Plate armor for 1st level Fighters

[Askaval30]

My group is eagerly awaiting the start of our new 4e campaign, so far most of my players seem to really like most of the new mechanics, especially the focus on group tactics and whatnot.

there are however two concerns that some of my old-timers have brought up: The magic system and the lack of Plate for fighters. Now as far as the former goes these boards have done an admirable job at tackling this issue from every angle imaginable, but I have yet to see any discussion on the latter.

So please forgive the naivete' of the question, but is there any reason I should not allow a level 1 fighter to have automatic access to plate armor as the Paladin class does? some hidden factor of balance I am not seeing? Some mechanical issue I am unaware of?

 

[Branduil]

Scale is better anyway.

 

[Donatello]

I think it's just two takes on the same role. The role is "Defender", but the nature of their marks make the Fighter the "Offense Defender", i.e. getting a lot more opportunity attacks, making sure he's bouncing around the battlefield more and getting in monsters' faces to make sure they don't get past him, and the Paladin is a "Defense Defender", i.e. doing more to force the enemies to attack him rather that avoid him.

An enemy marked by a fighter just has to endure an OA to get away from him (and many of my monsters have risked just that, especially if the fighter was on a string of bad luck or hasn't proven his ferocity in that fight yet) and rush onward to the rogue/ranger/wizard/warlock. An enemy marked by a paladin has more freedom of movement, but if he attacks anyone else, he automatically takes damage (radiant damage, by the by, making the divine challenge VERY effective against undead). So Kobold A marked by a fighter may slip by him anyway, while Kobold B will have to just eat the damage.

Also note that all a paladin has to do to maintain a mark is end adjacent to his chosen foe. That means he can mark one and beat on another with impunity. Fighters have to attack their chosen foe (even if they miss), which could require a more mobile defense.

So, all that being said, I think the nature of the classes indicates the heavier armor is to make them better suited to take the abuse presented by their most basic role in combat, while a fighter has more damage potential in his defense and require more mobility.

From a purely crunchy rules standpoint, it's a balance of Damage Taken vs. Damage Given, on average, per round. The average DG of the paladin is lower than the fighter's so his DT is also lower to balance it out.

From a flavor standpoint, the more mobile tactics of your garden variety fighter would not necessarily train him in the heaviest armor so he can maintain a little more freedom of movement.

 

[Mengu]

Some mechanical issue I am unaware of?

It is the same issue as why Clerics don't get shield proficiency, or Warlords don't get Scale armor. Balance.

If a Fighter wants to wear Full Plate, he will have to take the feat. Perhaps it's the price he pays for having a +1 attack bonus. Perhaps it's the price he pays for having reliable daily powers. Who knows. But I wouldn't mess with this one, at least not without taking away something else. I might let the fighter trade in his +1 attack bonus for Plate Armor proficiency. I doubt any fighter would take that deal though.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Essentially automatic plate proficiency is a class feature of the paladin and not the fighter. ( Not Class Feature like Lay on Hands, but a feature of the class. ) It wouldn't make sense to give it to fighters since they are supposed to use a feat to get it. They simply aren't trained in it.

 

[Xorn]

I balked when I first read it--and I looked around to see if I read it correctly, but the above posts hit the nail on the head--of the defenders the fighter is the offensively slanted one, while the paladin is the defensively slanted.

Plus, if a player really visualizes their fighter in plate armor, then they spend a feat for it--customizing their fighter to a more defensive slant. The dwarf fighter in my game went with Dwarven Weapon Training at 1st level, and Proficiency: Plate at 2nd level. He really is an offensive powerhouse already (due to Combat Challenge/Combat Superiority), so making him pay a feat for plate is actually a pretty good deal for him.

 

[Obryn]

Scale really is better. Even if a fighter can wear plate, they may be better off with scale.

-O

 

[Bluewyrm]

Depends on what you are looking for

I would say the reason for Fighters not having 1st level access to Plate is an intent to "balance" the Fighter to the Paladin (to really every other class out there). That seems to be a major focus for 4e, striving for balance between the classes. So is there a thematic or narrative reason for a Fighter to not be trained in Plate? Probably not. You certainly could develop such reasoning in your campaign, but I don't see such reasoning present in the "feel" of the Fighter as it currently stands.

So I suppose if you are striving for better realism in your campaign, then I would let the Fighter have his Plate. However, once you do this, you could very well see players of the other classes upset that they no longer have Plate armour as well (Clerics come to mind). I'd take a look at your player group, and if there are no other Paladins or Clerics in it, you could probably allow it without too much unrest. If you are striving to keep the intended balance between the classes, then I would stay with the RAW. Really, you get so many feats in 4e, achieving access to Plate is fairly trivial, so your player won't really be very hampered anyway.

 

[Andur]

My question:

What previous edition allowed Fighter to buy Plate at level 1?

At least now it is meet the prereqs, spend a feat, get your armour versus, adventure for a level or 3, get your prequalified plate...

 

[bardolph]

Scale is really nice armor. Good protection without any skill check penalties. If your fighter really wants plate, spending a feat on it should be no big deal.