How bad is the paladin going to be without armor in combat?
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
Emirikol
Adventurer
That's what I'd expect ANY good player to do too. My guess is that the paladin will kill a guard and take his armor or try to take some cerimonial armor off one of the pedistals (you all read the scenario right?)
jh
But then, why not walk in in armor in the first place?
There are two distinct problems here:
1) There is no good reason to take the armor off.
2) 4e artificially boosted *light* armor people because having large AC disparities causes encounter balance problems. 4e does not have any contingencies in place for when DMs decide to reverse the problem by removing heavy armor. So don't remove the heavy armor: doing so makes the wizard a far, far better tank than the fighter/paladin.
Raven Swords
First Post
As a role-playing game it makes perfect sense to have scenarios with the characters sub-optimum. Assassins attacking when you sleep, deadly poison in you wine, lovers dominated into attacking you, political intrigue in the high courts where armour and obvious weaponry is considered cowardly or out-right forbidden.
I think the problem here is that the assumptions inherent in 4thed make it a very rigid system that works great with one play style - dungeon crawls - but struggles with others. it's almost in danger of becoming a niche game in our hobby.
I think the problem here is that the assumptions inherent in 4thed make it a very rigid system that works great with one play style - dungeon crawls - but struggles with others. it's almost in danger of becoming a niche game in our hobby.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I think the problem is more people not accepting that if you put PCs in a bad spot, they are in a bad spot. The system will not help them out, because if it would, then the bad spot wasn't a bad spot in the first place!
Pick a OD&D party. Take away the Wizards spellbook. Do you expect the rules to come out "You know, the spellbook is actually not important, because you can use this alternative mechanical replacement to compensate". Pick a Shadowrun party and say that all cyberware will be deactivated while they are in the complex they want to infiltrate. Do you expect the rules to say "You know, if your cyberblade is deactivated, you unarmed attacks deal (STR+3)L damage."
You should expect things to get tougher in such situations. That doesn't have to mean that you should _never_ do it or the system forbids you doing it. It means that you put the PCs in a tough spot. Now the players will have to adapt their tactics to their new situation, and the DM has to ensure that he still gives them a fair chance. Just as he always does, but when he's usually assuming the PCs might work at full capacity, he has to accept that this time, they are not, and act accordingly.
So, he might want to make the encounters a little easier then a standard party would imply, or let the attackers target different defenses then usual. Or he might decide to include a ceremonial armor in a room the PCs are likely to explore.
The PCs might still fail, but it is not because of a flawed system. It is because the DM overestimated their ability to handle the situation he threw at them. Maybe they were not as smart as he hoped to be. Or he made the opposition still a little too tough.
Or the PCs succeed. They were just as smart - or smarter as the DM expected. Or the opposition should have been tougher.
EDIT:
And for the record: I do not believe it is Emirikol that is having these problems. He fully knew what he wanted to do, and just wanted some helpers how to gauge the difficulty changes.
You see, this is where I disagree. 4e explicitly choose the (STR+3)L route: WotC decided that the AC splits of previous editions were too large to handle and so artificially boosted the wizard's AC by factoring in INT. The basic sin you are complaining about has already been committed, so you might as well take advantage of it.
Now, the right fix isn't to artificially boost the paladin's AC when he doesn't wear armor, the right fix is for the paladin to *always have armor on*. 4e is a very artificial game where fluff and crunch don't mesh well. Accept that the game is meant to be played where paladins (and fighters etc...) can sire progeny while fully armored (or is magically given time to fully gear himself at need). It is like an FF game, where *no matter what* is happening in the cut scenes, if a fight gets triggered, you have all your stuff equipped.
charcoalninja
First Post
If your paladin was trained and skilled at using all levels of armour he'd have the relevant ability scores to reflect this IE you wouldn't dump dex or Int. He's trained in all armours sure, but he's not good at fighting in them unless the mechanics reflect this. I can play a ranger with 8 STR if I want to and I'm trained in the use of all melee weapons, but am I skilled with them? No I hit like a little girl. A paladin with NO Dex or Int is a Paladin that sucks at anticipating incoming attacks and at dodging. He is the tough as nails guy that lets his heavy armour do the defending work FOR him. He is not skilled at dodging, nor is he good at reading the flow of combat to avoid incoming attacks, he knows that his armour will protect him and relies on that. If you're playing a Paladin that has some combative sense and is actually skilled at avoiding attacks you would have placed some points in INT and/or DEX to reflect this. If your Paladin didn't, then no you aren't any better at not getting gutted than the wizard barring of course your vastly superior HP (which IS a measure of your combative know how btw).
Don't blame the system for your character decisions. The crippled wheelchair wizard is actually restrained since they're sitting down and can't go anywhere and thus suffer the appropriate penalties namely granting combat advantage and taking a -2 to attack rolls. (In my opinion since the crippled character is in essence chained to the chair) so isn't better at dodging and avoiding attacks than the Paladin without armour (especially since again, he has next to nothing for HP).
During the adventure the Pally could pick up a reach weapon to help with his lower AC, will use more healing ability on himself and can use Bolstering Strike constantly to give himself even more staying power round by round.
IMO the system does no armour just dandy. But if you build a character that so utterly depends on his armour, you're going to have to alter how you play him in order to take into account this new weakness. Just like a warlock is similarly hosed in a narrow dungeon or in difficult terrain (a sewer for example) where he can't get away from melee monsters and now can't even shift to get off any ranged attacks. Or how a party that has no wizard or torches is in for a rough time in a cave without any lightsources.
