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: 5681995" data-attributes="member: 78547">No, you gave me one. The Warlock is perfectly viable in light armor, save for a very particular build that is not recommended. If we're going to get into nitty gritty arguments about particular builds then why can't I make my Roman Legionaire in Leather armor with STR/CON totally viable? This game cannot account for every possibility, and if a PC decides to take a perfectly viable class and use a particular build that requires some extra feats, then that's their problem, no the system's. So that leaves one class for which there actually is a bit of an AC problem. That's one out of how many? Let's see...Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Ranger, Wizard, Warlock, Warlord, Druid, Shaman, Sorcerer, Warden, Barbarian, Bard, Swordmage, (That one Eberron Leader I can't think of), Battlemind, Ardent, Runepriest, Paladin, Avenger, Psion, Monk, Assassin and Seeker? So, that's 24 classes, not counting Essentials stuff. And out of all of that (and assuming I didn't miss any), there's one with a legitimate problem? I hardly think that requires houserules that mess with the entire armor system, when you could just houserule the Barb instead.  And? I also know quite a few that don't do that. More importantly though, why is it necessary for everyone to have some unassailable AC? If we boosted up the Wizard and Sorcerer AC, then they would be approaching Defender AC, which would mean we'd probably have to boost Defender AC in order to compensate so that they can retain their higher AC that creates the choice when they mark. And then the party would basically become unhittable, which would mean boosting the monster's to-hit. You know what a lot of Wizards and Sorcerers also take? Toughness and/or Durability, since they have low HP and Surges. Maybe we should boost those too? See the problem here? It just escalates a bonus war between the squishies, the Defenders an the monsters.  Yeah, and my Dragon Magic Sorcerer can't get a lot out of powers with Cosmic Magic riders. My STR/CON Fighter using Axes can't really take the Polearm Master Paragon Path. Builds have tradeoffs. If you want a CHA/CON Warlock the tradeoff is that you don't have INT for riders and AC (They use INT, not DEX, BTW. Which is why they can do things like MC Wizard and Swordmage). If you want to build a Feylock that's actually good at using his powers and their riders though, you pump a lot into INT and voila! You have good AC and good riders, no feats required. I know, because my friend build one, and it was sick. He did take Leather armor for a bit, but once he learned how to keep moving so that he could keep Shadow Walk up, he retrained it for something else because he didn't need the AC bump.  I never said it wasn't. We had a CHA/STR Pally in our party at one time. Then he spent his one Lay on Hands for the day in the first encounter. He never healed again. He also didn't get some of his riders, which relied on WIS. So again, they do have a tradeoff, it's just not to AC. The PHB also recommends for most of the builds to either CHA or STR and then use WIS as your secondary.   Again, no, you don't. You can choose to spend a feat on AC because you wanted maximum versatility. When I make a Fighter I don't put points into DEX, CON and WIS, and then complain about it. I pick one of the builds and stick with it. The versatility in the class is in the initial build choices, not every single level. Every class is like that. There are usually riders with a particular stat boost (Look at Ardent, they can go CON or WIS, and have riders based on one or other for their powers and feats) that make trying to straddle both score less effective, but more versatile. You're basically proposing that they should have their cake and eat it too. Maximum versatility, and no feats required to compensate.  Again, you said she was descending a rope, not climbing. I merely said that one can descend a rope one handed, because people do it all the time.  I never said you couldn't make the DC more difficult. Honestly, the only thing I ever said was that you should have warned your player, and that there was nothing in RAW that said she couldn't descend one handed.  You're giving your Defender's a fool's choice. Lose their AC and protection, or lose their surges, each of which are basically what makes a Defender. If I were a Defender in your game, I wouldn't do a heavy armor build. I like to play heavy armor builds though, which means by your definition I'm "rollplaying" because I'm making my decisions solely on mechanics. Oh, and it also means my surges will suck, so I end up losing those anyway (since STR/CON Fighters need heavy armor due to the lack of DEX). Either that, or I'm gonna tank the crap out of Endurance in order to avoid the loss, which means a feat tax. So explain how that isn't "rollplay" there?  Yeah, you know what happens at high altitude? You get shortness of breath, you tire easily, etc... Then you get used to it, just ask the Denver Broncos.  So, in other words, you're placing the worse part of the penalty at low Heroic, which is where most games are played and the players have very few ways to actually deal with said penalty? Very few players even plat at Epic, and at those levels there's sooooooo many other ways to deal with these issues, like having bags of holding full of +6 Summoned Armor that they put on and send away so that they're ready to summon it back if needed. How is that reasonable? Oh, and again, how is that fair to say, the STR/WIS Fighter? 18/18 STR/WIS, 12 DEX to keep the REF up (high WIS usually means Polearm, which means no shield, so the 12 DEX is necessary for REF), and that would leave a 10, possibly a 12 for CON (defends on whether he goes 13 DEX for feats, or wants points in CHA). He'll pretty much have to be in Scale, because he's gonna die in Hide. So now he's got a DC 17 check to make, and if he trains Endurance (After Athletics and probably Heal, he'll only have one choice, and something like Perception is very good for Fighters, so that's a guarantee that he will) he'll have a +5 or +6. If he doesn't, then it will be a +0 or +1. And he's got a DC 17 to make. How often do you think that will happen? It's not as trivially easy as you make it sound.  Battlerager Vigor has nothing to do with this. That was a broken build that got errata'd. I was talking about rollplay versus roleplay, which you brought up. If someone wanted to play a Defender known for their armor, which was as a second skin, and actively wanted to rollplay that they never took it off, even to the point where possibly no one actually saw their true face (think of Master Chief for a modern example, or any number of ancient Greeks for a classical), then they're actively at a disadvantage in your campaign.  I brought up the Epic Destiny as an example of the ultimate form this would take, but someone truly looking to play that, then they're actively being discouraged by your houserule. Either it will be harsh enough to force people out of their armor, or it will be so weak that it doesn't even matter except for a few builds that get shafted (the STR/WIS Fighter I mentioned). So I just don't see the point of putting something into the game that's so unbalanced purely to preserve some sense of "vermisilitude" that doesn't even actually match up with people who actually slept in heavy armor have said about it! Honestly, and I'm not saying that you're looking to do this, but most of the DM's that do bring such things up, tend to be the same ones that like to spring stuff on their players unawares. Where, the moment the PC's are in a situation where they're out of they're out of their armor, they're attacked. Such DM's are the very reason why so many heavy armor players are so loathe to actually step out of it.  This. Unless you're planning on springing some "gotcha" moments on your players, then it really doesn't matter. If the PC's are at a banquet, then they're not in their armor. If they're somewhere that they might get attacked, then they are. As long as it's not made into a big deal, then it won't be. Honestly though, a lot of this argument seems to boil down to some sort of perceived issue with Defenders having higher armor.  Thing is, that's not an issue, that's the way the system is designed.  Defenders will get attacked more than any other player under normal circumstances, unless the DM always ignores them (in which case, there are other problems).  If a Defender is doing their job, then they will help to make to make up for the low AC, HP and Surges of their allies.  There's no need to balance this, because it's already balanced in the system.  Attempting to layer on some other rule about armor and extended rests messes up this balance, and will unfairly target the heavy armor players.  It adds nothing to the game that can't be accomplished via handwaving, and only serves to create the potential for bad situations.</blockquote>

Verification