Daniel Sutton
reasons not too:
1. it gives paladins something special
2. it lets fighters spend a feat to improve their AC
3. fighters are balanced the way they are
Would it be unbalancing to give fighters plate armor for free?
And scale armor is plenty good.
Some have argued that the very fact that fighters were balanced around having only scale while paladins were balanced around having plate favors the fighter overall--because the fighter can take a feat to improve ac, but this is not even an option for the paladin!
I just reread my post and realized how whiney it sounds. I apoligize. I'll reword it more simply.
Would it be unbalancing to give fighters plate armor for free?
The difference between plate and scale is 1 point of AC. That is worth a feat, and so yes, I think it would be unbalancing to give fighters plate proficiency for free. Fighters are already widely regarded as the best defender class, and giving them another boost without cost would further diminish the usefulness of other defenders.
EDIT: To be more specific, what Chimerasame said is accurate. Giving fighters free plate proficiency is unbalanced, but not game-breaking.
(To me, in the past, fighters were as much iconic of plate-armor-wearers as paladins were.)
a fighter in plate is iconic, but so is a fighter in chain or scale.
for a paladin plate is the only iconic option.
Does anyone know why fighers don't have plate at first level, for free?
Before I address this, I would like to address your feelings about it first.
This really surprised me when I got the book, I assumed they got it for free, because fighters always have plate. I only noticed they didn't by chance, and hoped it was a typo. Sadly, its not, and this feels like an injustice to me. I realize it's only one feat, but I still see absolutely no reason not to grant fighters plate at start.
You are probably feeling this way because you have played other editions of D&D where fighters had proficiency in plate. Please, understand that 4E is different from other editions in many ways. You will find other things about 4E that are different and you may feel the same.
Has anyone tried this, and are there good reasons I've not thought of not to?
If you would notice, the armour and weapon proficiencies have changed a bit from other editions to 4E. A great many other things have changed as well. The general reason for the change is primarly for balance between classes. The second is to try to make as many character options (such as feats) as useful as possible.
When comparing the fighter with the paladin (who does have plate proficiency), one reason the fighter does not have plate (which gives the paladin better AC) is for balance and for the function of these classes. The paladin has more healing surges, but can use them to heal others. In a way, the paladin self inflicts damage in a manner of speaking and to balance things, they are given better armour to offset this damage. A fighter has fewer abilities where it inflicts damage on itself.
Another thing in 4E is that all feats are designed to be useful. There is currently only one scale wearing class and that is the fighter. The plate proficency feat is generally most useful and likely only really useful to the fighter. If you gave the fighter plate, then it is highly unlikely anyone would ever take the plate proficency feat. Other classes have chain at most and going 2 steps to plate may be more than most players would likely willing to go.
If you give fighters plate for free, you will essentially make the fighter better. It is difficult to gain a static +1 in anything. Generally feats that give a static +1 are considered very good. Most other feats give conditional bonuses.
I would recommend you just play the fighter as is before trying to give him a +1 because fighters had plate proficency in previous editions which are vastly different than 4E.
(To me, in the past, fighters were as much iconic of plate-armor-wearers as paladins were.)
a fighter in plate is iconic, but so is a fighter in chain or scale.
for a paladin plate is the only iconic option.
I always figured it had less to do with iconics as the main reason and more to do with no Paladin ever qualifying for the feat before Epic.
I always figured it had less to do with iconics as the main reason and more to do with no Paladin ever qualifying for the feat before Epic.
that could be fixed with the prerequisites, but who's ever heard of a paladin in scale.
This really surprised me when I got the book, I assumed they got it for free, because fighters always have plate. I only noticed they didn't by chance, and hoped it was a typo. Sadly, its not, and this feels like an injustice to me. I realize it's only one feat, but I still see absolutely no reason not to grant fighters plate at start.
You are probably feeling this way because you have played other editions of D&D where fighters had proficiency in plate. Please, understand that 4E is different from other editions in many ways. You will find other things about 4E that are different and you may feel the same.
Pretty much, but not just previous editions of D&D, but fighters and equivilant classes in a variety of games. I'm just used to my fighters being in the best armor you can get. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to try out 4th yet, because none of my friends in this area will touch 4th with a 10' pole. I have some issues with it, but mostly trivial. This was one that I thought would be easy to fix, but it turns out it's that way for a good reason.
If you would notice, the armour and weapon proficiencies have changed a bit from other editions to 4E. A great many other things have changed as well. The general reason for the change is primarly for balance between classes. The second is to try to make as many character options (such as feats) as useful as possible.
When comparing the fighter with the paladin (who does have plate proficiency), one reason the fighter does not have plate (which gives the paladin better AC) is for balance and for the function of these classes. The paladin has more healing surges, but can use them to heal others. In a way, the paladin self inflicts damage in a manner of speaking and to balance things, they are given better armour to offset this damage. A fighter has fewer abilities where it inflicts damage on itself.
Another thing in 4E is that all feats are designed to be useful. There is currently only one scale wearing class and that is the fighter. The plate proficency feat is generally most useful and likely only really useful to the fighter. If you gave the fighter plate, then it is highly unlikely anyone would ever take the plate proficency feat. Other classes have chain at most and going 2 steps to plate may be more than most players would likely willing to go.
