Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doctor Proctor" data-source="post: 5679425" data-attributes="member: 78547"> So, Barbarian's get a boost to their AC and REF if they not using Heavy Armor and don't have DEX as a primary or main secondary stat. Even assuming 18/18/12 (STR/CHA/DEX) starting, then that's a 15 AC in Hide armor. Not good, I'll agree, but about as good as a Wizard. This can be corrected by a single feat too, Chain proficiency, which any Barbarian should be able to qualify for. So it's at least not totally gimping the build, and requires only feat to fix it for the most part. As for the Warlock, that's not really an issue. You're generally supposed to be going CHA/INT or CON/INT, not CHA/CON. The class entry for Warlock specifically mentions this, which means that to build a CHA/CON is to go out and specifically build a class that was not balanced to work that way, and will have issues. Those issues being, low AC. I mean, if we're gonna go against any kind of build advice here, then why not have my STR/CON Fighter wear Cloth? Or maybe put the Wizard into Plate that he's not proficient in? I'll grant you that the Barbarian out of the box, and following suggested build guidelines has some issues and probably requires a feat to fix. But the Warlock? No.   Again, you're throwing stuff about classes into a discussion about equipment, but fine. You know what else we're talking about? A Fighter with three skill choices, versus the Ranger or Rogue with, what? Five skills? And a much larger skill list to boot? There are many things all balancing out here, which is why you just can't arbitrarily tug on this thread or that one without looking at the system as a whole. Defenders typically have a lot of armor and weapon proficiencies, but suffer smaller class skill lists and a low number of skill choices to make. They get more HP and Surges, but they also have mechanics that encourage attacks, do less damage (I'm talking about the heavy armor + shield builds here...Tempest Fighters and other Defender/Strikers are totally different, and usually use light armor) and are more limited outside of combat.  Well, you mentioned climbing down a rope, but didn't give specifics. Decending down a rope one handed I don't think is that difficult. Swimming with one hand is even easier actually, try it sometime (you're slower, but it's basically kinda like a modified backstroke, only more out to the side). I myself have done that many a time when I start to get tired, alternating between arms to give each one a break. Point is though, I was mainly saying that you didn't seem to tell your PC that she had to stow her gear until after she reached the bottom and found out she was in a fight. At least saying "You need both hands free, or one hand and you'll take a -5 penalty" would've allowed her to weigh her options first.  Now that it's explained better though, then yes, it seems that your player just zoned out. I was just pointing out though that people do use things like ropes one handed, and swim one handed. If you're going for "common sense" and "vermisilitude", then you also shouldn't outright bar things that actually do exist.  And this I would likely be fine with. You're taking away a shield here, not their whole AC bonus! Although, depending on how frequently fights break out in bars, I might just start keeping the shield handy and just drinking one handed. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  That in no way addresses the point here. The whole point of this house rule of yours was to encourage PC's to go into some situations with their armor off, because that would be more realistic. Bringing in whether or not a Thief can succeed on a stealth check is just completely off on a tangent here.   No one said they were omnipotent. However, it is true that it was a 3e rule, and that it was eliminated. I would think that was intentional, ergo, it was eliminated for a reason. That reason being: it's not fun for heavy AC users and it penalizes them. My opinion of WotC and their system has nothing to do with that.  But all you're doing is forcing a different kind of "rollplay" here. You're forcing them to optimize for a skill check so that they can wear their armor, or optimize for being unarmored. You're also, ironically, elminating some "roleplay" options. Take the Adamantine Soldier Epic Destiny, for example: So, under the system that your houserules seek to create, that's sort of an invalid choice. This is supposed to be a character that mastered armor in the same way that a Kensei masters the sword. It's their second skin, that they never take off...except when dicated by DM houserules of course. Examples of this sort of character abound in ancient stories. Take The Illiad, where Ajax the Great is recognized for his massive that he always carries with him. Or Achilles and his armor. So closely was it associated with him that when Patroclus donned he was actually mistaken for Achilles. And then there is Hector of the Golden Armor. The very rules that you're creating to enforce roleplay eliminate (or create difficulty) the ability to roleplay counterparts to these famous figures of myth and legend.</blockquote>

Verification