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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5680469" data-attributes="member: 82106">LOL, OK, I kinda skipped ahead here at a certain point, forgive me, but I think there are valid points on all sides of this one. Maybe I can inject a bit of a middle way perspective here, although I don't honestly have (or think there really are) any perfect answers within the parameters of 4e as it now stands.Any mechanics which encourages removal of armor is going to suck for heavily armor dependent PCs. That's just all there is to it. The game is balanced around everyone having their equipment, and the heavier the armor you wear generally the more important it is to your character's numbers. You could extend penalties to light armor as well (after all I doubt sleeping in a hardened leather suit with arm and leg protection, heavy padding, shoulder pieces, etc is going to be a lot more pleasant than if it is plate armor). That would still hurt the heavy armor guys more and even if it didn't you still can't expect the party to perform like usual without their equipment, especially at epic where most of your AC and a large chunk of your other defenses comes from equipment bonuses.One thing that HELPS is to go with inherent bonuses. At least that gets rid of the enchantment bonus part of the problem. It also means if the PCs are say in the 'get out of jail' scenario where they pick up some random equipment off guards or whatever they aren't quite so hosed as normal, which makes the DM's job a bunch easier.Beyond that I dunno. There is a good argument for a troupe of adventurers tromping around every minute of their waking lives in full gear being a BIT hokey. You don't see anything close to that in the real world, and it just strikes me as very odd to say the least. I'd also like to comment on the RP aspect of this. Forbidding/discouraging PCs from being fully equipped every minute has a whole raft of RP implications. It just creates a more interesting dynamic. The characters will really value a safe secure base location they can operate from. That castle or town is something they might now actually CARE about because that's where they want to be when they're vulnerable. It goes a long ways to tying them into society by a strong tie, mechanics (and lets face it, nothing whips players more than a mechanical consideration). It is good for all kinds of plot hooks and things. Nobody realistically or dramatically is at their most prepared all of the time. It aught to be quite possible for the PCs enemies to be able to catch them when they're vulnerable. Sometimes that's what happens, that's life. The evil King's soldiers break into your character's house and haul him away to prison. Yeah, he could beat the pants off them, but he's sitting out on his deck in his bathrobe enjoying breakfast. When else logically WOULD the bad guy go for you? It goes on and on. Not every DM or style of play is going to want to go there, and that's fine, but it makes perfectly good sense as an aspect of play. The DM could simply fiat "when you're home you aren't equipped" but it would be NICE if the players had reasons of their own to want to do that. Personally I can handle that with non-mechanical RP kinds of reasons, up to a point. It is just a lot cooler if the player says "Eh, OK, I'd rather not get dinged in some way, I'll leave the armor at home when I go down to the market to buy eggs." I just don't know an ideal way to do it. I can think of some but they basically involve heavily rewriting the core rules, and that ain't going to happen...</blockquote>

Verification