Fighters -must- wear heavy armor

[Noinarap]

While everyone is happy about spell less ranger, a other information from Mearls gets overlooked.
Fighters are expected to wear heavy armor.

Apart from the thematical restriction it also says a bit about how armor will be balanced in 4E (no more Dex - AC balance like in 3E).

Right, you could easily go armorless and ditch the full plate + heavy shield combo by having a dex of 30. The full plate + shield combo was affordable by 3rd level, by the way. I'm not sure what it takes to get a dex of 30. More than 3rd level though.

A high-level 3e fighter with dex 16, mithral full plate +2 and a heavy shield +2 has an AC of 27. To do this unarmored requires a dex of 44.

A lightly armored, shieldless fighter in a mithril breastplate +2 would need a dex of 30 to achieve AC 27. Well, he would need that if his max dex bonus wasn't +5, making a dex higher than 20 useless. He could of course get a shield, but that may not fit the theme you want.

At this point, I'm not sure what dex-AC balance you are referencing.

 

[Umbran]

Without seeing how the system works we cannot comment really. There maybe still ways to build a lightly armoured fighter that is worth a damn, but it wont be the norm. Again, unless there is a significant preview article we will not know until release.

More's the question - is there a need to build a lightly armored fighter? If the game has sufficient ways to build a lightly armored combatant to fill people's desire for the cool swashbuckly roles, the lightly-armored fighter becomes largely a moot point.

 

[Lanefan]

More's the question - is there a need to build a lightly armored fighter? If the game has sufficient ways to build a lightly armored combatant to fill people's desire for the cool swashbuckly roles, the lightly-armored fighter becomes largely a moot point.

The one light-fighter type that'll get hosed here is the specialist archer, if Dex. doesn't help AC any more.

Lanefan

 

[Noinarap]

The one light-fighter type that'll get hosed here is the specialist archer, if Dex. doesn't help AC any more.

Lanefan

Why wouldn't dex help AC? All Mearls told us was that fighters were assumed to have heavy armor. See my earlier post for why this is not new. Dex can do what it has always done and still not be enough to make up for no armor.

The "specialist archer" is probably the ranger, btw.

 

[Spatula]

In 3.5 it was not easy to houserule away a fighter's heavy armor. Now it is. That's an improvement.

Eh what? Heavy armor certainly isn't required (of anyone) in 3e. Armor is the best AC boost for the buck, especially at low levels, but I just finished off a campaign that went from 1st to 19th level, and no one wore anything heavier than a chain shirt. Ever. Unless you boost AC to ridiculous levels (40+) it's almost meaningless in high-level play, and other forms of avoiding or absorbing damage become more important.

That doesn't really mean anything. You can houserule away everything.

True, but some tasks are easier than others. Mearls' comment says to me that the ever-present "math" of 4e expects the "tank" to have a high armor class, and expects that to come from wearing heavy armor. If you wanted a game where heavy armor didn't exist (a jungle or desert campaign), you can tack the difference onto the fighter's AC, for example, and that's a quick and easy fix. Or just ramp up the AC values of those armors that do exist to match those of heavy armor in the default game.

He does imply that people with light armor will have less AC than people in heavy armor. In 3E this wasn't always teh case depending on the Dex.

The 3e Dex monkeys were only made possible by the magic item stacking abuse that 4e it trying to tone down. So I would guess that "light armor, high Dex"-based characters won't be able to compete on pure AC terms anymore, given the probable lack of extra AC from non-armor sources (+dex gloves, amulet of natural armor, etc.).

 

[vagabundo]

More's the question - is there a need to build a lightly armored fighter? If the game has sufficient ways to build a lightly armored combatant to fill people's desire for the cool swashbuckly roles, the lightly-armored fighter becomes largely a moot point.

I agree, unless there is some mechanical benefit and difference from other martial classes, why bother with a lightly armoured fighter. If that role is better served by other classes. I think the tighter focus on core concepts, for each class, will benefit 4e in the long run.

Although, to some people, the name of the class matters when they are creating the concept (not directed at you derran).

 

[Derren]

I agree, unless there is some mechanical benefit and difference from other martial classes, why bother with a lightly armoured fighter. If that role is better served by other classes. I think the tighter focus on core concepts, for each class, will benefit 4e in the long run.

Although, to some people, the name of the class matters when they are creating the concept (not directed at you derran).

Its the same as with the ranger. In 3E you could make a rogue/fighter multiclass and call him ranger if you wanted a nonmagical one but as you see on the reaction to Mearls nonmagical Ranger this was not enough.

So in 4E it looks that while nonmagical rangers can finally be rangers, every lightly armored fighter has to be a rogue.
And imo its quite funny that Mearls informs us that the ranger looses its magic theme but in the same posts also says that fighters are expected to wear heavy armor and that you should (have to?) houserule if you don't want them to.

 

[xechnao]

New fighter feat:

Not-heavy armored fighter feat (or pick a name that you may like better): when a fighter uses combat expertise, if lightly armored he may enjoy double his dexterity bonus to AC up to a maximum extra bonus of +10 due to this feat.

Prequisites: combat expertise, agile, armed*
*A fighter that does not carry a melee weapon that can parry and/or a buckler shield he may not use this feat.

 

[JahellTheBard]

You can house-rule anything, but giving a fighter in light armor the same ac as someone wearing heavy armor seems to me a stupid thing ... unbalancing at least ... if you want to play a light armor fighter, you must learn how to use your mobility to avoid attacks, and take your risk, not just cry for an house-rule free gift from your master, just because 'it is possible'.

Use of house-ruling is not easy for a master ... you must try to keep balance between all your players, otherwise someone will be unhappy ...

 

[Raduin711]

Perhaps there are light-armor defender classes coming down the pike. Perhaps the fighter class is simply designed for heavy armor.