I don't know if this has already come up but is anything being done to give the option of an unarmoured fighter.
Please point me to thread locations if there are any good ones but I think the fighter should be able to trade any number of the feats: Heavy Armour,Medium armour, light armour, shield proficiency for the feats, Weapon Finesse, Dodge, Two Weapon Fighting, point blank shot, precise shot( can't think of any others at the moment).
These could be used to represent a light weapon fighter, light two weapon fighter, archer or variation of the above.
This would need a rethink on the abilities as the characters armour training skill would be defunct but instead give him a dodge bonus maybe instead of the armour bonus which could be an interesting adjustment to the fighter.
What do people think?
Its just that a great number of players in my campaigns have built character to be musketeers, swashbucklers, sailors etc and I feel that the armour and shield feats are a bit of kick in the teeth for them as they never use them.
I can't believe no-one else on this forum\messageboard has got an opinion on this issue. Fighters in fantasy come in huge varieties but every D&D one looks the same, Plate mail with either sword and shield or greatsword.
The only variation to that is normally a fighter with a level as ranger.
COME ON PEOPLE....LOOK ALIVE!!!!
I can't believe no-one else on this forum\messageboard has got an opinion on this issue. Fighters in fantasy come in huge varieties but every D&D one looks the same, Plate mail with either sword and shield or greatsword.
The only variation to that is normally a fighter with a level as ranger.
COME ON PEOPLE....LOOK ALIVE!!!!
There should absolutely be such an option. And, I feel, the tough work has already been done by a superb swordsperson/historical re-enactor/gamer: Craig Shackleton. His Art of the Duel really makes this work at every level. The good news: Sinister Adventures and Paizo are tight. I feel confident that Sinister would OGL the Art of the Duel content over to Paizo if they wanted.
I could be wrong. I'm often wrong, but I am confident it would be no problem. A functional, competitive swashbucker (lightly armored, no armor) would be a major plus to have as an option in PRPG.
Unless -- do I smell a splat book?
|
I seem to recall an armor class variant in Monte's Unearthed Arcana. The AC is a variable wherein the d20 is rolled instead of receiving a based 10 for each round. There's a lot more rolling, but this removes the factors that drive nearly every fighter to accumulate lots of metal armor. Instead you can have any kind of fighter, and, typically the Harn-like character you seem to be describing of fantasy literature.
hope that helps...
I don't know if this has already come up but is anything being done to give the option of an unarmoured fighter.
You can find unarmoured fighter class from Pathfinder Alpha 3, page 28. Example build can be found here. Substitute a few levels for fighter, if needed.
There are 11 core classes. Out of those one can build 55 different dual-classes. Not to mention three, or more classes, on a single character. The core mechanics should be explored, and used, before writing a new splat book - no matter the revenue generated.
Frankly, I think the core classes are more than enough.
The unarmoured fighter that you refer to on page 28 is the monk I take it. Well it doesn't really cover an unarmoured fighter but is in fact a VERY specialized character.
I've since got hold of the 'Art of Duel' thanks for the recommendation on that one as it does look good. It's just I'm hoping that the makers of the PFRPG will include the unarmoured\light armoured fighter in the main rules. My particular group does often include Swashbucklers, peasant boy turned warrior, huntsman( not rangers though) and it'd be nice not to have to cross class to create what would seem to be a basic character type.
Many swashbucklers didn't wear armour but used speed( watch Rob Roy with Liam Neesan)or cloaks( 3 musketeers) or indeed just the buckler ( thus the name). The character would be a short lived one if they relied only on their dex (normal human, dex bonus +4, add dodge+1=total AC 15 and that's a fifth level character).
From my experience, my best fighter ever was a duelist, with no armor, just a pair of bracers of defense (AD&D2).
I never had that much fun with another fighter.
Well, to be honest he was not a "fighter" per se, he was a Duelist (Dragon Magazine class), but i could have reached the same results with a Fighter and the right weapon proficiencies (once again it was AD&D2).
I never considered Strength, Constitution, armor or big weapon as necessary to be a good fighter.
