From R&C: Fighters & Armor

[Hairfoot]

Heroic/Paragon/Epic are just titles. Paragon-level characters may turn out to be demigods compared to previous edition mid-levels.

 

[Rechan]

TWF should just be treated the same as a two-handed weapon but with different flavor and maybe a feat.

I think that TWF can be a half-way point between S&B and THW.

You can do damage, or you can turn blades aside by using your off hand weapon. But neither is as effective.

It would also grant some special powers that is only doable with two weapons.

 

[Rechan]

Heroic/Paragon/Epic are just titles. Paragon-level characters may turn out to be demigods compared to previous edition mid-levels.

No, Epic is designed for demi-gods.

Paragon has been described as the equivalent of PrCs by people who have the Preview book.

 

[Rechan]

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. :/

It may also not be "Ha ha you can't do damage to me", but defense might also mean that he's not letting anyone get past him. The shield-fighter might be able to intercept someone coming by him with his shield, slamming into them like a football player and knocking him off course or stopping him completely.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Heroic/Paragon/Epic are just titles. Paragon-level characters may turn out to be demigods compared to previous edition mid-levels.

Fighting giants, demons and mindflayers is "demigod"? I must respectfully disagree. In fact, I contend that you have gotten the wrong impression of 4E.

 

[NaturalZero]

What about the two-weapon guy who isn't a lightly-armored agility finesse kind of guy? Not possible?

Sounds more traditionally like the rogue or even ranger to me. It should be possible, i just dont know if the fighter has to be the one to pull it off.

 

[Hairfoot]

Fighting giants, demons and mindflayers is "demigod"? I must respectfully disagree. In fact, I contend that you have gotten the wrong impression of 4E.

I sincerely hope so. Anyway, we'll all know soon enough.

 

[Reaper Steve]

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

Not that I've seen so far. I've only read Fighter and Rogue (and the little ranger blurb) as far as classes go. The Fighter section also had the armor & weapons stuff, rogues had the skill stuff. The book makes a point about all the classes being balanced IN COMBAT versus the old approach of offsetting in-combat stuff with out-of-combat stuff. As such, R&C focuses (from what I have read) on the combat aspect, highlighting the fact that, no matter what class you choose, you will have interesting choices to make every combat round.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

Two thoughts:
1. The 3E rogue folded like a cheap suit. The 4E rogue is (in theory) a Martial character who is well balanced against the other classes in melee.
2. A dancer-fencer cannot really be a defender. He can try, in a pinch, but if you need to "hold the line" you need heavy armor and shields. The "dancer fencer" relies on movement to avoid attacks; but if you're goal is defend a particular line in the sand or fellow PC, you can't move.

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

Did anyone here play Arcana Unearthed/Evolved? One of my bigger gripes with that system was that the only decent archer was a "Hawk Totem Warrior." Forget "woodsman baggage", you had a whole religion/world-view attached to your skill with the bow. Ugh.

But the 4E Ranger doesn't have to be that way. If he can have "environment" bonuses, you could have a good Urban Ranger or "Dungeon Ranger" who is stealthy, sniperish and aware of his surroundings in whatever environment he may find himself in. Roof tiles can be "terrain" too.

As long as you don't have spells granted from a particular deity, or animal companions, I think the Ranger can fit a lot of different archetypes. Like this guy (which is only a good example if you've seen the movie). You're basically just hyper-aware, agile, terrain-savy and ranged-attack-preffered. Although that's constrained in some respects, well, D&D is a class-based system. But it's a much bigger character space and "Drizzt or Tanis?".

 

[Rechan]

2. A dancer-fencer cannot really be a defender. He can try, in a pinch, but if you need to "hold the line" you need heavy armor and shields. The "dancer fencer" relies on movement to avoid attacks; but if you're goal is defend a particular line in the sand or fellow PC, you can't move.

I disagree with this.

We know that fighters can go three routes: offense, defense, or hinder/control.

I think a fencer could be a control-oriented defender. By focusing on AoOs, by tripping/disarming. Sure, you can try and get by that quick fencer guy, but he's going to put two jabs in your kidneys if you try it.

Remember, the defender's job is "Hey, you, fight me, not this guy". Think of a bullfighter. The fencer who's circling the monster, causing it undo amounts of annoying pain is going to distract it.

Still, I agree that the rogue could do this job very well. But I don't think it's unreasonable to say that you could make it fit the fighter.

But the 4E Ranger doesn't have to be that way. If he can have "environment" bonuses, you could have a good Urban Ranger or "Dungeon Ranger" who is stealthy, sniperish and aware of his surroundings in whatever environment he may find himself in. Roof tiles can be "terrain" too.

Yeah. I've always seen rangers as "the survivalist". He lives off the land, he is best suited for his environment of choice (besides the Druid). Being from the South, we have lots of weekend hunters - the ranger can do that. He doesn't have to love the land to be able to put an arrow in an orc at 300 yards.

Also, rangers make me think of special forces. Navy seals, Green Berets, the kind of "Slip in, wipe the floor with them, and disappear into the wilderness" kind of guys.