From R&C: Fighters & Armor

[jaer]

I think a lot of the problem here is that many of the Fighters-should-be-better-archers group are coming from the old description. It does not seem that fighters are the master of all weapons any more. They are the master of meele. Rangers will be the master of archery, and if you don't like the fluff background stuff, drop it. You could more easily call the classes "meele combatant" and "ranged combatant."

You want to play a character who can do both? Multiclass. There is no reason to think that someone who focuses on meele combat after battle should be as good with a bow as the guy who spends all of those battles shooting people with arrows. Even if they both spend all there off-time practicing archery, one of them has more bow-time and a lot more real-world bow experience which is represented in his class abilities.

Looking at combat, movement will be more fluid. Rangers will be lighter armored and probably get increased movement and might do more damage while moving (they killed the Scout and took his stuff after all). He is trained to stay out of combat, to keep moving away from orcs who want to cut him down. This is drastically different in combat philosphy then they guy in heavy armor who is trying to stand between the orcs and people behind him.

Why should one class be able to represent both of these drastically different tactics? Why would you want it to? Why think "I want to be an archer" and pick the class that represents people who spend their lives mastering a meele weapon and wearing heavy armor? Both go against what would make for a good archer.

Sure, once the orcs are fleeing, the fighter can pull out a bow and start shooting them along side the ranger, but the fighter is more used to using a sword, to being in meele and holding the line. Why should he be as good with a bow as the guy who spends all of his time darting about and peppering enemies with arrows?

 

[Midknightsun]

Samurai.

But then, we don't need to go to history since it is a fantasy game. Besides, even if the point is that there shouldn't be a class that allows a single character to be good at every combat style, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a fighting class that allows for the options of producing a character that is exceptionally skilled at fighting with any of the types of combat styles presented in the rules. PrCs aside, there wasn't a combat style that the fighter couldn't do better than another class, more consistently, and that is the way it should be.

By that definition, what was the point of the Ranger in 3e, other than some tracking and low level spells (without the whole archery/twf thing)? And even fantasy bases itself on some sort of real world archetype at some point. No idea comes out of a vacuum. But I agree that fighters should be GOOD at all types of fighting. I just don't think they need to be the BEST. Otherwise, as a designer, why wouldn't i just make the ranger the result of certain talents and feats under fighter? Fighter kills Ranger and takes his stuff? I don't know. I personally like the nitch abilities given to the classes, and depending how its pulled off, the ranger may be no less a fighter in the broad sense, than the fighter, just with a different enough focus to make it worth being a different class.

 

[Imban]

How do you auto-fail at archery? If the fighter and the ranger are both using bows against their opponents, the ranger will likely get more shots off, maybe hit a bit more often, and cause some more damage.

But the fighter is still shooting, hitting, and causing damage. You're saying that because he's not causing as much damage as the ranger, that he's "auto-failing"? Please explain.

And try to be a little more dismissive this time.

Sadly, he's completely right - unless you're at least close to the top-tier at something in games like this, you might as well not even try. Seriously, let's take this as a reasonable extrapolation - clearly, we don't know everything so far, but I'll try to keep things reasonable:

Fighters have the best attack bonus available in the game, as well as hit points.
Rangers have the best attack bonus available in the game, and just under the best hit points.

Fighters have at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers that manifest in the form of weapon tricks that require them to equip the appropriate weapon, in this case, a weapon which is not a bow.
Rangers have at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers that manifest in the form of weapon tricks that require them to equip the appropriate weapon, in this case, a bow.

The Fighter, by taking up a bow, is actively disregarding essentially all of his class abilities - he is essentially changing himself into a Warrior, to use a 3e analogy. The Ranger is not - in fact, the Ranger is playing to his strengths.

While there's clearly a reason why a Fighter may want to carry a bow - for example, perhaps the party Warlord is fond of using Feather Me Yon Oaf, or perhaps the DM enjoys running monsters who attempt to mount a running battle against the Fighter, firing at him while retreating quickly, and doing something with a bow is better than doing nothing - a player who looks at this and comes to the conclusion that a Fighter doesn't "auto-fail" at archery is just kidding themselves.

...

Of course, almost nothing I said above is confirmed, so take that all with a grain of salt. I was just trying to explain where Voss's "auto-fail" comment is coming from. (There's also how roll numbers tend to diverge as levels are gained in 3e, but they've made comments as to "preserving the sweet spot" which lead me to believe they may not be as divergent, which was the main cause of this "auto-fail". Of course, they may be, grain of salt, etc.)

 

[Lackhand]

So then, as long as mixing roles (which, unfortunately, D&D has rarely done well!) is good, we're all happy, Imban?

I agree with everything you've said. Additionally, I trust the developers when they claim -- with job-protecting marketing hype! -- that they've fixed multiclassing.

I just hope that they're right.

 

[Bishmon]

I think that this point has already been made on the thread, though, which makes me think that I'm not understanding your complaint correctly. Perhaps it's that you want a single class to be general, but focusable into any niche? Why is that better than a small set of classes which, together, cover the same niches?

Because they don't always cover the same niche. You say the ranger class fills the archer niche? What if someone wants a great archer that isn't a better woodsman? Where's that niche? What if someone wants a quick, lightly armored melee weapon user who isn't phsyically frail and has to rely on hitting opponents when they're at a disadvantage (rogue)? What if someone wants a hand-to-hand combatant that doesn't have mystical abilities (3E, and presumably 4E, monk)? What if someone wants a functional jack-of-all-trades who combines doesn't derive many of his powers from his singing (3E bard)? Where are those niches?