Of course, they can help a lot, to get a good AC and inflict heavy damage, and i also have big armor/big weapon fighters, but i tend to give more importance to Intelligence and Dexterity, for more skills and mobility. In D&D3, the Weapon Finesse feat tree is exactly what i like.
So yes, an unarmoured fighter is possible.
There are 11 core classes. Out of those one can build 55 different dual-classes. Not to mention three, or more classes, on a single character. The core mechanics should be explored, and used, before writing a new splat book - no matter the revenue generated.Frankly, I think the core classes are more than enough.
Well said. An unarmoured or lightly armoured fighter like a monk you mean, or a ranger who is a two weapon fighter or a mage/anything casting mage armour before a combat or a sorcerer variant or a rogue using his major magic, or a bard using performance (gladatorial combat with ranks in tumble and acrobatics and so on and so on. Even if you just took a fighter or barbarian you can buy enough feats to do well lightly armoured or entirely unarmoured.
Indeed you can - but isn't this about adding more possibilities? Why can't the basic fighter trade out those bonuses with armor and proficiency with most forms of armor for some unarmored options? They can, and should, be somewhat weaker than actually using armor - but you shouldn't need to give up major character features or dabble in magic to simulate a character type who actually existed in reality.
|
|
In my campaign, I've added the following feat:
Civilian Duellist
You are trained to fight dressed as a civilian, without wearing armor or carrying anything that might prevent your lithe movements.
Prerequisites: Heavy Armor proficiency, Dexterity 15, Base Attack Bonus +1
Benefit: When not wearing any armor, carrying a shield other than a buckler, or carrying more than a light load, you gain a Defense bonus to your armor class based on your Base Attack Bonus, shown on table 1-1. This bonus does not apply if you are flat-footed or otherwise denied your Dexterity modifier to armor class.
Special: A fighter may take Civilian Duellist as one of his fighter bonus feats. When a fighter gains Armor Training, she may choose to add the bonus to Armor Class to her Defense bonus instead of any bonus granted by armor. This choice must be made when Armor Training is gained and cannot be changed later.
Table 1-1
+1 +6
+2 +6
+3 +7
+4 +7
+5 +7
+6 +8
+7 +8
+8 +8
+9 +9
+10 +9
+11 +9
+12 +10
+13 +10
+14 +10
+15 +11
+16 +11
+17 +11
+18 +12
+19 +12
+20 +12
I like the look of the Civilian Duelist feat. At the end of the day I'd like to see just an option at 1st level for the character to be an unarmoured fighter (which I don't think is an unreasonable one) without using Prestige class's or similar.
Even the WOTC has admitted that when they put the 1st few Prestige class's out they didn't think it would be add a big change or be used widely but instead it opened up a huge channel of new book possibilities. Thing is the core class's should be the main stay of the game, its just the options of the fighter make him slightly impracticle. Instead of having a good base class, you end up shoe-horning the class's to fit your charactor concept.
I've also checked out the 'Art of the Duel' and it has some damn good stuff in it. Anybody have suggestions what feats I could insert to replace the Heavy Armour,Medium Armour, Light Armour, Shield feats?
At the end of the day I'd like to see just an option at 1st level for the character to be an unarmoured fighter (which I don't think is an unreasonable one) without using Prestige class's or similar.
The thing is, we're looking at a sort-of medieval fantasy without firearms. Without weapons that more or less ignore armour, heavy armour really is that good. I understand what you'd like to see in the rules and why, but it is a seriously big leap in paradigm. Put two fighters of more or less equal skill up against each other, one with a heavy sword and armour and the other with a rapier and no armour, and the latter's only chance of winning should be to run and stay out of reach. He can't risk taking any hits and he has very chance of dealing out any damage himself until his opponent gets too tired to defend himself.
A very good point. Historically, the swashbuckler archetype only came into its own once armour had been made superfluous by more efficient weaponry. Outside of a purely-historical game, of course, this observation is not helpful, perhaps. After all, we typically want more freedom in our games than to adhere to real-world historical precedents.
