How bad is the paladin going to be without armor in combat?

[UngeheuerLich]

What is needed is the ability to fight defensively/combat expertise... thats the only thing going for 3.5 edition (if you don´t count that wizards have only 10 AC)

But as already mentioned: most guards are less experienced in battle than the Paladin, so you shouf assume more average stats, lower Level. Thats perfectly fine (an appropriate encounter takes nonstandard circumstances into account)

Just let your players think about what the paladin can do to be a worthful combatant... they will be creative and you should reward clever ideas...

and then you should just adjust.

(in 3.5. the average palace guard should be around 2nd level fighter. I would assume that the guards in 4e are not much higher level, then they usually don´t wear more than chain or leather...)

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

(in 3.5. the average palace guard should be around 2nd level fighter. I would assume that the guards in 4e are not much higher level, then they usually don´t wear more than chain or leather...)

From what I’ve seen so far in 4e, the guards will be X level minions (where X is the current level of the party) and the Captain of the Guard will be an X level soldier most likely.

I would recommend dropping a few levels from X for the creatures in the castle if the OP really wanted to shortchange the paladin like that.

 

[77IM]

Since I intend to have them without armor, I'm wondering what the effects will be on PC game play (especially on the paladin).

These combats will be more challenging, but not impossible. They'll need to use clever tactics, like concentrating heavily on a single foe. I'd consider an even-level fight as "difficult" and assume the party takes an extended rest after every fight (because they've blown through their dailies already).

You might want to consider the lack of armor a "hazard" and award bonus XP for it. Approximate how much extra damage the group will take over the course of the fight and compare that to the expected damage output of various traps to figure out how much XP it should be worth.

The suggestion to allow the group to find some appropriately disguised armor is a good one. You might let them make Bluff checks to hide chainmail under bulky clothing, too (thus the paladin would only lose a point or two of AC).

FWIW, this sounds to me like a really fun scenario. If I were the paladin player I would view it as a challenge, not shortchanging. (Assuming, of course, that in a typical scenario I can use all of my cool tricks just fine, and that this adventure is meant as a fun change of pace.)

-- 77IM

 

[Baron Opal]

No armor for the paladin, hmm...

First thoughts:

• What is his INT / DEX, because that kicks in for his AC now.
• Is their a ritual from his order he can use to fortify his clothing as armor?
• Does he have a good CHA / diplomacy skills?
• Is his group willing to be diplomatic?
• Is the mission condusive to diplomatic resolution?
• Has the player done research as to where in the castle an armor stash might be?
• Are there any societal mores / rank / custom that might protect the paladin?
• Is he going in under disguise or is this a stealth op?
• Can he get a light chain shirt to wear under his disguise? For what AC?
• Can he bribe a guard to smuggle in some armor?

His AC is going to be significantly less than normal, so he and the rest of the party are going to operate under a handicap. Right now I imagine that the defenders and leaders are going to be the most impaired. The wizard and warlock usually don't wear armor at all so they won't be affected.

The math may be good, but bets are off when you change the equation...

 

[Baron Opal]

I'm wondering why the D&D 4e system is unable to handle this type of adventure. Supposedly the math is "perfect" right? Shouldn't there be a way around the "lack of armor?"

4e can handle this kind of adventure just fine, as well as any other system. The party is presented with the challenge of their tanks without one of their primary tools; they need to compensate. How they compensate is the meat of the adventure. If they don't adapt their plans, yes they are going to get hosed. Characters may die. Players would have the opportunity to gain wisdom.

If it is possible through stealth and diplomacy to achieve their goals, that would be the best option. Particularly if the residents are allies or potentially so.

Edit: This is a case where there may not be a "rules based" solution. There may not be a power, skill or potion that just fixes the AC gap. The players will have to be inventive and derive a solution outside of the rules.

 

[Jenrock]

Talk with the player and see if he would mind terribly to swap out heavy armor proficiency withe the Swordmage Aegis ability. It should solve your problem fairly well.

