From R&C: Fighters & Armor

[Reynard]

If the ranger is good at ranged attacks and i want a ranged attacker then i really dont need a fighter to be a bowman and

But you also get all the ranger "woodsman" baggage on top of it, which has absolutely nothing to do with being a good archer.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno. I mean, I'm really glad to see they're treating shields seriously, but now I'm a little worried that they'll be pushing the "shields for defense, two-handers for offense" thing too hard. Sword-and-board shouldn't be relegated to tanking. :/

But, that's precisely what Sword and Board is - a tank. At least traditionally. There was no real reason to take a shield other than to drive your AC through the roof if possible. And, in 3e, S&B fighters were the red headed step child of fighters. Color me happy that S&B is getting some loving.

 

[Hairfoot]

Yes, criticism accepted. But I've given up all hope that 4E might halt the march toward player characters becoming arcane versions of Space Marines.

 

[Rechan]

Oh, good. I would hate for a poor, inexperienced character to have to start with chainmail and a decent sword. A 1st level PC shouldn't be leaving the house without feyrazor-woven mithradamantite astral battleplate and a talking, hellforged sword the size of a Boeing 747.

I do hope you are being tongue in cheek.

Because it isn't like we didn't have that with the Core rules, with mithril and broken adamantite, plus magical items like Shadow armor, et al. And this grew with supplements.

Second, I'm certain that 1st level PCs won't be able to have it, just like 1st level 3e PCs can't have a mithril chain shirt and crysteel two handed swords.

 

[Reaper Steve]

But you also get all the ranger "woodsman" baggage on top of it, which has absolutely nothing to do with being a good archer.

Might be possible to build an archer out of a rogue. Haven't read anything yet that hints towards that.

It does state: "rangers (and elves) should look to the bow.. these are good for the archer on the move."

We can't have everything out the gate. I think for now archer = ranger.

 

[Hairfoot]

Second, I'm certain that 1st level PCs won't be able to have it, just like 1st level 3e PCs can't have a mithril chain shirt and crysteel two handed swords.

I hope not. 3e allowed (or encouraged) PCs to get into some pretty heavy gear at low-mid levels, and it seems the push is on to skip non-heroic, world-saving levels and adventure altogether.

 

[Hussar]

And, since we don't actually know the background of the ranger, we don't know if "woodsman" is actually the flavour. In fact, even in 3e, woodsman doesn't really fit either. Outdoorsman sure. But, not forests necessarily.

 

[Rechan]

From what I hear about the Rogue, I don't even see the point in a "dancer fencer" type. A Rogue with a bit of "Fighter Training" seems to get you what you need there.

The problem with the rogue being the fencer/finesse fighter is that the rogue folds up like a cheap suit when he's hit. A fencer should, at his route, still be a defender, just relying less on heaping helping of AC and relying just on dex.

What type of equipment is associated with "control"? (please don't say "spiked chain", please don't say "spiked chain", please don't say "spiked chain")

Think of the Knight class. The Knight can adjacent squares into difficult terrain, slowing people down who moves through it.

We also know that fighters are the kings of the AoO. So AoOs out the wazoo might also be considered 'hindering'.

Again, an increase in the number of categories. One thing I think this change (and the change to armor categories) will allow is more refined distinction between which classes gain access to which armor types. With only Light, Medium and Heavy, you could only slice it so many ways. Now perhaps only Fighters and Paladins have access to Plate Armor (Clerics and Warlords top out at Scale) and the "massive damage" weapons.

That's actually a thought.

With the categories, maybe classes have access to them. EVERYONE gets "Simple". Rogues and rangers maybe get Swords, Finesse and Axes.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

But you also get all the ranger "woodsman" baggage on top of it, which has absolutely nothing to do with being a good archer.

But that "woodsman" baggage is also an out-of-combat schtick, a personality, a theme - things which every class except the fighter has. I'm one of those who are wondering about what the fighter does outside of battle. Is he just a useless lump?

Reaper Steve, does R&C say anything about the fighter's non-combat role?

 

[Rechan]

I hope not. 3e allowed (or encouraged) PCs to get into some pretty heavy gear at low-mid levels, and it seems the push is on to skip non-heroic, world-saving levels and adventure altogether.

What?

How do you figure that, given the emphasis on Heroic/Paragpon/Epic?

Heroic: Save the town, go into the dungeon.
Paragon: specifically mentioned saving the kingdom.
Epic: save the world.