I think there's room in the game for some kind of low-armor fighting archetype, it's common enough in many campaign settings (in FR, for example, the use of heavy armor is discouraged in many places, especially urban settings). Of course, then there's places where anyone wearing heavy armor would end up looking like a boiled lobster, where native warriors would be trained more towards agility to defend themselves.
To a degree I do agree but on the other side of it many weapon experts have proved that a man wearing chain mail or even plate would probably be killed in a short time by a man wielding a rapier or similar slim blade as the blade easily gets through chain and the lightly defended body area's of a heavier armoured man.
However as we talking about fantasy games I go more on the fact that a PC\hero should be given the opportunity to play the impressive, if slightly unlikely frock shirt, cape wearing baffoon who likes to jump off of balconies to face his enemies or a simple huntsman\skinner peasant who's never had the opportunity to train in armour but hasn't the background to be a ranger( gain spells etc).
Likewise the two fighters in Rob Roy, Liam Neeson playing Rob and Tim Roth playing the brit- faced off with Roy using the 'swing big sword skillfully though and cut the other guy in half' technique, whilst Tim Roth used the 'skip lithely outside of the slow attacks and cut the exposed enemy' technique.
Obviously this was a dramatic finish to the film seeing Rob cut and bleeding and Roth underestimating him is cut to the backbone. Surely these are the characters that players want or is my 20 years of DMing\ Playing very mis-informed?
|
I'm definitely all for allowing a Fighter (but not other classes) to swap out their starting Armor feats for Dodge bonuses to AC.
Drop Hvy Armor and Tower Shield, get a +1. Drop Medium Armor, get another +1. Drop Light Armor and Medium Shields, get a third +1. So a fighter who intends to just go Lt Armor can get a +2 Dodge bonus to AC by giving up the Medium and Heavy Armor proficiencies. If he happens to get them from another class (a multiclass Cleric / Fighter, for instance), he can't use those Dodge bonuses when he's wearing Armor heavier than Light.
Another option would be to allow a Fighter to gain a 'class defense bonus' like deal. A Dodge bonus to AC based on level, although I'm not as fond of this idea myself, similar to the stuff I've heard about from other systems (Iron Heroes? Star Wars Saga? d20 Modern? Wheel of Time d20 RPG? No idea, I don't have any of them). To have this sort of deal be more effective for non-armored or lightly-armored Fighters, it could require the person to be un-encumbered, or lose effectiveness depending on how encumbered they are (say, only getting full value if unencumbered, and being halved for someone who is lightly encumbered and negated for someone who is heavily encumbered).
To a degree I do agree but on the other side of it many weapon experts have proved that a man wearing chain mail or even plate would probably be killed in a short time by a man wielding a rapier or similar slim blade as the blade easily gets through chain and the lightly defended body area's of a heavier armoured man.
I'm not so sure. If both are equally skilled, I think the contest will be quite unfair. A rapier can't block a broadsword and to make an attack, the rapier wielder has to put himself (and his weapon) at considerable risk. Without shield or armour, any significant hit will be the end of him.
Likewise the two fighters in Rob Roy, Liam Neeson playing Rob and Tim Roth playing the brit- faced off with Roy using the 'swing big sword skillfully though and cut the other guy in half' technique, whilst Tim Roth used the 'skip lithely outside of the slow attacks and cut the exposed enemy' technique.
While neither was wearing armour. Think Tim would have stood a chance against Liam in armour? I doubt it.
hmm... I just don't see why you wouldn't play a monk, use a human racial weapon training (if applicable) or your first level feat to pick up the martial proficiency in rapier or whatever you want to use, and go that route. Monks have 'dibs' on being unarmored fighters, I think. It might be suboptimal, but it could be done. For other unarmored fighty types try rogue, ranger, druid, or bard. All have armor prof., but often tend to have dex that is high enough that they don't wear it.
You could work it out with your characters to say that they are so good at defending themselves while unarmored, they get a +2 "armor" bonus to their AC, but don't have an armor check penalty, and can still move their normal speed, blah blah blah, which they can use with the fighter's armor training ability....! and give them padded armor without letting them know. The dex bonus is so high it shouldn't come up, and it's arcane failure is only 5%, if that even makes a difference.
