D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Is there an identifiable reason why this is the only Armor Specialization without an additional bonus other than +1 to AC? Each of the others either lowers the armor check or speed penalty, along with the +1...?
__________________ signed Jere, Lord of Pendragon
"Raven dark but beautiful, in a malevolent sort of way;
With eyes that speak of wonders on the other side of Day.
She dances in the shadows where others fear to tread;
But though her touch may kill you, it's her love that you should dread."
Oi. Sometimes you get useful responses, sometimes not I guess.
Would folks consider it unbalancing to add the speed penalty reduction from scale to Armor Specialization (Plate)? They're both heavy armors, so this doesn't seem out of line...
__________________ signed Jere, Lord of Pendragon
"Raven dark but beautiful, in a malevolent sort of way;
With eyes that speak of wonders on the other side of Day.
She dances in the shadows where others fear to tread;
But though her touch may kill you, it's her love that you should dread."
If you feel you must add something, reduce the check penalty by one. Plate Mail is supposed to be cumbersome even at its best, so making it faster than chain mail isn't really in-line with its purpose.
If you feel you must add something, reduce the check penalty by one. Plate Mail is supposed to be cumbersome even at its best, so making it faster than chain mail isn't really in-line with its purpose.
Different interpretations of cumbersome... reducing agility or reducing speed...
Actual historic plate was easier to wear than chain... it just plain hung better its weight easier to handle...its was all around considered better, historic people were known to leap on the back of horses while wearing it so I would say do whatever suits your sense of game balance. The stuff is not currently "realistic" and what amounts to legends in real life of very mobile knights are quite definite.
Would folks consider it unbalancing to add the speed penalty reduction from scale to Armor Specialization (Plate)? They're both heavy armors, so this doesn't seem out of line...
Yes.
It's called getting your cake and eating it too.
AS Scale does have more of a benefit, but it also has a greater prerequisite as well. 15 Dex for a PC that does not need Dex or Int is a serious ability score drain.
So, if one gives the speed penalty reduction to the Plate user, nobody would ever take Scale. Instead, they would take Plate and AS Plate, regardless of whether they need an extra feat to gain Plate.
There is a game balance as written there.
I also think that the super tank is supposed to be less mobile as part of the concept.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
AS Scale does have more of a benefit, but it also has a greater prerequisite as well. 15 Dex for a PC that does not need Dex or Int is a serious ability score drain.
I'm still far from rules mastery, so forgive me if there's an obvious rebuttal to my thinking here but...with the way hit points work, while Con may be better, Dex seems to be less onerous than you insist, considering that with Dex or Int you also increase your Reflex Save.
Quote:
if one gives the speed penalty reduction to the Plate user, nobody would ever take Scale. Instead, they would take Plate and AS Plate, regardless of whether they need an extra feat to gain Plate.
Shouldn't an extra feat garner an extra benefit? I don't see the reason why spending an extra feat for plate garnering more benefit is a negative?
Quote:
I also think that the super tank is supposed to be less mobile as part of the concept.
Interesting. You are suggesting that the feat is written to be clearly less powerful than all the other feats of its kind, because "tanks aren't supposed to move fast"?
__________________ signed Jere, Lord of Pendragon
"Raven dark but beautiful, in a malevolent sort of way;
With eyes that speak of wonders on the other side of Day.
She dances in the shadows where others fear to tread;
But though her touch may kill you, it's her love that you should dread."
I'm still far from rules mastery, so forgive me if there's an obvious rebuttal to my thinking here but...with the way hit points work, while Con may be better, Dex seems to be less onerous than you insist, considering that with Dex or Int you also increase your Reflex Save.
It's all a matter of choice.
Sure, one could have Plate and a good Dex for Reflex. In fact, many sword and board PCs would do this so that they could garner Shield Specialization.
But, how does one get both the best AC and the best movement?
Answer: One cannot. It's one or the other.
The best AC is Plate and Plate (or Shield) Specialization and Heavy Shield.
The best movement with a good but not best AC is Scale and Scale (or Shield) Specialization and Heavy Shield.
You are proposing to combine the best movement with the best AC so that there is never any reason to take Scale Armor Specialization.
And you do not see that as imbalancing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Pendragon
Shouldn't an extra feat garner an extra benefit? I don't see the reason why spending an extra feat for plate garnering more benefit is a negative?
One does garner extra for Plate Proficiency (better AC) and Armor Specialization Plate (better AC).
The reason Armor Specialization Scale works the way it does is because otherwise, nobody would take that. Everyone would be in Plate.
It's a balance issue. With your proposed rule, nobody would take Scale. With AS Scale not having the extra bennie, nobody would take Scale.
It's written the way it is to incentivize players to use Scale armor. Yes, the feat is better than the Plate feat. But, there is a definitive game balance reason for that.
Who said that all feats must be equal?
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
It should be noted that I'm approaching this from the perspective of a class that does not begin with plate armor proficiency. So a ranger or cleric. Let's take a ranger. You're looking at:
Armor Prof (Chainmail) +3 to AC
Armor Prof (Scale) +1 to AC
Armor Prof (Plate) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Plate) +1 to AC
Or
Armor Prof (Chainmail) +3 to AC
Armor Prof (Scale) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Scale) +1 to AC, +1 speed
So you're paying one extra feat to get plate, for +1 AC. If we tack on +1 speed to Armor Spec (Plate), how does that kill Scale? At the end of the day, you'd still be paying an extra feat for an extra +1 to AC. This brings the feat in-line with all the others of its kind.
