Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 4048405" data-attributes="member: 15999">Here's the quote: "The one stumbling block is that the game expects fighters to wear heavy armor, but you could get around that by building a simple house rule (a fighter in light armor gets a flat bonus to AC to make up the gap)."How is that ANY harder to do in BECMI, 1E, 2E, or 3E?  In any D&D game, if you want to say "fighters in light armor are also good," you can just give them a flat AC bonus in lighter armor.  Simple.  Easy.  In fact, 2E did have this with the Swashbuckler kit.  So I don't see "You can house-rule a flat bonus" as some visionary innovation.In 3E, you could have easily invented a feat "light armor training" that gives +1 or +2 AC in light armor.  What 3E did instead was to offer advantages for the lightly armored fighter such as Spring Attack, faster movement, and Tumble (yes, even as a cross-class skill).  You could build a fighter who, while not as able to withstand direct attacks, was very good at reducing the number of attacks he would take.  Which, IMO, is how a lightly-armored fighter should work.Now, I concede that mithral fullplate was a colossal mistake, and was compounded by 3E's horrendous advice of "If it's under the town's price limit, you should be able to buy it."  Still, everything in the DMG is included in the campaign at the DM's discretion, so it was a mistake easily fixed.</blockquote>