Or you could give them glamered full plate. Hehe, ok, maybe something with a bit more of a dex mod....
Plenty of feats they could take to help themselves out, like Dodge, Mobility, (you know, monk bonus feats... heh), or Expertise.
You could simply have your characters buy a monk's belt.
Really, I agree with the poster who said there are a lot of options out there. No class is obligated to wear armor. If what you want is *bonuses* for running around naked, then play a monk.
hmm... I just don't see why you wouldn't play a monk, use a human racial weapon training (if applicable) or your first level feat to pick up the martial proficiency in rapier or whatever you want to use, and go that route. Monks have 'dibs' on being unarmored fighters, I think. It might be suboptimal, but it could be done. For other unarmored fighty types try rogue, ranger, druid, or bard. All have armor prof., but often tend to have dex that is high enough that they don't wear it.
You could work it out with your characters to say that they are so good at defending themselves while unarmored, they get a +2 "armor" bonus to their AC, but don't have an armor check penalty, and can still move their normal speed, blah blah blah, which they can use with the fighter's armor training ability....! and give them padded armor without letting them know. The dex bonus is so high it shouldn't come up, and it's arcane failure is only 5%, if that even makes a difference.
Or you could give them glamered full plate. Hehe, ok, maybe something with a bit more of a dex mod....
Plenty of feats they could take to help themselves out, like Dodge, Mobility, (you know, monk bonus feats... heh), or Expertise.
You could simply have your characters buy a monk's belt.
Really, I agree with the poster who said there are a lot of options out there. No class is obligated to wear armor. If what you want is *bonuses* for running around naked, then play a monk.
I think if we talk about archetypes, then the heavily armoured knigh and the shaolin monk are represented. What about the daring swashbuckler or nimble fencer though? They're both different than monks or heavily armoured fighters. Sure someone who wanted to fight unarmoured could take a level of Monk or a Monk's Belt, but that feel's kind of like a hack. It makes sense that someone who is trained to fight without armour (either monk or fencer) is going to be better at it then a Knight
What about the daring swashbuckler-
Multiclass Bard/Rogue. Possibly straight bard. With Perform: Cunning Remarks and Banter.
-or nimble fencer
Rogue, use a rapier, take weapon finesse.
The final versions of Full Plate were commonly tested by a point-blank musket shot. If the bullet didn't bounce, they failed. They weren't nearly as encumbering as is popularly believed either: most of those ideas are based on Jousting Armor - which was designed for a highly specialized role.
Similarly, bowmen could fire more quickly, under more conditions, more accurately, with better ranges, and with equal - or often greater - penetrating power for centuries after guns virtually replaced bows in the military. The reason why guns won out at the time was simply because they were cheaper. Early guns - little more than tubes on sticks - could be turned out quickly and cheaply by any smith, powder and shot were cheap, and people could be taught to use them in a few days or weeks - whereas a bowman required years of training and constant practice to maintain those skills when you weren't at war. As in most human affairs, economics won again.
In any case, for those arguments based on "realism", this is a universe where people can fire bolts of lightning from their fingertips and (per the statistics from d20 modern) survive more damage than a main battle tank. Realism means something different in terms of a d20 universe than it does in our quantum-mechanics universe. Why not just insert a fighter feat? "Durable: You are considered to be effectively wearing an armor type chosen when this Feat is taken at all times. If you actually wear physical armor, the benefits of this Feat are cancelled until you take it off". Net benefit? Your armor is concealed and cannot be taken away. Net penalty? You can't take your armor off and will be effectively down a Feat if you choose to take advantage of whatever magical armor you obtain. Net game effect? Rather small.
For those arguments based around "You can already do something similar in some fashion" or "this is not necessary", why does this matter? The entire game is essentially an organized version of "lets pretend" and is in no way "necessary". If someone wants to add something that doesn't particularly unbalance the game, and finds current methods of approximating it unsatisfactory (say, because they miss out on those high-level abilities?), why argue to restrict their imagination in a game that's all about imagination?
I don't know if this has already come up but is anything being done to give the option of an unarmoured fighter.
Have you thought about using the Defense Bonus/Armor as DR rules from Unearthed Arcana?
