How bad is the paladin going to be without armor in combat?

[gizmo33]

How exactly is the Paladin able to contribute to that goal?

Virtually anything he does. Quite simply, party+paladin is more powerful than just the party under most any circumstances - even if he were just a minion! (Ok, maybe not with cleave.) It's only scenarios where the utmost stealth is required that the paladin would be a liability, but then so would the party cleric. Since bluff was mentioned I don't think that's the case here. Astral Speech gives bonuses, for example. The paladin also has healing abilities. The actual answer to your question is so trivial that I'm not sure what you were getting at. The mechanics of the skill challenge allow a lot of flexibility in the player getting to define how he's useful.

If combat happens how does a character who normally uses heavy armour play his usual role?

The same way he always does. Again, if combat happens then I don't see how the party is better off without the paladin. He's not at his best, but short of him attacking the party I don't see how he fails to contribute. IMO I think it takes some class and maturity to suck it up, get through the adventure, and see the wider goals and chances for the other PCs to shine as something beneficial. It's a sort of enjoyment of the game that's not based on instant gratification and ego-stroking, but I think it's an important thing to learn to appreciate *especially* in a team-type environment where various people are bringing various skills to the table. Like in sports, music, or many other facets of life, sometimes the circumstances favor your talents, sometimes they don't. Trying to design around this issue IMO makes the game too antiseptic and transparently a DM-Player exchange without an versimilitude.

 

[gizmo33]

I do think it is shortchanging the paladin. If you want to call it an entitlement issue, then fine, I think as a DM that the players are entitled to use their class features. There is a reason that paladins are the only class in 4e that get full plate proficiency without having to spend a feat for it.

Personally I don’t like to take major portions of my players abilities away, it’s the reason that I don’t sunder weapons, I’ve never dropped a Mord’s Disjunction on the party and the reason that I don’t steal or ruin a wizard’s spellbook.

So I'm going to make up a princess character. And my princess is going to completely specialize in courtly intrigue. She's going to sit around with her friends and laugh at the other courtier's sub-optimal builds. Every element of fashion, etiquette, and social grace will be mastered at the expense of every other aspect of adventuring. Gods help the DM that shipwrecks her on a desert island with nothing but a battle axe and some rations. Gods help the DM that breaks her charisma-boosting nails by forcing her to use an axe to kill orcs. She's going to sit on a stump and lecture the DM about how unfair it all is until he sends a ship to come get her and take her back to the castle where her powers won't be nerfed.

How did things get this weird? Granted, this has been lurking on the horizon since grognards started complaining about the entitlement culture back in the 3E days, and I suppose as time has gone by the army of princesses has overwhelmed the opposition.

I'm not saying that the DM shouldn't take these issues into account. If someone really wants to make up a princess character and spends every single adventure mired in a swamp somewhere then that needs to be considered. But one adventure?! You guys are that delicate?

And what's with this attitude about "*I* don't steal or ruin the wizard's spellbook" or "*I* don't disjoin magic items" or whatever? What happened to just designing the world and letting the dice fall? Is the game so railroaded now that the DM is responsible for every little event that happens? Is there a law in your game world that prevents wizards from making backup copies of spellbooks? Can't they tuck away a spare +2 sword somewhere in case of an unfortunate disjunction? Then again I suppose the magic item awards may be so tightly engineered that there are no spares of anything because I guess the DM has just plopped every item that he "wants the party to have" into their laps.

Take a world. Put a castle there full of evil monsters. If the party decides that the best way of solving the problem is to go on a stealth mission then let the party work together to accomplish that - dealing with the various strengths and weaknesses of it's members. Allowing a player's griping about adversity to be a more effective than copying spellbooks and storing away treasure creates this. Of course my princess is going to complain to her handlers when her cleave attack splatters gore on her magic dress and nerfs it's granted charisma bonus - but that's just good roleplaying.

 

[SmCaudata]

Err, the paly should just play without his armor.

Plate armored individuals take a lot of blows to the armor. They learn to defend shots at vital targets. They block things with the shield. When his armor and shield are taken from him, he would have to fight in a completely diferent manner. Putting up his forearm for a block won't work. The wizard with a high dexterity on the other hand always fights with no armor. He may not be front line, but he trains enough to dodge attacks. The rogue will be the best of the bunch because he is more dextrous and IS a melee guy who relies on quickness.

So again, if you want to do this, the paly SHOULD be at a disadvantage. Saying you want him to fight without armor is like saying you want him to be able to contribute without his weapon.

 

[Baron Opal]

How exactly is the Paladin able to contribute to that goal?

If combat happens how does a character who normally uses heavy armour play his usual role?

Hit hard, fast and use a lot of healing as you run. Or, use your Astral Speech with your +4 on Diplomacy checks (?) to divert the bad guys.

I'm not denying that the heavy armor users will be at a disadvantage, but come on. Are you telling me that those classes are going to be dog meat? This is where the adventure comes in! We don't know the details, but there must be some reason why the characters have made this choice; if so, then they have fore-knoweldge of the situation and can plan accordingly. If they have been captured then it's a struggle to escape and they can take stuff from their foes.