Paladin's have a lot of options, he could take up a bow and use Divine challenge and ranged attacks to force enemies to go through his allies to get to him or burn, best would be a heavy thrown weapon since he could use his higher STR for attack roles. I'm sure he could find something heavy to throw at them. This plus his encounter and healing abilities would make him a very useful party member when he wants to avoid getting hit. He could wait until the other strikers move up, then move himself into a flanking position and using divine challenge on that target in essence trading hits with his strikers to spread out the damage. Bolstering strike again grants the Paladin a kind of staying power the other characters don't enjoy as he shaves off 2-4 damage he would take in that round.
You could also build a CHA, INT, WIS Paladin intent on multiclassing into wizard for some ranged attacks and forgo heavy armour completely without hurting your much character at all. Half elf paladin like this could have the following at lvl 1:
STR 11
DEX 8
CON 14
INT 16
WIS 14
CHA 16
AC without armour: 13, 15 with heavy shield, with hide armour 16, with heavy shield & hide 18. Not to bad at all. He'd have a great range of other defenses as well, much higher reflex than your standard dump INT DEX paladin. You have 2 lower AC than a full plate Paladin but could take Thunderwave from Arcane Initiate to give you the ability to knock people back from you negating combat advantage and other attacks against you, or take Eyebite with your Dillante power to give you a round of invisibility against youre Divine Challenge target.
Saying the system doesn't support a Paladin out of heavy armour is being lazy because it simply isn't true. If you build a paladin that is gimped by his lack of heavy armour the class still affords you a slew of other options to remain a potent party member, you just have to change how you're playing a bit.
tintagel
Explorer
Amen to that. I'm not a blind 4E supporter, but saying it's inherently more restrictive or confining in this area is just mind-boggling. Let's talk about 3.5 rogues a bit. Throw in undead or constructs into the adventure and you are HOSED. You might as well pack it up. Try using your wizard in a dead-magic or wild-magic zone, or against an anti-magic field. HOSED. Got a heavy hitting half-orc barbarian with 5 attacks per round? Five mummies or allips should ruin his day. Hell, let's thow some simple Black Pudding his way. His weapon is utterly useless and makes it SPLIT into two identical puddings, and his reflex save is probably going to be low and his armor will be gone. YAY! Clay golems likewise spank rogues like they are red-headed stepchildren, as their DR 10 / adamantine AND blunt plus immunity to sneak attack make them nearly immune to most rogue attacks.
Trust me, in 3.5 a DM can utterly abuse any 3.5 PC you throw at him, and legally within the prescribed challenge ratings. Most of the time, the DM doesn't even realize that the situation is so imbalanced either, until the players start crying.
In fact, we've done this at DragonCon for the last 6 years with a sadistic (yet popular) event called The Cheese Grinder. We challenge anyone to build the most broken 3.5 characters, with 40-point buy and tons of gold and an open book. Then we bend them over see how long they can survive encounters that are within the proper challenge ratings. As a player dies, another replaces him at the table. We even have a special bell for TPKs - which happen frequently (one TPK happened on round ONE on initiative count 24). Two years ago, we slaughtered 384 of them in 48 hours. We don't think it will be possible in 4E. www.thecheesegrinder.com
My point is that all versions of D&D had situations, settings, and scenarios where a class was severely crippled and even hosed. It's part of the game and not new. So stop using this as an excuse to take cheap shots at 4E, because it just makes you look silly.
Hardly. Unlike 4E, 3.5E doesn't pigeonhole rogues into being strikers only. A 3.5E rogue faced with a construct simply snaps the appropriate crystal onto his weapon and can sneak attack away, OR pull out a wand and heal people, OR set a trap OR use a scroll OR do one any number of things.
tintagel
Explorer
Those examples are as weak as a baby's fart. Let me explain.
Wand & heal: You have to max out Use magical device AND have a decent charisma (read: certain build) to use wands fairly reliably. Also, most wands were 1d8+1 healing and I know NO rogue that wants to be heal-bitch for 1d8+1 while others have their fun and play their class to the fullest. Don't forget that the 4E pally can also "heal people" and use other class abilities too! YAY!
Appropriate Crystal: That's not core PHB. 4E is only in the infancy stage of splatbooks. Crystals didn't come out until Year 6 or so of 3rd edition. Where were they from 1975 - 2006? What crystal can a mage slap on his fireballs to hurt iron golems or penetrate anti-magic fields? What if you don't own that particular splatbook, or DM thinks crystals or overpowered? What then? Weaksauce.
Set a Trap:
Seriously? In combat? Versus a hasted clay golem or 5 shadows, or 4 specters, or black pudding??
Use a Scroll: let's try to remember that Clay Golems (and most for that matter) are IMMUNE to magic - leaving most of your offensive scrolls out of the question, except conjuration. Also, scrolls ain't cheap, especially if you are going above 1st or 2nd level.
Look, all of your examples could be used for the 4E pally too. He could just buy 10 healing potions and use minor actions each round to gulp them down, ya know. He could also *GASP* multi-class or Build His Guy Differently (as your wand & scroll wielding rogue did). Hey, at least 4th let's him even think about respeccing.
You can't seriously say that 4E is flawed because a Pally without armor is weaker in 4th than without. A Pally in ANY version of D&D without armor was gimped. Seriously... still laughing here...
Similar Threads