(Links here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm)
For those arguments based around "You can already do something similar in some fashion" or "this is not necessary", why does this matter?
Because more rules make the game harder to learn and play. They slow down gameplay, and enable potential loopholes and rules-lawyering. They make the actual rulebooks bigger, heavier, and more expensive. It's exponentially harder to balance twenty rules against each than it's to balance ten. To name a few reasons.
It's a well-known and widely accepted rule of a thumb in game desing to keep the rules as short as possible. One way of putting it could be: If one notices something that is seemingly an option but has in practice little effect, then one should consider either removing it or making changes that would turn it into a real option if considered important enough.
That's what we're talking about here. Adding a new rule that has in practice little effect. In my mind any house rule is more than welcome, especially if it keeps the actual rulebooks shorter.
There are some ideas that the game doesn't already support. For those few ideas, some sort of work around should be made.
But for some ideas, the rules already exist- people just don't like them. For those, I am usually fairly skeptical because their dislike is usually "I got what I want, but it isn't powerful enough" which means that we have to look at what is there and whether or not it is really sufficient given the strengths and weaknesses of the "build".
The op has asked for light duel wielders who don't wear armor, and for archers.
For both of these there are already classes and feats aplenty.
You can go rogue. For both. You can also go monk, for both. You can go fighter, for both. You can do ranger, for both.
Why do we need new feats to do what we can already easily do with existing classes and mechanics?
"swashbuckler" is the fluff you tie to the fighter or rogue after you roll up the mechanical aspects of the character.
Archer is a choice of ability score placement, weapon, and feat selection. Neither really needs "more" to do what they already can do.
I'm not saying "new ideas are bad", but rather that new rules need to be looked at closely.
Unarmored fighters in particular, whether dual wielding or as archers fare just as well as the sword and board fighter. (whether fighters suck in general is another issue).
The three builds generally have trade offs that make them less useful at the other roles while being good at their own.
S/B fighters have high armor often at the expense of high damage. They can take feats to attack with both sword and shield but will usually not be as effective at it as the pure dual wielder. (because of weapon specific feats).
The dual wielder by contrast will have a lower armor class. They can take feats to shore that up a little bit but in exchange for the armor they give up they usually do more damage than the sword/boarder. Alot more. The same generally goes for the 2HF. (tho the 2hf usually fares better because of the twf dex requirements).
The archer does less damage than both typically but they do so with the added advantage of being far enough away from combat such that they don't get hurt.
Both the dual wielder and the archer in large part make up the AC "issue" with high dex scores and in fact tend to have higher reflex saves and touch-AC's.
To benefit from the armor protection all the fighter need do is wear leather armor. The Training will neutralize any penalty. (or padded, if your dex gets high enough for Leather to be an issue)
(and that's even assuming fighter is the best class to be an archer or swashbuckler or whatever- but that is a different discussion entirely).
In conclusion:
We shouldn't necessarily write new rules when the existing rules cover the bases fairly well. A person doesn't need a "swashbuckler" feat to be a swashbuckler. They just pick the class that best represents it and writes the fluff to correspond.
Your history and your actions dictate whether you buckle your swash, rather than the name the game gives to your class.
-S
What about the daring swashbuckler-Multiclass Bard/Rogue. Possibly straight bard. With Perform: Cunning Remarks and Banter.
-or nimble fencerRogue, use a rapier, take weapon finesse.
Would either of those work? Probably, but both probably couldn't stand up to a Fighter using weapon finesse and combat expertise. Why not just let the fighters Armour Mastery feature apply when unarmoured, maybe fighters get an extra +1 AC if their armour has no armour check penalty. It modifies a new rule, no new classes, fairly easy to keep track of, seem reasonable?
Would either of those work? Probably, but both probably couldn't stand up to a Fighter using weapon finesse and combat expertise. Why not just let the fighters Armour Mastery feature apply when unarmoured, maybe fighters get an extra +1 AC if their armour has no armour check penalty. It modifies a new rule, no new classes, fairly easy to keep track of, seem reasonable?
What about the daring swashbuckler-Multiclass Bard/Rogue. Possibly straight bard. With Perform: Cunning Remarks and Banter.
