaging light fighter builds involves the Dervish PrC.

There's nothing wrong with light(ly armored) fighters; they're different and play differently than armored fighters, but they fulfill a different role. The problem is that if you only have a single fighter in the group, often they have to play a heavy fighter in order to provide the tank that most parties need.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have a fair amount of experience with armored combat and I'm not sure I agree. I guy in a shirt can literally run circles around a guy in plate armor with a shield.

This is my point exaclty, though. He can make a good striker "run circles around him" but not a good defender.

Also, remember, I was talking equal skill level. If you assume that your halberdier isn't an idiot and is going to try to keep his distance, then you must assume that the sword & sheild guy is also not an idiot, and is going to bide his time for a good block & lunge. They both have their advantages & disadvantages it's true, but that's what I meant by the difference in role.

Fitz

 

[Cadfan]

A number of people on this thread seem to be complaining that you can't make a lightly armoured, smaller weaponed. nothing-in-the-off hand fighter as good or better than a heavy armoured, large weaponed, heavy shielded fighter, at the same level of skill.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO.

A "light" fighter quite simply needs to be MORE SKILLED at what he does to defeat a "heavy" fighter. (IE higher level) or he needs to be very lucky (IE roll way better) or he needs to use his superior mobility to RUN AWAY (higher movement rate.)

That isn't to say that they can't be worthwhile characters, they just have a different shtick (role) and can't equally replace a heavy fighter in its niche (defender), at least not optimally.

This is coming from someone with 10 years experience in a light weapon martial art. (I also LOVE swashbuckling fighter-rogue characters.)

Fitz

No one expects the guy without the armor using the one handed weapon to be equal to teh armored guy with the two handed wepaon when it comes to standing in one spot and trading bone shattering blows. Even looking at it purely from a gamist perspective, the fact that the swashbuckler archetype involves improved mobility, agility, and social skills requires that there be some trade off.

But in 3e, until Tome of Battle, lightly armored fighters were really, really, really horrible. The game made them pay for the right to use crappy choices, making those choices doubly crappy. I'd like to not go backwards on this issue.

We'll find out what's available. I'll probably like what I'm given- I'll probably love the rogue, I'll probably love the ranger. But look at what those archetypes offer. The rogue is sneaky and backstabby. The ranger fights with two weapons. Yes, those are lightly armored melee characters, but they STILL leave behind the non sneaky, one weaponed archetype.

If a sort of roguish acrobat/fighter that doesn't club people from behind is possible, it may turn out that a separate swashbuckler class is unnecessary. But it may have to be a significant departure from the high damage / glass jaw ideal that I've come to expect from the rogue. At this point its all speculation, but I'd hate to lose a character archetype I waited for for so long.

 

[Darth Cyric]

But it looked to me like 3.5's system would have allowed the Spring-Attack polearm-using fighter to be very effective and a great deal of fun to play.

That's not a light fighter, though. You only need a 13 DEX for Spring Attack. The rest goes into STR. You can have a heavily-armored Spring Attacker, or at worst medium armor.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No one expects the guy without the armor using the one handed weapon to be equal to teh armored guy with the two handed wepaon when it comes to standing in one spot and trading bone shattering blows.

That is what people are asking for if they want a swashbuckling FIGHTER DEFENDER. (Of course, a parry-monkey could pull that off, but it would either require a new class, which as far as we know is not in the FIRST PHB, but could very well be on its way, OR a unique talent tree for the fighter, which could easily be in the martial book, so what's everyone worried about?)

In other words - why would you assume that the designers don't want a Swashbuckler? You've got to bet that if WE want to play one (and I've already stated: It's MY FAVORITE ARCHETYPE TOO.) then the designers probably KNOW that, (and some of them likely love to play one too) and it's on it's way, one way or the other.

So worrying that the Fighter is EXPECTED (but not REQUIRED) to wear heavy armour equates to there being NO swash-buckly options seems a bit premature.

Fitz

 

[Brother MacLaren]

That's not a light fighter, though. You only need a 13 DEX for Spring Attack. The rest goes into STR. You can have a heavily-armored Spring Attacker, or at worst medium armor.

The Dex is nice for AOOs if you have the spring-attacking polearm-fighter. And if you're wearing armor light enough for Spring Attack, you really want a high Dex, right?

As to Medium vs. Light armor... I've found base move to be extremely important in the games I've played. That extra 10' from wearing light armor becomes an extra 20' when Hasted, and an extra 40' if you need to charge or do a double move. MarauderX's game, which I've played to 20th level, does feature some stand-still-and-full-attack sequences, but also a great deal of movement. Battles typically involve huge rooms (150' square or larger), 5-6 PCs, and 10-12 enemies including multiple casters spread out around the room. A fighter using a reach weapon and AOOs will really benefit from a higher movement rate, to position himself to control the battlefield as the enemies move around.

 

[Gloombunny]

I've seen plenty of 3.5 fighters that went with lighter defenses, concentrated on mobility, and focused on damage dealing. Just as an example, having a Dex of 18 and wearing simply bracers or light armor causes only the smallest lag in AC while freeing up thousands of gp for weapons or other defenses.

Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense. Enhancement bonuses cost the same whether they're on a chain shirt or full plate, and bracers cost the same as an equivalent enhancement bonus, just without the armor. A +2 chain shirt is about three times the cost of ordinary full plate and still provides less AC. You only save money by wearing lighter armor if it's not magical at all, and then your AC lag is going to be rather more than "smallest".

 

[Remathilis]

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.

QFT.

The big problem with lightly-armored dex fighters is the pure feat and resource drain that came with it. While Mr. Nimble is investing in weapon finesse, dodge and mobility, and dumbing good gold after bad on bracers, amulets and rings, Tank the Crusher has full plate, power attack, and cleave on tap and ready to go.

Of course, Mr. Nimble would be doing fine if there wasn't a semi-viable alternative: the rogue. Ah, how we forget the rogue. Sure, his hp and bab are weaker, but his sneak attack deals Sooo much more damage than any light-armor fighter build can. He's great at hit-n-runs, twf, and archery (depending on your mood) and did I mention he has uncanny dodge, evasion, and (the god of all nimble-dodge atks) defensive roll? Oh, and he has tumble to avoid those pesky AoOs.

In all honesty, the nimble fighter loses on two fronts: he's not as good a damage dealer as a heavy-armored fighter or a lightly-armored rogue. If your losing on two fronts, throw in the towel and go with a winner...

 

[Incenjucar]

You could always just give fighters a "dodge" ability which is negated by physical armor.

That way you can choose whether to be strong against touch attacks or defense when immobile, and how much of either, no further modifications required.

Just gotta make sure they don't have any loopholes that allow them to get both at once.

 

[Voss]

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.

I agree, actually. In my own setting, banded and splint armors are going to be the limit (maybe some 'combined armors', the way the Conan RPG did them). And they are going to be rare (along with the breastplate) and hard to find outside of certain cultures (dwarves, the two empires, and maybe, oddly, the hobgoblins). Most of the cultures barely have towns. Chain is really the limit of their capability.