The paladin, and others, are more than a tin can and a knife. They have other abilities and capabilities. If Emirikol's players are worth their salt they will plan ahead and win the day. Or get killed by something they didn't anticipate but will be wiser next time.

 

[Emirikol]

)

Here is the scenario: ADVENTURE: Mice & Men

I think most guards will be lower level filet-mignons.

The paladin is just going to have to stop being a stupid meat shield.

That always was one thing that bugged me about that class...nows my chance to see a not-stupid-meat-shield in action.


jh

 

[Emirikol]

So I'm going to make up a princess character. And my princess is going to completely specialize in courtly intrigue. She's going to sit on a stump and lecture the DM about how unfair it all is until he sends a ship to come get her and take her back to the castle where her powers won't be nerfed..

Giz, THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS. I've kind of been irritated by player-coddling for a long time (it's why I finally quit the RPGA btw . I think everyone here has made good points though. From a player standpoint, I disagree that the DM should have to solve the players' inability to be a creative roleplayer. I think it's up to the PLAYER to figure out how his paladin can THRIVE in situations where he doesn't have his armor.

Everybody in my campaign knows that the Warhammer world NEVER puts you in an optimal situation and if you overspecialize your character and cannot be flexible and creative to survive (meaning thinking outside the rules), you will die..and die unheroically. It would be very unpaladinly to die unheroically dont' you think?

jh



..

 

[Kraydak]

I'm not denying that the heavy armor users will be at a disadvantage, but come on. Are you telling me that those classes are going to be dog meat? This is where the adventure comes in! We don't know the details, but there must be some reason why the characters have made this choice; if so, then they have fore-knoweldge of the situation and can plan accordingly. If they have been captured then it's a struggle to escape and they can take stuff from their foes.

...

Yes, dog meat. Dropping armor means the paladin will get hit on a two by anyone of *any* significance. He will be *much* weaker than a wizard. About the best he can do is act as a LoH-bot, while throwing some javelins to keep DC up. The front lines are death. Note that in 4e, with very limited in-combat heals, there is a very narrow line dividing the party having enough healing and the party not. If the paladin tries to tank, he will eat up all the party's in-combat healing almost instantly, before being forced to fall back, probably leaving the party with inadequate healing for the rest of the fight.

4e is designed with heavy armor people in heavy armor, and light armor character concepts in light armor all being viable. Drop those assumptions (being in armor) and *things break*.

Now, I have no idea how taking armor off is going to help the PCs (assuming they are keeping their lighter armor/weapons). You really can't sneak through a castle in a way where not having armor would be of benefit (unless, I guess, you give up your weapons too but even then...).

 

[Mengu]

The question you have to ask yourself is, would the paladin with no armor be as useful as the Ranger or the Rogue? My answer would be no, so something needs to be done about it. Telling the Paladin to "suck it up" doesn't seem like a very fun solution for the player. I'd either tell the player to pick a different class, more suitable for this adventure, perhaps a Swordmage, or figure out a way for him to wear armor. If the player really wants to play a Paladin, the latter option is much easier to implement in some form.

If the paladin has to be out of his armor for just one or two encounters, it's not such a big deal, call it part of the life of an adventurer. But if the paladin will be without armor for the whole adventure, and can't shine in his role as defender like the other characters, that's grounds for a rightfully disgruntled player.

 

[Regicide]

Plate armored individuals take a lot of blows to the armor. They learn to defend shots at vital targets. They block things with the shield. When his armor and shield are taken from him, he would have to fight in a completely diferent manner. Putting up his forearm for a block won't work.

Paladins are also proficient with lighter armor down to cloth, and doubtless trained in all of them when they were a squire. Although your explanation is nice, it doesn't actually make any sense because the DnD system doesn't make any sense, nor does it try to. The system simply doesn't support a paladin out of plate, hence why they're gifted it at level 1. Are there even rules on how long it takes to take the armor off anymore?

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

Now, I have no idea how taking armor off is going to help the PCs (assuming they are keeping their lighter armor/weapons). You really can't sneak through a castle in a way where not having armor would be of benefit (unless, I guess, you give up your weapons too but even then...).

The castle is not an enemy fortification, but the PCs may not be allowed in with tools of war.

If this means what I think this means, the party will indeed most likely be weaponless, too. Now, this means that the Fighter, the Rogue and the Paladin won't be able to use any powers with the weapon keyword. This is something like 80% of the Paladin's powers, and 90-100% of the Rogue's and the Fighter's, unless they grab some cutlery or a chair leg or whatnot (1d4 improvised weaponry). At this point, being armourless is just a detail... I have to agree: they are dog meat.

This isn't really a fault of 4e, either: a 1e fighter without armour or weapons is as useless as in 4e. The only advantage of the 1e fighter is that in 1e, your character must sweat blood before being able to afford plate mail, so your AC is not assumed to be very much of anything anyway. In 4e, where you can buy any heroic armour with starting cash, they are indeed up the proverbial creek without a paddle.