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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

All, I've got a game coming up where the PC's will be without their armor (etc.). It's a WFRP scenario modified for D&D (HERE). Currently we have a hafling rogue (pistolier), human fighter (noble), human cleric (Sigmar), human wizard (fire) and a human paladin (Bretonnian of course)

Mostly it's about sneaking and bluffing your way around a castle, but there are a few expected combats. Since I intend to have them without armor, I'm wondering what the effects will be on PC game play (especially on the paladin).

Any thoughts?

jh

..

Well, it will hurt. Make the combats a little lower level then you usually would.

You could also come up with some handy ritual that would allow the party to keep their defenses as if they were carrying their armor.
Ultimately, a Paladin without training in stealth just isn't good at it, regardless whether he is wearing armor or not. (Scale Mail would be the choice to avoid penalties).

 

[Regicide]

Bookish and clumsy wizards being better at avoid attacks than a paladin or fighter who practice day in and day out to do just that should be an indication that the game simply doesn't support what you want to do with it. Stick with tabletop miniatures combat or just accept the fact that you're going to have to be a pro at suspending your disbelief and let the paladin sneak and sleep and eat and shop in plate. They are born in it and they'll die in it.

 

[Solodan]

If it is a short - one shot type of thiing. Go right ahead. The pally will NOT SHINE this adventure combat wise, so be sure to make it up to him in future adventures. and even in this adventure by requiring skill challenges that the pally may be better able to accomplish.

Sounds to me like the kind of adventure you run when the pally has other plans.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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

The problem I always find with that is...

the wizard is allowed in.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Bookish and clumsy wizards being better at avoid attacks than a paladin or fighter who practice day in and day out to do just that should be an indication that the game simply doesn't support what you want to do with it. Stick with tabletop miniatures combat or just accept the fact that you're going to have to be a pro at suspending your disbelief and let the paladin sneak and sleep and eat and shop in plate. They are born in it and they'll die in it.

You know, I might give you a tiny point towards the tabletop miniatures idea if the Starwars (Revised or the original, not SAGA) game didn't include non-combat classes with a better armor class bonus then Soldiers without armor... And these games tried to dial back on the board-game aspect a lot. And they also weren't the only games to do this...

And on the other hand - why should someone that is consistently relying on his heavy armor be better at ducking and weaving then someone who has to survive without? How can a really clumsy Wizard survive all those battles if he is so bad at ducking and weaving? Maybe he should be smart enough to avoid getting in a dangerous situation in the first place.

And finally - if you can't offer any helpful advice, why bother? (You were not the only one that didn't really seem to give helpful advice, but yours is clearly sticking out.)

 

[Gort]

The problem I always find with that is...

the wizard is allowed in.

Well, it used to be that you could take his spell components away and he'd be mostly neutered.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A Paladin wearing his shining Armor wears uniform, not a tool of war.

His HP will take care of his health... D&D never had Armor bonuses for Fighter classes...

Now its an improvement, because HP really represent only nonlethal damage.

Also you should remember, that nobody wears tools of war, most people in the castle are minions (Lvl 0 Lackeys) and usually you can decide when to fight guards.

the paladin will do is job quite well... maybe, as already mentioned, you could allow a rather not so cheap ritual, which allows you to call your armor to you when needed or which will provide some magearmor like armor bonus... also, after the first fight, you could take your opponents armor and duisguise as guards...

 

[burntgerbil]

After thinking about this some more, I would do two things -

Allow the players foreknowledge of this place - through use of streetwise - to know that this would be the kind of thing necessary for this adventure.

and 2 - have a "floating parcel" of plate mail - available shortly into the adventure or placed after the first, second or third time the paladin falls. This armor could even add to the story - if it was used as a disguise, bluff or intimidation - things the paladin is more likely to succeed in instead of stealth.

It sounds to me like you already have this party's plan thought out before they play it - I know to never assume what a party will think to do.

 

[Regicide]

And finally - if you can't offer any helpful advice, why bother? (You were not the only one that didn't really seem to give helpful advice, but yours is clearly sticking out.)

Excuse me? My advice was helpful, you have to accept the fact that the paladin wears armour all the time. Yours was downright silly. Make the fights easier? Why? So the wizard can tank and it can be a cakewalk? Yeah, thats... great. You'd be better off removing the fights all together.

A crippled wizard in a wheelchair who has never left the library is more agile and better able to deal with avoiding blows than a battle hardened paladin without armour. DO NOT REMOVE THE ARMOUR FROM THE PALADIN. The system DOES NOT SUPPORT IT. It makes more sense to let the paladin sneak in the armour than it does to watch the crippled wheel-chair bound wizard be the tank. He's just so good with that armour he doesn't even make a sound.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If it's an infiltration scenario, then I don't understand why a suit of armor would not be part of a good disguise: it's a castle with guards, isn't it?