From R&C: Fighters & Armor

[Voss]

Just think of it as a special form of Weapon Specialization, then.

Fighters have *always* gotten more out of a weapon than any other class.

Meh. Weapon specialization is garbage. But that wasn't what I was referring to, since I'm comfortable with warrior types being better with weapons than spellcasters.

No, I mean the completely arbitrary:
fighters are better with swords/axes/warhammers
rangers are better with bows
rogues are better with finesse weapons.
and we don't have a real reason why, but we split it up this way anyway.

That strikes me as just inherently goofy, since it seems to be tied into class powers.
And yes, you can blow a feat on class training, but that means you've just blown a feat (spent a resource) to do something someone else can just do. And that feat will either give you a power directly, in which case its probably a better choice than a normal feat. (Or you can choose an even better power that isn't actually item dependent) Or, you still have to spend another resource (power selection), to pick something that doesn't necessarily work well with your other powers, in which cases its largely worse than other feats.

Neither option fills me with joy.
Couple it with some roleplaying issues, like the idea that someone how wanders around the woods is *inherently better* with a bow than someone who trains with weapons all day, and I'm not terribly enthused by this particular muddle.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Couple it with some roleplaying issues, like the idea that someone how wanders around the woods is *inherently better* with a bow than someone who trains with weapons all day, and I'm not terribly enthused by this particular muddle.

You're looking for a classless system, then. D&D classes have a certain amount of fluff tied to them, some of which is locked in with thematic abilities. In 3rd edition's core books, you can't play a fast-moving character that isn't either a raging berserker or a mystic, unarmed martial artist. You can't find traps without also using dirty tricks and stealth in combat. Suck it up, it's a class-based system.

 

[captaincursor]

Is it the NAME that is tripping people up? They want to be a swashbuckler who is lightly armored and relies upon their dexterous nature and skillful guile, they just don't want to be known as a rogue? Because in 3ed rogues were not that archetype? If the ranger had a number of talent trees, one of them was archery, and one of them was woodsman, and you could build an awesome archer who would be completely lost in the woods because you didn't take any of the talents related to forestry would that suffice? Or would you reject it because it has the name "Ranger" and that carries too much baggage?

 

[Voss]

You're looking for a classless system, then. D&D classes have a certain amount of fluff tied to them, some of which is locked in with thematic abilities. In 3rd edition's core books, you can't play a fast-moving character that isn't either a raging berserker or a mystic, unarmed martial artist. You can't find traps without also using dirty tricks and stealth in combat. Suck it up, it's a class-based system.

No, I'm not. I've never seen a classless system that was, in my view, any good in any way at all.

This isn't a matter of fluff. This is the design team saying 'Fighters can't be awesome with bows, just because we said so. Neener, neener, neener!' Really, I'm not just being snide. They seem to have designed the fighter to be a master of weapons, but then went back and pulled certain weapons out, saying 'But not *these* weapons'. At least thats what having warhammer derived abilities, spear based abilities (and sword and axe) says to me. You get to the next weapon group (bows, or daggers), and suddenly its, oh, we didn't write those abilities for you, Mr. Fighter. Your mastery of weapons is limited to what we give you.

Same with trapfinding in 3e. It was tied to the rogue (at least to begin with), but there wasn't any fluff reason why it couldn't have been a feat, or, you know, as it is in other d20 based games, just part of the search skill. It was an arbitrary design decision.


@captaincursor- Nope. Frankly, we have no indication that the woodsman/archer thing is a separate 'tree'. It what few hints we've gotten suggest that its a woodsy guy who can select archery powers (or TWF powers). There hasn't been any indication that you can opt out of the rural tracking woodsy abilities. So its not the name. Its that these specific abilities (woodsman) are packaged with those specific abilities (good archery). And, because rangers have good archery abilities, fighters can't. Much like Wizards losing a lot of enchantment stuff so psions can have design space.

 

[kennew142]

Is it the NAME that is tripping people up? They want to be a swashbuckler who is lightly armored and relies upon their dexterous nature and skillful guile, they just don't want to be known as a rogue? Because in 3ed rogues were not that archetype? If the ranger had a number of talent trees, one of them was archery, and one of them was woodsman, and you could build an awesome archer who would be completely lost in the woods because you didn't take any of the talents related to forestry would that suffice? Or would you reject it because it has the name "Ranger" and that carries too much baggage?

I don't want to speak for other folks, but I would suspect that it is the latter. I believe one of the keys to D&D 4e is to decide the core concept of the character, the role, and then to find the appropriate class that best represents this concept. In many ways, it is the reverse of what we have been doing for the last 30 years.

