Will "any" class be hindered by armor then? ..and elimination of CON?

[Lonely Tylenol]

While it could obviously be wrong, my interpetation of this is that wizards will start off with no armor proficiency, but should they gain it through feats they can wear it without screwing with their casting. I would suspect that gaining proficiency in heavy armor will be a bit trickier then simply taking a level in class with heavy armor profiency like you can in 3E.

Well, based the current rumours, multiclassing is feat-based. So while you could take a feat that makes you more fighter-y (perhaps gives you a combat manoeuvre), you're still a wizard and so you don't get all sorts of proficiencies. Vice versa, the fighter could get access to a couple spells, which he could cast in his armour.

 

[Voss]

I never undestood the need to give any class heavy armor proficiency at level one, since you cannot afford heavy armor at level one anyway! Why not just have fighter-types get light armor proficiency at level 1, medium at level 2, and heavy at level 3? That way, multiclassing to dip one level for the heavy armor cannot be done, but the actual fighter-type isn't really harmed by it since it would take level 3 to be able to afford heavy armor anyway.

Sorry, but the cost for Splint mail is within random wealth for a first level fighter. Both splint and banded are well within the expected wealth gain from level 1->2.


As for dropping constitution, I just don't see any benefit of doing so. It would involve redesigning everything that depends on it, for no real purpose.

 

[Ahglock]

You mean having to take feats to get armor. Hence, your premise is flawed, unless you feel feats are not a limited resource that one needs to "worry" about.

We have no idea how this works yet. For all we know a ASF could be totally gone and a wizard could wear full plate without any proficiency in it, and be clumsy as heck with his skill checks but still be fine when it comes to ASF and having a good AC.

 

[Lanefan]

Whatever happened to the days when Rangers were supposed to be tough hardy outdoorsy types?

That's the class that should be Con based.

Lane-"Drizzt was the worst development the Ranger class has ever seen"-fan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Whatever happened to the days when Rangers were supposed to be tough hardy outdoorsy types?

That's the class that should be Con based.

Lane-"Drizzt was the worst development the Ranger class has ever seen"-fan

The Barbarian hordes killed them and took their stuff in 3rd edition. To compensate, Rangers got divine spells, which means they need wisdom, not con.

I guess in 4th edition, changes will not be that big, considering that Rangers are supposed to be strikers, not defenders (who fit the "tough guy" more). :\

 

[VirgilCaine]

The Barbarian hordes killed them and took their stuff in 3rd edition. To compensate, Rangers got divine spells, which means they need wisdom, not con.

Uh, you mean the Ranger's spells went from being arcane (IIRC, and divine, two spell lists) to just being divine?

 

[Doc_Klueless]

While it could obviously be wrong, my interpetation of this is that wizards will start off with no armor proficiency, but should they gain it through feats they can wear it without screwing with their casting.

That was my take on it also.

 

[Particle_Man]

So wizards will be like psions are in 3e?

 

[Mercule]

Whatever happened to the days when Rangers were supposed to be tough hardy outdoorsy types?

That's the class that should be Con based.

Lane-"Drizzt was the worst development the Ranger class has ever seen"-fan

Hush, now. Don't you know that the ranger has always been about being lightly armored, stealthy, and fragile? C'mon, what else would you expect from the class that represents the archetypal frontiersman and survivalist?

 

[Brown Jenkin]

As for dropping constitution, I just don't see any benefit of doing so. It would involve redesigning everything that depends on it, for no real purpose.

That hasn't seemed to stop WotC so far from making other similarly huge changes to other sacred cows.