Adventurer's Vault masterwork armours

[Lord Sessadore]

While you're right in that all magic armor above a certain point is masterwork, technically you can't transform standard plate into godplate.

I know there is no price issue or power issue or balance issue. But still, masterwork armor is not defined as a layer on top of the existing armor. It's defined as armor made out of a completely different material.

I realize this is all very easy to ignore, but the rules should really clear up this mess. If you enchant a standard suite of plate mail, you would end up with a +6 plate mail (which I agree would suck).

[/NITPICK]

Come at it from a different perspective - the process of making armor masterwork doesn't have to occur when the armor is first crafted or forged.

Here's how I interpret what the PHB says on masterwork armor: Once armor gets enchanted with enough magic, the magic actually permeates the physical material of the armor. In order to enchant something to +4 or +6, you use those techniques mentioned under each armor type in order to suffuse it with the necessary amount of magic to provide that extra protection.

AV does throw a bit of a wrench into these works, admittedly. If you assume that the lower level masterworks always existed then it isn't much of a problem, but if you allow both the PHB default and AV masterworks to co-exist (for example, you can get either +3 plate or +3 Gith plate), then things get sticky.

Also, with the variant masterwork armors presented in AV (ie - that there is more than one kind of masterwork armor for a given enhancement level) think of it as no different than the choice between Dwarven or Razor on a suit of Scale armor. When the enchanter performs the ritual, he chooses which masterwork property to convey to the armor just as he chooses which 'normal' magical property to convery to the armor.

 

[CapnZapp]

Disagreed. This isn't power creep. It's "smoothing out" the AC curve for heavy armor PCs.

I do see your point. But:

Errataing the PHB would be "smoothing out" the curve.

Introducing new armors in a splatbook not every DM will allow in their game cannot be anything but power creep, plain and simple. Those armors in AV are strictly better than those of the PHB. How can that not be powercreep?

(Powercreep as in the "publishing new books which intentionally contain better loot than seen before in order to drive sales" definition)

If the book had instead reproduced the PHB armor table, with the new masterworks added in, and there was a note to replace the old table with the new, then that would have been borderline acceptable. (Because errata should come free, and not require splatbooks)

As it stands, there is no mention whatsoever of this "smoothing out". Remember not all DMs read ENWorld, have DDI access or buy splatbooks at all.

 

[eamon]

Yeah, masterwork armor is one of the most confusing parts of the 4e rules. The table was poorly-explained, and IMHO out of place.

As Nail said, it's a kludge to fix the power curve between heavy & light armors. If you disregard it, the folks in light armor will be way ahead of the folks in heavy armor by the mid-levels.

Unless you go with one of the tricky Masterworks from AV, I'd just assume that the Masterwork AC upgrades go hand-in-hand with the enhancement bonuses, and disregard the flavor text except in those cases where it'd be cool not to disregard it.

-O

So, are you proposing a rule where heavy armor would effectively gain 2 ac per enhancement bonus? (to be fair, light armor should then also gain the first extra at 3rd and not 4th level)

 

[Obryn]

So, are you proposing a rule where heavy armor would effectively gain 2 ac per enhancement bonus? (to be fair, light armor should then also gain the first extra at 3rd and not 4th level)

If that's how the math works out, sure?

I don't have my books with me to check. I'm suggesting keeping the math the same, even if you use the Transfer Enchantment ritual or the like.

-O

 

[occam]

While I was surprised at first by the new masterwork armors in AV, most of it made sense after I looked at it: smoothing out the heavy armor curve, or providing extra options (-1 AC for +2 in another defense, etc.).

But I'm surprised no one's mentioned the one undeniable aspect of power creep in those armors: the cloth and leather armors are lighter! It's not that big a deal, but still: are those errors by someone not looking at the PHB, are they really meant to weigh less, or are they stealth errata and that's how much the standard PHB armors are supposed to weigh?

 

[Nail]

Introducing new armors in a splatbook not every DM will allow in their game cannot be anything but power creep, plain and simple. Those armors in AV are strictly better than those of the PHB. How can that not be powercreep?