 

[WizarDru]

How about this? The paladin has no armor and no weapons at the start....but he can IMPROVISE. If you can improvise a weapon, surely you can improvise some armor. Give him the opportunity to grab a small table, break off the legs and make it into a shield that might only last for an encounter. Let him grab a ceremonial breastplate on the wall for a piece of armor with a lower AC bonus and higher armor check penalty. Alternately, you could allow him TWO second-winds per combat, to allow him to rally more often and fulfill his defender role for the duration.

Also, I'm assuming the guards have no armor, too...or else the pally would steal a set the minute they set upon the first hapless guard and solve the problem that way.

Alternately, let the Pally temporarily get his WIS or CHA bonus to his AC while working his way through the adventure. Perhaps he's recognized and is able to use that ("I can't strike him...he's an avatar of the god of the hunt! My family could starve!")

 

[gizmo33]

You're not "short changing" the paladin if his player is the one who has decided that not sneaking around and bluff in full plate armor is an advantage. That's a tactical decision on his part and is somewhat akin, IMO, to a scenario that calls for ranged attacks when one or more of the characters doesn't have them.

I don't think I'm ever going to get used to this entitlement thing that's increasingly part of the game. Your characters want to sneak into the castle and deal with things a certain way then deal with it. Think of the bigger picture - that your character is accomplishing the goal in the most effective way that he knows. True, you're not impressing people with your ability to do 50 points of damage in a round, but in this particular scenario it seems that such a thing is not deemed a great virtue. The rest of the party will be impressed with your ability to not get them all killed by clanking around in armor. Or, alternatively, charge the castle full-on and impress everyone with your fully optimized combat prowess and then make up a rogue for your next character.

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

You're not "short changing" the paladin if his player is the one who has decided that not sneaking around and bluff in full plate armor is an advantage. That's a tactical decision on his part and is somewhat akin, IMO, to a scenario that calls for ranged attacks when one or more of the characters doesn't have them.

I don't think I'm ever going to get used to this entitlement thing that's increasingly part of the game. Your characters want to sneak into the castle and deal with things a certain way then deal with it. Think of the bigger picture - that your character is accomplishing the goal in the most effective way that he knows. True, you're not impressing people with your ability to do 50 points of damage in a round, but in this particular scenario it seems that such a thing is not deemed a great virtue. The rest of the party will be impressed with your ability to not get them all killed by clanking around in armor. Or, alternatively, charge the castle full-on and impress everyone with your fully optimized combat prowess and then make up a rogue for your next character.

I do think it is shortchanging the paladin. If you want to call it an entitlement issue, then fine, I think as a DM that the players are entitled to use their class features. There is a reason that paladins are the only class in 4e that get full plate proficiency without having to spend a feat for it.

Personally I don’t like to take major portions of my players abilities away, it’s the reason that I don’t sunder weapons, I’ve never dropped a Mord’s Disjunction on the party and the reason that I don’t steal or ruin a wizard’s spellbook.

 

[Mad Hamish]

You're not "short changing" the paladin if his player is the one who has decided that not sneaking around and bluff in full plate armor is an advantage. That's a tactical decision on his part and is somewhat akin, IMO, to a scenario that calls for ranged attacks when one or more of the characters doesn't have them.

I don't think I'm ever going to get used to this entitlement thing that's increasingly part of the game. Your characters want to sneak into the castle and deal with things a certain way then deal with it. Think of the bigger picture - that your character is accomplishing the goal in the most effective way that he knows. True, you're not impressing people with your ability to do 50 points of damage in a round, but in this particular scenario it seems that such a thing is not deemed a great virtue. The rest of the party will be impressed with your ability to not get them all killed by clanking around in armor. Or, alternatively, charge the castle full-on and impress everyone with your fully optimized combat prowess and then make up a rogue for your next character.

How exactly is the Paladin able to contribute to that goal?

If combat happens how does a character who normally uses heavy armour play his usual role?