Fighters -must- wear heavy armor

[FireLance]

Which is somewhat ironic. In 3e, classes were supposed to be a grab-bag of abilities, that you mixed and matched in order to make the character build you want. In 4e, classes are much more defining, so if the ranger class isn't what you want now, you have a bigger case for raising a stink about it.

Actually, I would say that the multiclassing rules in 3e discouraged taking too many classes. I suspect that most base classes were designed around the idea that characters were not expected to have more than one or two main ones, and thus needed to have a grab bag of abilities to portray all the variants on the theme. If you wanted to have a ranger with spellcasting ability, the spellcasting ability had to be built into the ranger class or a related prestige class.

If characters in 4e can multiclass more easily, then if what you want for your character isn't provided by the ranger class, you can take a feat or a level in another class that provides what you want. In 4e, the answer to "my character wants this ability" is not "this ability should be part of my character's main class" but "my character takes a level in a class that grants him this ability".

 

[Irda Ranger]

I didn't overlook it. I just recognized it as the non-change that it is. Fighters have been expected to wear heavy armor since 1974.

QFT. If you don't want to be the guy in the heavy armor, up front, holding the line - don't play a Figther. That's what they do. That's what they're best at.

We know that the Rogue is now a dex-based Martial-powered class that can hold it's own in combat (one playtest report explained that the Rogue even stepped into the Defender role long enough to win the fight when the Fighter went down for the count). I'm thinking that if you want to play the swashbuckler or ninja guy, play a Rogue. Likewise, if you want to do the ol' Legolas skit, play a Ranger.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Fighters have been expected to wear heavy armor since 1974.

QFT.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Fighters have been expected to wear heavy armor since 1974.

Except for barbarians and rangers (which were fighter sub-classes in 1E), many of the 2E kits, fighter/wizards, fighter/thieves, and 3E fighters with Spring Attack. I think earlier editions gave a penalty to longbow use in heavy armor, not sure there.

D&D has generally tried to support the lightly-armored fighter archetype, although I admit that my favorite system (BECMI) falls short here. 3E made light armor a very competitive option (that extra 10' of movement is huge).

 

[Wolfspider]

Or, depending on perspective, more variants and options are provided with the system.

A system that expects fighters to wear heavy armor?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Rangers in 1e could wear any armor. I remember an old White Dwarf characterising the class as 'a tank that can track'. Barbarians, fighter/wizards and fighter/thieves aren't fighters.

D&D supported the lightly armored 'fighter' archetype with classes other than the fighter such as thief/rogue, swashbuckler, duelist PrC, etc.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t know if it was already mentioned, but i think the fighter is better in heavy armor because of the trait mentioned in R&C which allows a fighter to retain some of his DEX bonus if he wears heavy armor.

In 3.5 this could translate to:
If a fighter wears heavy armor, he may add +2 to his max dex modifier.

Now, the best choice for a Fighter would be a full plate (AC wise)

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Barbarians, fighter/wizards and fighter/thieves aren't fighters.

When the barbarian was a fighter sub-class, that made it a fighter. I'd read that as "Here's one particular type of fighter, called the barbarian." Multiclass characters that include "fighter" as one class are fighters in my view. They're ALSO something else, but they don't stop being fighters (think of it as being a double major in college).

D&D supported the lightly armored 'fighter' archetype with classes other than the fighter such as thief/rogue, swashbuckler, duelist PrC, etc.

The 2E swashbuckler was a kit, and in fact I played one using the fighter class as the base. Swashbuckler bonus of +2 AC in light armor, single-weapon style specialization taken twice for another +2 AC when using just a sabre. So that character was "swashbuckler" as one possible build of "fighter."

I have never been a fan of adding new base classes when existing classes would suffice, and I always maintained that 3.5 was just fine for making a swashbuckler with X levels of Ftr and maybe 2 levels of Rog -- but, still, primarily fighter. The lightly-armored polearm-fighter was also a neat build even with just the core rules; use Spring Attack and AOOs to get 2-for-1 attacks against an opponent.

 

[Raduin711]

I am thinking in 4th, the penalty for wearing armor is lessened, if there is any penalty at all. Considering what they have said about wizards and armor, and now what they have said about fighters, I think the issue isn't balancing Dex with your Armor, it is getting that heavy armor proficiency in the first place.

 

[Mallus]

So if I want to create a heavily-armored fighter in 4e, I take levels of "fighter" and if I want to create a lightly-armored fighter, I take levels of "rogue" or "ranger".

Classes are ability packages. Got it. Seems easy enough...