-or nimble fencerRogue, use a rapier, take weapon finesse.
Why not just have the fighter wear padded armor? Then the armor bonus comes in, you get +1 AC and the penalties are trivial... almost non-existent for masterwork stuff.
I honestly don't get why a game system should accommodate everyone's ineffective idea of what their character concept is. If a concept sucks then let it suck. People wear armor in game for the same reason every single culture on our planet wore armor until firearms made it ineffective (then they developed armor that works against fire arms).
Swashbucklers like the 3 musketeers? Well give everyone a gun then suddenly mobility is more important than armor. So if you want a swashbuckler maybe your campaign needs guns?
Yes a master fencer can probably butcher a guy in armor but a master fencer in light armor would butcher a master fencer without armor.
I honestly don't get why a game system should accommodate everyone's ineffective idea of what their character concept is. If a concept sucks then let it suck. People wear armor in game for the same reason every single culture on our planet wore armor until firearms made it ineffective (then they developed armor that works against fire arms).
I don't mind people requesting rules that allow unarmored fighters to succeed. Obviously the original poster is not alone in wanting this; that's why there are some perfectly serviceable OGL rules for doing exactly that in Unearthed Arcana (available in their entirety at d20srd.org). Problem solved!
However...I don't think that every possible variant of every possible class feature needs to be included in the Pathfinder RPG core book. Variants belong in the "Big Ol' Book of Variants" (like Unearthed Arcana or the Book of Nine Swords).
|
|
Yes a master fencer can probably butcher a guy in armor but a master fencer in light armor would butcher a master fencer without armor.
Sorry for my historical pet-peeve, but no. A master fencer would be killed easily by a skilled man-at-arms in full plate with a zweihander. Fencing became popular because people STOPPED wearing armor, not the opposite. Fencing is a civilian fighting style, not a battlefield one. However, this is a game, and I think that archetypes that are cool and fun, like Errol Flynn's classic persona in just about everything, should also be cool and fun to play.
I apologize once again for analness. :D I'm going to be a history major.
Anyways, I like my feat. I honestly think it solves this problem nicely, and simply.
Yes a master fencer can probably butcher an average guy in armor but a master fencer in light armor would butcher a master fencer without armor.
Corrected to my original intent... generally the guy with the most talent will win but a guy with talent and armor will beat the nekid guy. No problems with your historical pet peeve.
Anyways, I like my feat. I honestly think it solves this problem nicely, and simply.
I disagree, I'm not sure about at higher levels but at lower levels it's way too powerful. Also consider that this feat could be used not just by your swashbuckling fighter type but by multi classed barbarians, rogues, rangers, fighter/ wizards... etc who could and would use and abuse this sucker in major ways. About the only ones who this wouldn't benefit would be dwarves ;)
If you house rule it then it's fine because you can easily squash abuses. In the wild it's a whole other story. At first level armor with an armor bonus of 6 you are talking about max dex of 0, move is reduced to 20, armor check penalty of 7, arcane spell failure of 35%...
With a feat like that a 1 level dip in fighter is almost mandatory for a rogue.
Erol Flynn: 1st level
Human Fighter 4 (15 point build using the Paizo system)
STR:10
DEX:20
CON:10
INT:10
WIS:10
CHA:13
Feats: Weapon Finesse, Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Focus (Rapier), Weapon Specialization (Rapier), Dazzling Display, Spring Attack
Leather Armor, Buckler
AC 20 (DEX +5, Buckler +1, Leather +2, Armor Training Bonus +1, Dodge +1)
Rapier +10 1d6+5...
TWF also has a lot of synergy with this build also.
|
|
I disagree, I'm not sure about at higher levels but at lower levels it's way too powerful. Also consider that this feat could be used not just by your swashbuckling fighter type but by multi classed barbarians, rogues, rangers, fighter/ wizards... etc who could and would use and abuse this sucker in major ways. About the only ones who this wouldn't benefit would be dwarves ;)
If you house rule it then it's fine because you can easily squash abuses. In the wild it's a whole other story. At first level armor with an armor bonus of 6 you are talking about max dex of 0, move is reduced to 20, armor check penalty of 7, arcane spell failure of 35%...