I feel confident enough in the design team to believe that they will provide enough different talent trees to encompass each type of character, even if the player has to choose a different class than they originally thought of. My confidence isn't completely blind. SWSE and (to a lesser extent) D20 Modern has talent trees and they take the place of class abilities. I would be very surprised if all rangers are hard-wired to be nature boys, especially given the lack of a nature power source in 4e. I believe that they will instead put the range into ranger.

 

[Gloombunny]

I don't want to speak for other folks, but I would suspect that it is the latter. I believe one of the keys to D&D 4e is to decide the core concept of the character, the role, and then to find the appropriate class that best represents this concept. In many ways, it is the reverse of what we have been doing for the last 30 years.

It's exactly what I've always done... which is why I like 3e infinitely more than its predecessors, and am happily looking forward to 4e.

 

[Rechan]

Same with trapfinding in 3e. It was tied to the rogue (at least to begin with), but there wasn't any fluff reason why it couldn't have been a feat, or, you know, as it is in other d20 based games, just part of the search skill. It was an arbitrary design decision.

You do realize that trapfinding is being made into a feat for 4e, with rogues getting it for free, right? Just like rangers got Track for free in 3e, but anyone could take it as a feat?

We've been told you can make a martial wizard by taking feats to let you have fighter powers and wear armor and such.

And quite frankly, we have been told next to nothing about the rangers. They've been pretty dang stingy with anything there.

 

[kennew142]

This isn't a matter of fluff. This is the design team saying 'Fighters can't be awesome with bows, just because we said so. Neener, neener, neener!' Really, I'm not just being snide. They seem to have designed the fighter to be a master of weapons, but then went back and pulled certain weapons out, saying 'But not *these* weapons'. At least thats what having warhammer derived abilities, spear based abilities (and sword and axe) says to me. You get to the next weapon group (bows, or daggers), and suddenly its, oh, we didn't write those abilities for you, Mr. Fighter. Your mastery of weapons is limited to what we give you.

I think it is a matter of fluff. If rogues are defined as dextrous, swashbuckling type characters in 4e, then those sort of characters are best built as rogues. The sneak attack will almost certainly be a talent tree that you can take - or not - depending on the character you are playing.

If rangers (martial strikers) are the experts with bows, then any character who specializes in bows will be best built as rangers. The woodsy stuff will almost certainly be talent trees that you can take or not (see above).

Players shouldn't get upset in 4e just because they want to put fighter on their character sheet instead of ranger or rogue. This would be the same as a player in 3.x wanting to put wizard on their character sheet, but actually be a greatsword melee specialist.

The skills associated with rogues (especially tumbling and diplomacy) are more in line with a swashbuckler than the skills of a fighter. The skills of a ranger (especially perception and stealth) are more in line with a ranger than a fighter.

The current baggage (sneak attack and thievery for rogues and woodsy stuff for rangers) will most likely be talents. Other talents will be available for those looking for a different flavor or concept. The best example of this would be the scoundrel and scout classes from SWSE.

 

[Dormammu]

I believe that they will instead put the range into ranger.

Particularly since they are defined as a Striker, so presumably damage dealing will be their focus and I highly doubt they will gain any of that damage component through wizardly use of magic.

 

[Voss]

I think it is a matter of fluff.

Sorry, but no. They are going to have to come up with some amazingly convoluted and stupid fluff to convince me that a fighter can't be amazing with a bow or a dagger.

The woodsy stuff will almost certainly be talent trees that you can take or not (see above).

Ah. Almost certainly... I don't know why this is almost certain, since the Saga scout has all of one talent that is even vaguely wilderness specific. (Expert tracker, though nothing actually restricts it to the wilderness).

Players shouldn't get upset in 4e just because they want to put fighter on their character sheet instead of ranger or rogue. This would be the same as a player in 3.x wanting to put wizard on their character sheet, but actually be a greatsword melee specialist.

... I'm trying to decide if this is intentionally insulting or just a random statement that isn't relevant to the matter at hand. It isn't about names on a character sheet. I don't care if you put Strong Guy or Bow Guy on the character sheet. It isn't the issue.

The issue is the designers gave the fighter a whack of weapon specific abilities (the last we heard), but for No Apparent Reason, decided the fighter was only really good with specific types of weapons. This isn't fluff. This is arbitrary. This is the designers saying 'Ranged fighters are wrongbadfun, so we simply won't support the option'.

To be a bow guy effectively, you will have to accept a different set of starting abilities than if you want to be spear guy. To have the starting abilities you want *and* be bow guy, you will have to spend, at the very least, a limited resource: a feat. This is a subpar decision (because you spent a resource a real bow guy didn't have to), unless it gives you free powers, in which case it is very likely a no-brainer decision, because extra powers will always be good.