That's a good question, and I understand your frustration.

...But check this out: The AV masterwork armors fill in the gaps between (for example) normal plate, warplate, and godplate. The AV armor isn't "better" than the PH armor.

Thus, it's not powercreep.

Looking at the progression, the designers seem to think (and I agree) that heavy armor needs a +1 masterwork bump every time they get an enhancement bump. That is, every 6 levels both the masterwork and enhancement should go up by one.

With AV, plate now has that progession, and scale and chain have most of that progression (missing only the 21st level bump).

It's not powercreep. It's stealth errata.

I'm sure they'll describe it as "exploring the design space", or something similar.

 

[CapnZapp]

Look, I don't want to argue as we seem equally irritated about this new "stealth errata" strategy.

But how can you claim it isn't powercreep? Yes, it's "stealth errata" but that doesn't make it less "creepy".

Let's take Layered plate armor as an example, and contrast that to the PHB's Warplate. Warplate requires an enchantment bonus of +4, which means the magic armor is at least level 16. The earliest you could hope for is if you're level 11, so let's take a level 10 Fighter as our example.

Before AV: the best armor for our F10 would be Plate Mail +3 for a total AC bonus of 11.

With AV: the best armor for our F10 would be Layered Plate +3 for a total AC bonus of 14.

By simply buying this book (and getting its use approved by your DM*) your Fighter gains a +3 bonus to AC at no cost whatsoever. The guideline even goes so far as to suggest his existing suit of armor should be automagically upgraded!
*) and many DMs will have a policy where anything official from WotC gets auto-approved for their campaign

This is power creep, plain and simple. And it will remain so until such time the "stealth" is taken out of the errata, making Layered Plate an official part of PHB-only campaigns too.

 

[Nail]

Look, I don't want to argue as we seem equally irritated about this new "stealth errata" strategy.

Agreed.

IMO, the designers quickly realized that by putting powers for every class in the book, they'd have precious little space in that same book for much else. So they included some feats, some equipment, and only a few powers per level...and then put the full treatment in separate splatbooks.

That's a good marketing strategy, but it means that well over half the system actually hasn't been released yet. Think about it: the Adventurer's Vault is just the remainder of the PH (1) equipment chapter. The Martial Powers is just the remainder of the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord sections that should have been in PH 1. Etc.

(sigh)

So it's not "errata" in the sense of "corrected mistake". It's more like an "addendum".

Yes, it's "stealth errata" but that doesn't make it less "creepy".

Hee, hee! I like that quote.

(I take it you don't want to argue the powercreep thing back-n-forth. I'm cool with that, either way.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, I do take objection to the notion that AV is an addendum to the PHB. That's a far too forgiving stance for me.

The three core books are a contained game and should be viewed as such. Any additional books are completely optional. I don't buy that only "half the system" is included. You get the whole system alright, then if you wish more options, the rest of the books are there for you.

Feel free to buy everything Wizards throws at you, but don't expect others to feel the same.

That said, have a nice day. I certainly don't wish to argue about this either, so let's agree to disagree and move on

 

[Regicide]

Sorry to pick on your math, but yes, your point still stands. Without masterwork armor, the light armor wearers will outstrip non-Dex or non-Int based defenders. That just doesn't seem right, does it?

No, it doesn't, it's actually rather silly. Theres no reason a paladin in magical godplate armour which is as light and flexible as magic can make it can't be just as nimble as the rogue AND with the heavy armour be better protected. It gets even sillier when when compareing it to int-based defence. Hands up if you think that an 80 year-old scientist should be much harder to hit than a 25 year-old marine.

They really needed to go with a different system. 3E had evasion and touch-attacks which admittedly could have been improved upon too. I'd be very tempted to rip out the system from Conan or another game where armour adds DR against strength attacks instead of adding AC, but I don't think it would scale easily with some of the crazy numbers of dice that get tossed at higher levels.