That's the problem with limiting the focus of a small set of classes to fill niches. I'm surprised anyone could think that in a game where imagination is the most important element that any significant group of people would have the same vision of what certain niches are. You might think I'd want a classless system then, but I don't. There's enough variation in mechanics and archetypes that a number of classes are useful. But the classes that are there should be reasonably flexible, in order to let people use their imagination instead of the rules as much as possible in order to create a character. In my opinion, 4E has seemingly taken a step back in that regard, which is disappointing after 3E took a step forward.

 

[jaer]

Fighters have at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers that manifest in the form of weapon tricks that require them to equip the appropriate weapon, in this case, a weapon which is not a bow.
Rangers have at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers that manifest in the form of weapon tricks that require them to equip the appropriate weapon, in this case, a bow.

This does assume most, if not all, of the Fighter's abilities come from a specific weapon, which seems to go against the axe-specialized Tordeck picks up a polearm and is still able to be awesome, but maybe not quite as awesome example that was given a while ago. I also would not assume all fighter abilities require a meele weapon to use.

With Warlord moves such as the "feather me," it would make sense for a fighter to have missile attacks, which means it also makes sense for them to have some pickable missile abilities (and rangers some pickable meele abilities because sometimes you just need to use a meele weapon!). A fighter very well could have some ranged abilties, something that guides foes to them as opposed to a ranger who has one that forces foes away from them.

The I'm Batman ability was stated rescently, and it is seems to be ranged defender ability: "a ranged attack gets your opponent's attention and lures it towards you. You then jump up and deliver a follow-up attack." Might not be a fighter ability of course, but it does sound like it fits the bill.

Big hypotheticals following:
A Fighters could very well get an ability that allows them a ranged AoO agaisnt foes that are not moving toward them - seems defendery, doesn't it? An opponent that decides to ignore you gets shot. Or perhaps the fighter can shoot at the space in which the opponent is moving to, 'pinning him down' or preventing him from moving into the space that is taking fire, thus guiding his movement. This might be part of the 'controller' abilities refered to earlier.

A ranger could very well get an ability that allows a AoO against foes that are moving toward him, perhaps one that can hinder or stop movement, thus allowing the archer to prevent a meele foe from closing. Thus both classes could have ranged abilities that give AoOs tied to their foes' movment, but both abilities have completely different triggers and purposes.

There is no saying that a Fighter does not have missile abilites, but any ability he has will be designed to emphasize his given role, which is to be the focus of an enemy's attack. The Ranger's ability will focus on doing damage with a ranged weapon. Each should be better at their given roll with any weapon; a fighter who is great at using a bow should still use it for a different purpose than a ranger.

 

[Ahrimon]

Sadly, he's completely right - unless you're at least close to the top-tier at something in games like this, you might as well not even try.

I don't understand how anyone can agree with this. Granted all of my games were in the "sweet spot". But you're basically saying that unless someone is almost as good as someone else at something, they auto-fail? Rangers auto-fail in melee because they don't get super cool melee abilities? Fighters auto-fail at any ranged attack because the ranger is better?
Fighter: Well, rogue, break out the dice. That creature is across the chasm. Let the ranger do his thing.
Rogue: Wha? You have a bow.
Fighter: The ranger is better so I automatically fail if I try to shoot him.

If that isn't MMO thinking then I don't know what is. "Sorry, he's better so your worthless" is a very narrow point of view in my oppinion.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Because they don't always cover the same niche. You say the ranger class fills the archer niche? What if someone wants a great archer that isn't a better woodsman? Where's that niche? What if someone wants a quick, lightly armored melee weapon user who isn't phsyically frail and has to rely on hitting opponents when they're at a disadvantage (rogue)? What if someone wants a hand-to-hand combatant that doesn't have mystical abilities (3E, and presumably 4E, monk)? What if someone wants a functional jack-of-all-trades who combines doesn't derive many of his powers from his singing (3E bard)? Where are those niches?

I think 4E addresses those specific questions via feats.

Given that in 4E "ranger" seems to = "archer":

Q: What if someone wants a great archer that isn't a better woodsman? Where's that niche?
A: Create a Ranger, and don't put skill points in woodsman skills.

Q: What if someone wants a quick, lightly armored melee weapon user who isn't phsyically frail and has to rely on hitting opponents when they're at a disadvantage (rogue)?
A: Build a ranger (melee build), fighter, warlord, or paladin, and choose to wear light armor. Pick feats that increase speed, or multi into Rogue.

Q: What if someone wants a hand-to-hand combatant that doesn't have mystical abilities (3E, and presumably 4E, monk)?
A: This one is easy. Presumably there's a 4E equivalent to "improved unarmed strike". Once you can use unarmed attack as a decent weapon, I don't see any reason why regular melee powers (that all trigger off a "weapon attack") wouldn't work with unarmed attack. For example, say there's a paladin smite power that adds Cha to damage plus a fear effect. It should work with whatever weapon you use, whether it's a sword, mace, or foot. So, build a fighter, warlord, paladin, ranger (melee build), or rogue, and just use Unarmed as your weapon.

Q: What if someone wants a functional jack-of-all-trades who combines doesn't derive many of his powers from his singing (3E bard)?
A: We've been hearing that multiclassing is improved. Perhaps that's the answer.