Armor Specialization (Plate)

[KarinsDad]

I'm still far from rules mastery, so forgive me if there's an obvious rebuttal to my thinking here but...with the way hit points work, while Con may be better, Dex seems to be less onerous than you insist, considering that with Dex or Int you also increase your Reflex Save.

It's all a matter of choice.

Sure, one could have Plate and a good Dex for Reflex. In fact, many sword and board PCs would do this so that they could garner Shield Specialization.

But, how does one get both the best AC and the best movement?

Answer: One cannot. It's one or the other.

The best AC is Plate and Plate (or Shield) Specialization and Heavy Shield.

The best movement with a good but not best AC is Scale and Scale (or Shield) Specialization and Heavy Shield.

You are proposing to combine the best movement with the best AC so that there is never any reason to take Scale Armor Specialization.

And you do not see that as imbalancing?

Shouldn't an extra feat garner an extra benefit? I don't see the reason why spending an extra feat for plate garnering more benefit is a negative?

One does garner extra for Plate Proficiency (better AC) and Armor Specialization Plate (better AC).


The reason Armor Specialization Scale works the way it does is because otherwise, nobody would take that. Everyone would be in Plate.

It's a balance issue. With your proposed rule, nobody would take Scale. With AS Scale not having the extra bennie, nobody would take Scale.

It's written the way it is to incentivize players to use Scale armor. Yes, the feat is better than the Plate feat. But, there is a definitive game balance reason for that.

Who said that all feats must be equal?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

It should be noted that I'm approaching this from the perspective of a class that does not begin with plate armor proficiency. So a ranger or cleric. Let's take a ranger. You're looking at:

Armor Prof (Chainmail) +3 to AC
Armor Prof (Scale) +1 to AC
Armor Prof (Plate) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Plate) +1 to AC

Or

Armor Prof (Chainmail) +3 to AC
Armor Prof (Scale) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Scale) +1 to AC, +1 speed

So you're paying one extra feat to get plate, for +1 AC. If we tack on +1 speed to Armor Spec (Plate), how does that kill Scale? At the end of the day, you'd still be paying an extra feat for an extra +1 to AC. This brings the feat in-line with all the others of its kind.

No, I do not see how this would be imbalancing. The written version makes plate spec weaker than all the others. My version makes it exactly the same as the others.

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with the -1 to ACP either. It just seems odd and unnecessarily for Plate spec to be uniquely weaker than the other armor feats of its kind.

 

[KarinsDad]

It should be noted that I'm approaching this from the perspective of a class that does not begin with plate armor proficiency. So a ranger or cleric. Let's take a ranger. You're looking at:

Armor Prof (Chainmail) +3 to AC
Armor Prof (Scale) +1 to AC
Armor Prof (Plate) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Plate) +1 to AC

Or

Armor Prof (Chainmail) +3 to AC
Armor Prof (Scale) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Scale) +1 to AC, +1 speed

So you're paying one extra feat to get plate, for +1 AC. If we tack on +1 speed to Armor Spec (Plate), how does that kill Scale? At the end of the day, you'd still be paying an extra feat for an extra +1 to AC. This brings the feat in-line with all the others of its kind.

No, I do not see how this would be imbalancing. The written version makes plate spec weaker than all the others. My version makes it exactly the same as the others.

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with the -1 to ACP either. It just seems odd and unnecessarily for Plate spec to be uniquely weaker than the other armor feats of its kind.

WotC is not looking at rangers or clerics (who are less extreme). They are looking at Fighters.

Armor Prof (Plate) +1 to AC
Armor Spec (Plate) +1 to AC

Or

Armor Spec (Scale) +1 to AC, +1 speed

In this case, we are only talking 2 feats. 2 feats (as opposed to your example with 4 feats or the less extreme cleric with 3) is a snooze for most people.

Almost every Fighter would take the 2 feats instead of the 1 feat.

I absolutely understand what you are saying, but you do not appear to understand why WotC balanced it the way they did.

The change you propose is to make Plate the best at two things: AC and speed. You are trying to justify this Cheese by saying "Well, if AS Scale is entitled to this, AS Plate is also entitled to this".

The balance point here is: You want the best AC, you take Plate. You want the best speed with a good AC, you take Scale.

WotC is making it a choice. You are making it a no brainer.

 

[FireLance]

In addition, as MadLordOfMilk points out in this thread, each additional point of AC is worth more than the last. Given that plate is already the best armor there is in terms of base AC, an AC bonus on top of plate is worth more than an AC bonus on top of scale.

That said, I don't think that a minor ability in addition to the AC bonus would unbalance the feat too much. Perhaps the feat allows the PC to turn a critical hit into a normal hit with an Endurance check equal to the attack roll?

 

[-Avalon-]

My question is... how comes we have to make a feat to balance things, or change a feat to balance things...

Why not bring back Field Plate? It was supposed to be as protective as real plate, but less cumbersome and constricting... Make it, with 1 less ACP involved to represent the lesser constriction implied in the actual item in RL.

Make it cost around 75 gold, so people, theoretically, CAN start with it, but it is mighty pricey to just grab and go...

Just a thought

 

[Lord Pendragon]

This isn't about cheese, KD. And it doesn't make plate the best at AC and speed. You have to pay an extra feat for extra AC. It just makes the endcap equivalent.

But as I mentioned in my previous post, I don't even care of it's speed. It could just as easily be the -1ACP the other two feats have. Or something else thematically appropriate, as FireLance suggests.

I just see (or saw, more below) no reason why the plate feat should be weaker than the others of its ilk. Plate wearers already must pay additional feats for the additional AC.

In addition, as MadLordOfMilk points out in this thread, each additional point of AC is worth more than the last. Given that plate is already the best armor there is in terms of base AC, an AC bonus on top of plate is worth more than an AC bonus on top of scale.

Now this intrigues me, and is something I never would have arrived at on my own. If this is indeed true, then I will concede the point entirely. The plate feat would have equivalent value to the others, it would just be a "hidden" value, buried in the math.

 

[Goumindong]

Now this intrigues me, and is something I never would have arrived at on my own. If this is indeed true, then I will concede the point entirely. The plate feat would have equivalent value to the others, it would just be a "hidden" value, buried in the math.

It is both true and not true. In some ways its better than the last, in other ways its not[i would argue there is a pretty clear bell curve for value, with the highest coming right in the middle of where the enemy can hit and just a bit over(since you're more likely to deal with people with higher bonuses rather than lower bonuses)]. For the most part, at the ranges you're going to be operating at, each point is going to be better than the next.


There is also the issue of players who choose con instead of dex[can't get armor spec scale] or who choose to play dwarves[their speed is 5 regardless]

 

[UngeheuerLich]

no bell curve here...

armor is always getting better and better... except when it starts beeing redundant because of the forced 5% chance that you are hit.

 

[Goumindong]

no bell curve here...

armor is always getting better and better... except when it starts beeing redundant because of the forced 5% chance that you are hit.

No, that is not true. There are efficiency barriers you run up to before that.

 

[eamon]

No, that is not true. There are efficiency barriers you run up to before that.

Part of those "efficiency barriers" is that you accept a higher ACP and a lower speed than for scale.

4e's heavy armor balancing is great - both plate and scale have their pro's and cons (and chain has it's pros for many specific builds that can't easily wear heavier armor). However, for a typical defender type, the higher AC is generally worth the sacrifice. Removing that sacrifice would make it a non-choice.