How do I make armour focused classes work without Armour?

[BlueStorm]

Okay... For various reasons, I keep envisioning both campaigns and character concepts that work better without any Armour.

Such as a Cavalier/Wizard character, a setting where Metal is expensive to use for anything other than weapons, and most important, the occasional thought of playing an epic level campaign or other situation where the dexterity modifier has gone through the roof and Armour is effectively useless.

So, is there anything I should do in such a situation? Or do they work perfectly fine without the Armour?

[MendedWall12]

Can they have leather armor, or leaf armor, or wooden armor? There are armor options that don't have metal in them.

[LazarX]

BlueStorm wrote:

Okay... For various reasons, I keep envisioning both campaigns and character concepts that work better without any Armour.

Such as a Cavalier/Wizard character, a setting where Metal is expensive to use for anything other than weapons, and most important, the occasional thought of playing an epic level campaign or other situation where the dexterity modifier has gone through the roof and Armour is effectively useless.

So, is there anything I should do in such a situation? Or do they work perfectly fine without the Armour?

Well there's a reason they're described as "armor focused". The other problem is that you're trying to put together classes that don't have any inherent synergy. What you're describing above as the setting pretty much describes feudal Japan, given that most samurai armor was not metal based. The samurai still wore armor, but it simply wasn't primarily made of metal.

It really sounds like the character you want to play is a Kensai Magus which works quite fine without armor.

[Alex Cunningham]

LazarX wrote:

What you're describing above as the setting pretty much describes feudal Japan, given that most samurai armor was not metal based. The samurai still wore armor, but it simply wasn't primarily made of metal.

Ugh. This could almost not be any more wrong.

http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.html Etc.

The kensai magus idea is solid, though.

[Psion-Psycho]

If ur dealing with a class that is armor dependent but can still dish out damage then up ur will and dex and toss on a level or 2 of monk. If u have a decent dex and wis with bracers of armor then ur ac will balance out especially if u toss in a ring of force shield.

[BlueStorm]

LazarX wrote:

BlueStorm wrote:

Okay... For various reasons, I keep envisioning both campaigns and character concepts that work better without any Armour.

Such as a Cavalier/Wizard character, a setting where Metal is expensive to use for anything other than weapons, and most important, the occasional thought of playing an epic level campaign or other situation where the dexterity modifier has gone through the roof and Armour is effectively useless.

So, is there anything I should do in such a situation? Or do they work perfectly fine without the Armour?

Well there's a reason they're described as "armor focused". The other problem is that you're trying to put together classes that don't have any inherent synergy. What you're describing above as the setting pretty much describes feudal Japan, given that most samurai armor was not metal based. The samurai still wore armor, but it simply wasn't primarily made of metal.

It really sounds like the character you want to play is a Kensai Magus which works quite fine without armor.

Synergy? I guess not. However the idea of having orders and challenges as part of the character's mechanics seem to sound reason enough in themselves. A magic knight in a true sense of the word instead of just... a Magus.

Flavor wise and Mechanic wise, the Magus isn't that appealing. They don't exactly get the widest variety of spells, and they are more described as some kind of fighter (read: mercenary or regular soldier) with a magical affinity.

What I'm more interested in is a Knight.

Back to synergy now: There were a couple of archetypes that tend to pop up when I consider a Wizard/Cavalier. Such as Musketeer+Luring Cavalier, and Spell-Slinger. Mix that with just a hint of Gunslinger and it sounds like it fits together enough to consider it. Although I'm not sure if it would be flavor alone or mechanics as well.

Anyways, to break this post down, what I wanted out of that character concept mechanically was this:
-Cavalier Challenges (or similar)
-Diverse spell-casting
-Cavalier Orders (or similar)

[deuxhero]

Armor doesn't work past the very beginning of the game anyways.

[Finlanderboy]

Flowing Monk. They rule for this situation. If you have improved trip with them. Then trip them before they try to attack you. SO they get tripped before they hit you and then take an additional -4 to try to hit you.

PLus as a monk you get dex and wisdom scores for your AC. You get the free immediate action at first level. A get cleric sub class.

[LazarX]

BlueStorm wrote:

Flavor wise and Mechanic wise, the Magus isn't that appealing. They don't exactly get the widest variety of spells, and they are more described as some kind of fighter (read: mercenary or regular soldier) with a magical affinity.

What I'm more interested in is a Knight.

When someone tells me that Knight is their central concept, all around spell casting isn't something that comes to mind.

If you want someone who's a primary spell caster that does sword swinging the best avenue I can think of would be Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight. (And it even has the word "Knight" in the last class)