With a feat like that a 1 level dip in fighter is almost mandatory for a rogue.
Did you notice the requirements and that the bonus gained is based on BAB? Sure, a wizard could do a one level dip in fighter, but his bonus would never be particularly good, and he would have just wasted one or two feats and a level. I don't know about anyone else, but for me, one level of spellcasting is a lot to give up, especially in actual play. And rogues can get some pretty impressive light armor. Honestly, it's also meant for rogues. Not wearing armor is a big drawback, and opposing feints, etc. make someone with this feat very, very vulnerable.
Did you notice the requirements and that the bonus gained is based on BAB? Sure, a wizard could do a one level dip in fighter, but his bonus would never be particularly good, and he would have just wasted one or two feats and a level. I don't know about anyone else, but for me, one level of spellcasting is a lot to give up, especially in actual play. And rogues can get some pretty impressive light armor. Honestly, it's also meant for rogues. Not wearing armor is a big drawback, and opposing feints, etc. make someone with this feat very, very vulnerable.
Again, I'm not really sure about the higher levels, but at low levels it's way too high. Also, a 'defense bonus', does that stack with an armor bonus from Mage Armor or bracers?
I just think the bonus is too high, untyped, and it's too easy to abuse. For a private game where you hold the cards you can control the factors. In the wild it's too much.
Unarmoured Fighters
WHAAAAAAAT? We call those Monks!
All the examples you mentioned would/could/should wear Leather Armor or a Chain Shirt, they allow for a decent dex bonus and could conceiveably be under (or over) clothing. Not everything (or everyone) is about the Platemail tough guy tanker. Some exisitng core classes even impose a penalty based on wearing heavier armors... Barbarian & Ranger.
examples: Musketeer, Archer, Swashbuckler, Brawler, Knife-Fighter, etc.
Also a good point would be that some of the concepts mentioned might be better off as Rogues and not Fighters at all, which leads us back to the same point... Leather or a Chain Shirt.
Leave the NO ARMOR routine to those wise monk types. :)
I always wonder why there are so many attempts to bring "realism" to fighters and combat techniques, but so few to bring "realism" to wizards, priests, monks, and simlar groups. All of them have had lots of chances to face armored warriors in battle, and somehow no one has ever wound up fielding an army of them. After all, "realistic" field magic tends to consist of slight of hand and smoke pellets and "realistic" priestly powers mostly consist of oratory and guilt trips. A "realistic" party should consist of fighter-types and possibly a few people who focus on skills. Why swallow elephants and strain at gnats?
My concerns have less to do with realism and more to do with the fact I don't feel the game system needs to be tweaked to accommodate every last character concept. The armor/ dex system is pretty decent and allows for more dexterous characters to get by with less armor. There are also a few ways a character can get away without armor altogether and be effective within the current system. Also, nothing is wrong with house ruling something to fit your one niche players needs.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon and like the system to be static. *shrug*
I always wonder why there are so many attempts to bring "realism" to fighters and combat techniques, but so few to bring "realism" to wizards, priests, monks, and simlar groups.
Once you throw in magic on a level like D&D, realism goes out the window. Period. OTOH, keeping those things realistic that we can allows for suspension of disbelief.
As for unarmoured warriors of equal skill standing a decent chance against well-armoured counterparts, to me that's making armour look bad. Where it isn't a liability in terms of speed and mobility, wearing armour should be a good thing. D&D already goes quite far in making it obsolete, if you ask me (if you look at the char-op high def builds, they're *all* armourless. Get yourself a frikkin' monk's belt and some wis-pumping items and get ready to rock the battlefield. Ugh).
The Duelist's elaborate parry is also a good ability that could be adapted to fit the unarmored fighter. The requirement of fighting defensively could be replaced or dropped. At any rate, taking a -4 to hit to get a + [level] dodge bonus to AC is not half bad. I didn't see the complete feats list, bonus from dodge could now scale up with level, and the armored training could be replace by something similar called unarmored training. I don't think an entirely new class would be necessary.