If you give fighters plate for free, you will essentially make the fighter better. It is difficult to gain a static +1 in anything. Generally feats that give a static +1 are considered very good. Most other feats give conditional bonuses.
I would recommend you just play the fighter as is before trying to give him a +1 because fighters had plate proficency in previous editions which are vastly different than 4E.
Yeah, I'm convinced that giving fighters plate just because of some lore concept would be a bad idea. And I'd love to try 4E, but like I mentioned, no one here will play it, cuz it's different. I'm moving soon, though, so I'll hopefully have more opportunity to play it.
Pretty much, but not just previous editions of D&D, but fighters and equivilant classes in a variety of games. I'm just used to my fighters being in the best armor you can get. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to try out 4th yet, because none of my friends in this area will touch 4th with a 10' pole. I have some issues with it, but mostly trivial. This was one that I thought would be easy to fix, but it turns out it's that way for a good reason.
It is unfortunate that you are unable to play 4E. I know of some players like that. I hope you do get the opportunity soon. You will realise that a fighter is pretty darn good and does not need plate. Just also realise that the fighter does have better armour that many other classes such as the cleric.
Yeah, I'm convinced that giving fighters plate just because of some lore concept would be a bad idea. And I'd love to try 4E, but like I mentioned, no one here will play it, cuz it's different. I'm moving soon, though, so I'll hopefully have more opportunity to play it.
Good luck to you in finding a 4E group.
Pretty much, but not just previous editions of D&D, but fighters and equivilant classes in a variety of games. I'm just used to my fighters being in the best armor you can get. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to try out 4th yet, because none of my friends in this area will touch 4th with a 10' pole. I have some issues with it, but mostly trivial. This was one that I thought would be easy to fix, but it turns out it's that way for a good reason.
It is unfortunate that you are unable to play 4E. I know of some players like that. I hope you do get the opportunity soon. You will realise that a fighter is pretty darn good and does not need plate. Just also realise that the fighter does have better armour that many other classes such as the cleric.Yeah, I'm convinced that giving fighters plate just because of some lore concept would be a bad idea. And I'd love to try 4E, but like I mentioned, no one here will play it, cuz it's different. I'm moving soon, though, so I'll hopefully have more opportunity to play it.
Good luck to you in finding a 4E group.
Thanks. My feeling is that even a bad game can be good, so even if some stuff in 4e is worse than some stuff in 3e (and there is stuff I'll miss), 4e can still be worth playing, and I won't know if I'll like it better until I try it. Just that anyone I game with is stuck in Exalted, and won't try 4e because it's obviously worse than 3rd.
Pretty much, but not just previous editions of D&D, but fighters and equivilant classes in a variety of games. I'm just used to my fighters being in the best armor you can get.
Take the Feat then
You can qualify for it at first level. It's an optional, not a limitation.
In old-E, fighters got plate proficiency because it was designed to be (barring things like mithral chain shirt strangeness) the best armor type they could wear.
This isn't the case in 4E: scale is an equally valid option for fighters, and many of them will prefer it to plate due to the improved mobility and skill modifiers.
Pretty much, but not just previous editions of D&D, but fighters and equivilant classes in a variety of games. I'm just used to my fighters being in the best armor you can get. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to try out 4th yet, because none of my friends in this area will touch 4th with a 10' pole. I have some issues with it, but mostly trivial. This was one that I thought would be easy to fix, but it turns out it's that way for a good reason.
It is unfortunate that you are unable to play 4E. I know of some players like that. I hope you do get the opportunity soon. You will realise that a fighter is pretty darn good and does not need plate. Just also realise that the fighter does have better armour that many other classes such as the cleric.Yeah, I'm convinced that giving fighters plate just because of some lore concept would be a bad idea. And I'd love to try 4E, but like I mentioned, no one here will play it, cuz it's different. I'm moving soon, though, so I'll hopefully have more opportunity to play it.
Good luck to you in finding a 4E group.
Thanks. My feeling is that even a bad game can be good, so even if some stuff in 4e is worse than some stuff in 3e (and there is stuff I'll miss), 4e can still be worth playing, and I won't know if I'll like it better until I try it. Just that anyone I game with is stuck in Exalted, and won't try 4e because it's obviously worse than 3rd.
Allow me to provide a dissenting opinion. i've played D&D since 2nd edition, and despite some flaws I find 4e (especially now that a lot more content is out) to be quite superior to both 2nd and 3rd. In many ways, it's also much more iconic and old-school in style.
Anyway, regarding fighters. I believe that a character that fits the fighter archetype best would most likely favor chain or scale over plate - think Brigands, vagabond warriors, and arena-style brawlers. Plate is more for a questing knight type character, which would be more like a paladin than a fighter. With the rules as written, many fighters would just elect to use scale as it requires no investment, but plate is still very much an option for those who really want it. If fighters were given plate for free, they would be somewhat shoehorned into using it.
In short, I actually find it more appropriate that the iconic fighter uses scale and not plate armor, and was quite happy when I noticed this in 4e. Not saying you have to be, just offering the perspective.
that could be fixed with the prerequisites, but who's ever heard of a paladin in scale.
Who's ever heard of an Unaligned paladin? If they can tackle that, I think, the armor is a much smaller concern as far as the 'feel' of paladin-ness.
They used chain shirts a lot in 3e.
