Build me a katana + trenchcoat guy
jasin
Explorer
It seems I overestimated the importance of the masterwork bumps and underestimated the rate at which stats are gained.
Also, fighters are only proficient with scale, so that's another point (literally
) for light, when comparing light armour fighters and heavy armour fighters.
Depending on how much he invests in Dex, the light armour fighter will be about equal in AC to a heavy armour one. If we defaulting to "a lot, but not maximum, which is reserved for Str", he'll be about a point or two behind.
OTOH, even if he's just a point behind, I can easily see someone with a trenchcoat & katana concept taking scale over hide, considering how minor the heavy armour penalties are. A suit of fine, silvery scales is just a step away from Frodo's chain shirt, which is equivalent to no armour in terms of style.
To go off on a tangent, this seems to be prominent feature of 4E in general: the gaps between different choices seem to be much narrower. I'd be inclined to say this is a feature rather than a bug, were it not coupled with a rather restricted decision space: for example, considering that rapiers are +3/1d8 and battleaxes are +2/1d10 High crit, would it really be so terribly game-breaking if some dwarven rogue used a battleaxe with his rogue powers that you can't do it even at the cost of a feat?
Also, fighters are only proficient with scale, so that's another point (literally
) for light, when comparing light armour fighters and heavy armour fighters.Depending on how much he invests in Dex, the light armour fighter will be about equal in AC to a heavy armour one. If we defaulting to "a lot, but not maximum, which is reserved for Str", he'll be about a point or two behind.
OTOH, even if he's just a point behind, I can easily see someone with a trenchcoat & katana concept taking scale over hide, considering how minor the heavy armour penalties are. A suit of fine, silvery scales is just a step away from Frodo's chain shirt, which is equivalent to no armour in terms of style.
To go off on a tangent, this seems to be prominent feature of 4E in general: the gaps between different choices seem to be much narrower. I'd be inclined to say this is a feature rather than a bug, were it not coupled with a rather restricted decision space: for example, considering that rapiers are +3/1d8 and battleaxes are +2/1d10 High crit, would it really be so terribly game-breaking if some dwarven rogue used a battleaxe with his rogue powers that you can't do it even at the cost of a feat?
Last edited:
jasin said:
In this specific case, it was noted elsewhere that weapon choice actually matters MORE in 4E than in 3E. Extra damage from weapon powers is expressed in terms of rolling the weapon damage dice multiple times, so a d4 dagger does less than a d12 maul. The difference just gets bigger as you go to 3[w], 4[w] and 5[w] powers. So yes, it would be game-breaking (or at least unbalancing) if you could use sneak attack with every weapon. You might quibble over where the limits should be, but the principle seems valid.
Ah, thanks for the explanation of armors, DonAdam. I really wasn't getting how this all should work, but that explains it very well.
It does imply that a light armored fighter is a possible build, if you start with a dex of 16 or 18, and improve it regularly. If I understand correctly, a hide armor wearing fighter with a 16 starting dexterity would get the leftmost column in your graph, minus one, if we compared his AC to a fighter in scale. That's a penalty of one point of AC in exchange for a faster movement rate. Not terrible, assuming that there are enough fighter abilities keyed off of dexterity to make it worthwhile.
More and more, though, I'm thinking that the "trenchcoat and huge sword" character should just wear scale and put the trenchcoat overtop. Saves a lot of time and effort.
It does imply that a light armored fighter is a possible build, if you start with a dex of 16 or 18, and improve it regularly. If I understand correctly, a hide armor wearing fighter with a 16 starting dexterity would get the leftmost column in your graph, minus one, if we compared his AC to a fighter in scale. That's a penalty of one point of AC in exchange for a faster movement rate. Not terrible, assuming that there are enough fighter abilities keyed off of dexterity to make it worthwhile.
More and more, though, I'm thinking that the "trenchcoat and huge sword" character should just wear scale and put the trenchcoat overtop. Saves a lot of time and effort.
jasin
Explorer
Oh, I'm not saying rogues should be able to use their ninja 7[W] powers with 2d6 mauls by default. But I am saying they should be able to become able to do so, with the right investment, rather than being disallowed on principle.hong said:
Of course, this is a matter of available feats, which will change as more books come out: it's quite simple to conceive of something like
However, my initial impression is that the 4E zeitgeist is to treat "you can't do that" as a much more acceptable answer than it was in 3E. One one hand, that makes the mechanics more robust: if you simply must use light blades for rogue powers, you won't be able to combine a hammer-as-light-blade feat with a bonus-to-hammers feat with a bonus-to-light-blades feat with rogue powers for great munchy justice. On the other hand, I don't want to be limited to just a handful of concepts the designers have built in as the most straightforward advancement paths.
Oh, well, I suppose that's what splatbooks and dubious webpages with house rules such as this one are for.
Blackeagle said:
Yes, that's the problem. Wrapped in steel doesn't equate to being slow, and it's vaguely tiresome that this idea still survives.
Victim said:
I suppose my issue is with the idea of "Why bother getting the highest level plate?" That strikes me as a bad decision - if the highest level of armor takes sacrifice to get, it should give a reward. Especially with fighters not starting out in plate - if they put in a feat (or other classes put in two) it should have a pay out.
jasin said:
Well, have you actually ever _wanted_ to create a rogue with a warhammer? No edition of D&D has ever allowed you to create every character conceivable. 3E may be more flexible than 1/2E, but even it is pretty limited compared to pure point-based systems. As long as only the obscure concepts are out, that should be enough.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
There was a Dwarf Rogue/Fighter who did indeed use a warhammer in one of my games. Dirty Sven, if I recall correctly. He was amusing.hong said:
I've always kinda liked the idea of a clanky, metal-armored, non-Acrobatic Rogue who's more of a locksmith / trapsmith than a sneak, and who acts more like a Fighter in melee (except when he stabs you in the back with a hammer).
Cheers, -- N
hong said:
No, it doesn't; that's my point.