No, I do not see how this would be imbalancing. The written version makes plate spec weaker than all the others. My version makes it exactly the same as the others.
That said, I wouldn't have a problem with the -1 to ACP either. It just seems odd and unnecessarily for Plate spec to be uniquely weaker than the other armor feats of its kind.
__________________ signed Jere, Lord of Pendragon
"Raven dark but beautiful, in a malevolent sort of way;
With eyes that speak of wonders on the other side of Day.
She dances in the shadows where others fear to tread;
But though her touch may kill you, it's her love that you should dread."
It should be noted that I'm approaching this from the perspective of a class that does not begin with plate armor proficiency. So a ranger or cleric. Let's take a ranger. You're looking at:
Armor Prof (Chainmail) +3 to AC
Armor Prof (Scale) +1 to AC
Armor Prof (Plate) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Plate) +1 to AC
Or
Armor Prof (Chainmail) +3 to AC
Armor Prof (Scale) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Scale) +1 to AC, +1 speed
So you're paying one extra feat to get plate, for +1 AC. If we tack on +1 speed to Armor Spec (Plate), how does that kill Scale? At the end of the day, you'd still be paying an extra feat for an extra +1 to AC. This brings the feat in-line with all the others of its kind.
No, I do not see how this would be imbalancing. The written version makes plate spec weaker than all the others. My version makes it exactly the same as the others.
That said, I wouldn't have a problem with the -1 to ACP either. It just seems odd and unnecessarily for Plate spec to be uniquely weaker than the other armor feats of its kind.
WotC is not looking at rangers or clerics (who are less extreme). They are looking at Fighters.
Armor Prof (Plate) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Plate) +1 to AC
Or
Armor Spec (Scale) +1 to AC, +1 speed
In this case, we are only talking 2 feats. 2 feats (as opposed to your example with 4 feats or the less extreme cleric with 3) is a snooze for most people.
Almost every Fighter would take the 2 feats instead of the 1 feat.
I absolutely understand what you are saying, but you do not appear to understand why WotC balanced it the way they did.
The change you propose is to make Plate the best at two things: AC and speed. You are trying to justify this Cheese by saying "Well, if AS Scale is entitled to this, AS Plate is also entitled to this".
The balance point here is: You want the best AC, you take Plate. You want the best speed with a good AC, you take Scale.
WotC is making it a choice. You are making it a no brainer.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
In addition, as MadLordOfMilk points out in this thread, each additional point of AC is worth more than the last. Given that plate is already the best armor there is in terms of base AC, an AC bonus on top of plate is worth more than an AC bonus on top of scale.
That said, I don't think that a minor ability in addition to the AC bonus would unbalance the feat too much. Perhaps the feat allows the PC to turn a critical hit into a normal hit with an Endurance check equal to the attack roll?
My question is... how comes we have to make a feat to balance things, or change a feat to balance things...
Why not bring back Field Plate? It was supposed to be as protective as real plate, but less cumbersome and constricting... Make it, with 1 less ACP involved to represent the lesser constriction implied in the actual item in RL.
Make it cost around 75 gold, so people, theoretically, CAN start with it, but it is mighty pricey to just grab and go...
This isn't about cheese, KD. And it doesn't make plate the best at AC and speed. You have to pay an extra feat for extra AC. It just makes the endcap equivalent.
But as I mentioned in my previous post, I don't even care of it's speed. It could just as easily be the -1ACP the other two feats have. Or something else thematically appropriate, as FireLance suggests.
I just see (or saw, more below) no reason why the plate feat should be weaker than the others of its ilk. Plate wearers already must pay additional feats for the additional AC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireLance
In addition, as MadLordOfMilk points out in this thread, each additional point of AC is worth more than the last. Given that plate is already the best armor there is in terms of base AC, an AC bonus on top of plate is worth more than an AC bonus on top of scale.
Now this intrigues me, and is something I never would have arrived at on my own. If this is indeed true, then I will concede the point entirely. The plate feat would have equivalent value to the others, it would just be a "hidden" value, buried in the math.
__________________ signed Jere, Lord of Pendragon
"Raven dark but beautiful, in a malevolent sort of way;
With eyes that speak of wonders on the other side of Day.
She dances in the shadows where others fear to tread;
But though her touch may kill you, it's her love that you should dread."
Now this intrigues me, and is something I never would have arrived at on my own. If this is indeed true, then I will concede the point entirely. The plate feat would have equivalent value to the others, it would just be a "hidden" value, buried in the math.
It is both true and not true. In some ways its better than the last, in other ways its not[i would argue there is a pretty clear bell curve for value, with the highest coming right in the middle of where the enemy can hit and just a bit over(since you're more likely to deal with people with higher bonuses rather than lower bonuses)]. For the most part, at the ranges you're going to be operating at, each point is going to be better than the next.
There is also the issue of players who choose con instead of dex[can't get armor spec scale] or who choose to play dwarves[their speed is 5 regardless]
No, that is not true. There are efficiency barriers you run up to before that.
Part of those "efficiency barriers" is that you accept a higher ACP and a lower speed than for scale.
4e's heavy armor balancing is great - both plate and scale have their pro's and cons (and chain has it's pros for many specific builds that can't easily wear heavier armor). However, for a typical defender type, the higher AC is generally worth the sacrifice. Removing that sacrifice would make it a non-choice.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
