Great posts in this thread the last week, fellows. Just wanted to let you know that some interesting concerns, points, and counterpoints have been brought up, and I am paying attention. With that said, I intend to err on the side of conservatism, not likely to change a lot, but rather add a few more things in. One idea that has intrigued me in the past, and perhaps it can in some way play into Doc's concern, is a level-based AC bonus for armourless or lightly armoured fighters; of course, even a small bonus would not replace the potentially life-saving quailty of damage reduction. It's something I've thought about from time to time. 

Ghul wrote:

is a level-based AC bonus for armourless or lightly armoured fighters; of course, even a small bonus would not replace the potentially life-saving quailty of damage reduction. It's something I've thought about from time to time. 

I like this Idea.  I allow players to use some of their FA as AC bonus in a round if they wish.  The AC bonus based on level would be a good way to handle an increased level of competence. 
 

mabon5127 wrote:

I allow players to use some of their FA as AC bonus in a round if they wish.  The AC bonus based on level would be a good way to handle an increased level of competence.  

 
That's a great idea!  The ability to trade FA with AC is nice because it adds a bit of a tactical flavour to what might othewise be a slugging match.

To help make the Fighter a 'go to class' (rather than a grudge class because of wanting stats or similar), then it might be worth permitting a bonus regardless of wearing light or heavy armour.  (I accept that I'm likely in a minority with this thought, but I put the thought forwards anyway).

Another idea which I recently saw elswehere (can't recall where though) was a bonus to the Fighter's initiative roll based on their attack bonus (or a fraction thereof).  As such, Fighters would tend to go first in a round.

Last edited by Doctor_Rob (8/17/2015 5:15 pm)

Rastus_Burne wrote:

Black adder, I don't think that conclusion is necessarily true. I'm thinking of the Berserker especially who has special abilities based on light/no armour use. As long as some armour bonus was provided it would be yet another option. Not everyone wants to play a heavily armored fighter, so rather than no bonus at all, some is surely better (even if it can't directly compete).

Some of the fighter subclasses certainly have motivation to wear less-than-heavy armor, but in the context of the current discussion my understanding was that Jeff was talking about giving this bonus to fighters per se only.  Otherwise the fighter subclasses (who would truly benefit from the rule) get even better compared to the fighter, the very thing being complained about.  There isn't any rules motivation for fighters per se to wear lighter armor, and I don't consider more quixotic reasons (such as "I don't feel like wearing plate mail") to be smart play.  (Not that people are required to play smart... just don't blame me if your PC gets killed...)

Yes, I would maybe possibly consider it for pure fighters, not the subclasses. My thought, at least at the moment, is a +1 AC bonus at levels 3, 6, and 9 for lightly armoured or unarmoured fighters, because combat is what they do, all they know, all they want to know. So, a 9th level fighter wearing studded armour is as defensively competent as a plate mail wearing fighter, and he is faster, too; however, the plate mail wearing fighter has the DR 2, which can be a life-saver. Pure fighters are soldiers, gladiators, longbowmen, and so forth, so I can see this defenisive focus as entirely plausible. Anyway, I'm warming to the idea, but I'm very hesitant when it comes to change.

I like it, but change/tinkering/chaos is in my gamer DNA. 

Doctor_Rob wrote:

mabon5127 wrote:

I allow players to use some of their FA as AC bonus in a round if they wish.  The AC bonus based on level would be a good way to handle an increased level of competence.  

 
That's a great idea! The ability to trade FA with AC is nice because it adds a bit of a tactical flavour to what might othewise be a slugging match.

That is a great idea. We should canonize it in the 2nd printing. Oh, wait...

Reckless / Conservative Fighting: A melee combatant elects to fight recklessly, with less regard for his own safety, gaining a +1 "to hit" bonus in exchange for a −2 AC penalty. Conversely, he may fight conservatively, with greater regard for his own safety, gaining a +1 AC bonus in exchange for a −2 "to hit" penalty. N.B.: Reckless / conservative fighting cannot be used in conjunction with berserk rage (see VOL.I, FIGHTER SUBCLASSES, berserker).

mabon5127 wrote:

I think the bonus would be valid regardless of armor worn. just my opinion.  This is a bonus based on fighting skill, not mobility as it increases with level.

I'm inclined to agree. A flat bonus (perhaps which increases by level) regardless of armour won't be a game-breaker IMO, so long as it's modest.  Following Ghul's example, it could start with +1 at low level, and expand to +3 by ninth level (I'd suggest applying the bonus at levels 1, 5 and 9). Thus, a Fighter would be uniquely good at fighting in terms of both offense and defense, but not overboard.

Last edited by Doctor_Rob (8/19/2015 3:04 pm)

Doctor_Rob wrote:

mabon5127 wrote:

I think the bonus would be valid regardless of armor worn. just my opinion. This is a bonus based on fighting skill, not mobility as it increases with level.

I'm inclined to agree. A flat bonus (perhaps which increases by level) regardless of armour won't be a game-breaker IMO, so long as it's modest. Following Ghul's example, it could start with +1 at low level, and expand to +3 by ninth level (I'd suggest applying the bonus at levels 1, 5 and 9). Thus, a Fighter would be uniquely good at fighting in terms of both offense and defense, but not overboard.

Well, I put it on my list of things to consider. While I'm very open to adding new things to the game (new spells, new subclasses, new monsters, new magic items, weather tables, etc.), I'm much more hesitant when it comes to changing an existing thing, and to me we are flirting with that very thing; it is, however, more of a slight enhancement and not a change, which is why it's made my list of "things to consider." Thanks!

DMPrata wrote:

mabon5127 wrote:

Actually I mentioned my house rule which is similar to Reckless / Conservative Fighting as a preface to agreeing that Jeff's AC bonus based on level would be a good solution.  I never suggested "cannonizing" my house rule but thanks.

Morgan
 

Hey, Morgan. I meant no offense. My intent was to playfully point out that we already had a very similar rule, but I see how it could have been taken otherwise. I probably should have used one of these:
 

My appologies for being a bit peckish!  I should have realized you didn't mean any harm!  Carry on!