Fighters -must- wear heavy armor

[GoodKingJayIII]

In 3.5e not getting into the best suit of armor you could afford would mean you were subpar, usually.

I would prefer that the classes be a little more focused. If fighters are assumed to want the best armour they can get and you want a mobile fighter type, then we need a new class for that. Or a feat/power combo that would allow it. For me fighters always want amour and usually a shield, it is only the oddballs that don't.

Again, this is a personal preference. I like that this is spelt out in the class.

You summed up my feelings on the matter. In a class-based system, we don't need to muddy class definitions and niches. A player that wants a lightly armored warrior may be more interested in the rogue, ranger, or some combination with a splash of fighter multiclass.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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".

I think my edits below might be a little more accurate:

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

 

[Mallus]

I think my edits below might be a little more accurate:

Yes they are. Thanks.

 

[Dausuul]

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."

Ranger and Paladin weren't Fighter sub-classes in 2E. They, along with Fighter, were Warrior sub-classes.

Barbarian wasn't even in the 2E Player's Handbook, though I'm sure there was a barbarian kit in some splatbook or other.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Ranger and Paladin weren't Fighter sub-classes in 2E. They, along with Fighter, were Warrior sub-classes.

Barbarian wasn't even in the 2E Player's Handbook, though I'm sure there was a barbarian kit in some splatbook or other.

You are correct about 2E. However, Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin were introduced as fighter subclasses in 1E.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The concern I have with saying that it's ok for fighters to be heavy armored or bust and you can just play a rogue or ranger if you want light armor is the news about fighter weapon skills. The implication of that was that if you want to do cool things with a weapon, as opposed to just hitting things with it, you want to be a fighter. But doing interesting things with your weapon as opposed to just hitting things is what I would want a swashbuckler to do. So there is a potential concern there.

If the access to specialized weapon abilities can be spread around the other classes, that's one thing, but these two schticks (one exclusive) to the same class seem weird to me.

 

[pawsplay]

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. One of the scariest things I've even seen in one of my games was a Fighter 6/Scout 2 armed with two dwarven waraxes. With Spring Attack, he practically didn't need AC in the first place. At 8th level, he was still wearing studded leather +2.

 

[kennew142]

The concern I have with saying that it's ok for fighters to be heavy armored or bust and you can just play a rogue or ranger if you want light armor is the news about fighter weapon skills. The implication of that was that if you want to do cool things with a weapon, as opposed to just hitting things with it, you want to be a fighter. But doing interesting things with your weapon as opposed to just hitting things is what I would want a swashbuckler to do. So there is a potential concern there.

If the access to specialized weapon abilities can be spread around the other classes, that's one thing, but these two schticks (one exclusive) to the same class seem weird to me.

I believe that the class training feats are designed to handle this situation (i.e. allowing classes to pick up each other's the talents/powers). It would also seem likely that all martial strikers will have access to talents/powers that let them do cool things with their weapons.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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. One of the scariest things I've even seen in one of my games was a Fighter 6/Scout 2 armed with two dwarven waraxes. With Spring Attack, he practically didn't need AC in the first place. At 8th level, he was still wearing studded leather +2.

My brother went for halfling fighter/master thrower. With dex 20 the best armor he could wear was leather. He also did the hiding, sneaking and climbing things... ^^

Is his armor subpar? only a little bit. Is he doing damage? yes. Is he a typical fighter? no.
Will that be possible in 4e? i really think so. I would imagine him to be a fighter with ranger training.

 

[Banshee16]

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

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.

I don't mind this *unless* there is no statistical benefit to being able to dodge, weave etc. I understand that plate armour isn't as debilitating as some stories (and older editions of the game) suggest.....but I still think someone dressed in clothes is going to move faster and be more nimble than someone in plate.

And if you're more nimble, there should be some kind of mechanical way to address the fact that, yes, you can be hit more easily....*if you're standing where the guy was aiming at when he started his attack". Fencers move very quickly, and footwork and positioning, and not being where the attack ends when it actually gets there are more important than blocking.

Banshee