See Page 56 of the Player's Handbook, in the "Weapon" keyword entry: "You can use your unarmed attack as your weapon."
Not optimal, but you almost always have access to your powers (short of being bound and helpless.)
How bad is the paladin going to be without armor in combat?
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
See Page 56 of the Player's Handbook, in the "Weapon" keyword entry: "You can use your unarmed attack as your weapon."
Not optimal, but you almost always have access to your powers (short of being bound and helpless.)
ArmoredSaint
First Post
If the game takes place in a castle, just let the paladin come across a suit of plate armour that happens to fit him...
Which he won't want to wear much like the suit he left back in his room for the same reason. It's noisy.
But while it's silly to have someone sneaking in plate, it's less silly to say the paladin isn't noisy in plate than it is to say a crippled wizard in a wheelchair has a better AC when it comes time to fight.
tintagel
Explorer
This isn't that hard of a situation.
First, if this is a single scenario. Being sub-optimal for an adventure is just part of the game. Sometimes your character excels, sometimes he doesn't.
If tank AC is a problem, throw more opponents at them that target other defenses, like Will (which a human paladin should excel at). Opponents that use fear or charm fit perfectly with the flavor of this adventure. I envision some sort of shadowy intrigue with dark, necrotic foes. Besides, many darker necrotic based enemies have radiant vulnerability, which the paladin can exploit with the right powers.
Next, leather armor should be pretty easy to get into the scenario. Perhaps you could create a Chain Shirt,which would be equivalent to Hide armor but more weight? That's 3 points of AC, and a makeshift shield should be easy to grab from somewhere.
If the party isn't allowed weapons, then that should also affect IMPLEMENTS. Yes, wands, orbs, staves, rods - all checked at the door. Perhaps the cleric gets to keep his symbol, but that's not too bad. Now everyone is gimped a bit in combat - and you can lower difficulty across the board and 'ad hoc' xp to normal. You could allow players to improvise even implements with suitable penalties.
Make skill challenges more based on diplomacy, religion, and political intrigue with nobles - that keeps the Paladin shining in the non-combat encounters.
Seriously, complaining that 4E is weak here is silly. Paladins in 3E sucked hard without armor too. Most paladins used DEX as a dump stat, so I didn't see them with Expertise or high dex much. 4E at least allows for skill challenges and more customized opponents.
First, if this is a single scenario. Being sub-optimal for an adventure is just part of the game. Sometimes your character excels, sometimes he doesn't.
If tank AC is a problem, throw more opponents at them that target other defenses, like Will (which a human paladin should excel at). Opponents that use fear or charm fit perfectly with the flavor of this adventure. I envision some sort of shadowy intrigue with dark, necrotic foes. Besides, many darker necrotic based enemies have radiant vulnerability, which the paladin can exploit with the right powers.
Next, leather armor should be pretty easy to get into the scenario. Perhaps you could create a Chain Shirt,which would be equivalent to Hide armor but more weight? That's 3 points of AC, and a makeshift shield should be easy to grab from somewhere.
If the party isn't allowed weapons, then that should also affect IMPLEMENTS. Yes, wands, orbs, staves, rods - all checked at the door. Perhaps the cleric gets to keep his symbol, but that's not too bad. Now everyone is gimped a bit in combat - and you can lower difficulty across the board and 'ad hoc' xp to normal. You could allow players to improvise even implements with suitable penalties.
Make skill challenges more based on diplomacy, religion, and political intrigue with nobles - that keeps the Paladin shining in the non-combat encounters.
Seriously, complaining that 4E is weak here is silly. Paladins in 3E sucked hard without armor too. Most paladins used DEX as a dump stat, so I didn't see them with Expertise or high dex much. 4E at least allows for skill challenges and more customized opponents.
Last edited:
Note that in the module given, you can't sneak. Stealth (except for utter experts, in very restricted circumstances) is basically useless. The best you can hope for is to look like you belong. Note that, further, the community in question is small enough that using a "commoner" guise is inviting disaster: the community is small enough that *everyone* knows *everyone*, so an unknown commoner is *very* suspicious. If you are coming up with a set of fake (or heck, real) identities, you might as *well* make them ones that allow you armor and weapons, as that is more likely to succeed.
(I only briefly skimmed the module, but it looks like the castle, at least should, go into lockdown mode almost immediately. At that point any PCs that are trying to masquerade as village-folk are doomed. Purely and simply doomed.)
But disregarding the pointlessness of giving up the armor, we still come back to this. 4e was designed to work in (and only in) a very narrow set of circumstances. Because having large AC spreads can cause disaster (a foe that can barely hurt one party member will gank another one), 4e narrowed the AC spread to near zero, regardless of gear choice, by massively boosting the defences of lightly armored/unarmored characters. Remove that gear choice and you recreate the problem on the other side, with the added burden of failure of fluff to accompany your failure of crunch.
Danceofmasks
First Post
Paladin will suck. Paladin might die.
So what?
Players and characters make choices.
If they choose to put themselves in a circumstance where some of them are grossly disadvantaged, so be it.
The only responsibility of a GM here is to make sure there's some sort of plan - such as writing the bare bones of a jailbreak or somesuch.
So what?
Players and characters make choices.
If they choose to put themselves in a circumstance where some of them are grossly disadvantaged, so be it.
The only responsibility of a GM here is to make sure there's some sort of plan - such as writing the bare bones of a jailbreak or somesuch.
WalterKovacs
First Post
Implemens, outside of the Wizard class feature, are only useful if they have a magic bonus. Any implement power can be done unarmed.
Lacking weapons, on the other hand, causes players to lose out on the 2 or 3 point proficiency bonus, a lot of the damage, and in the case of the rogue, many of their powers and class features [which require light blade, crossbow or sling]
So, while the wizard loses his implement mastery feature, the other classes have their AC drop, their ability to hit with weapon attacks drop, their damage output drop, etc.
Everyone 'loses' their magic items in this scenario, but the wizard [and warlock] walks away with nearly everything intact, while the paladin and fighter are unable to do their 'jobs' as defenders, and the rogue better have stashed a dagger on his person to be able to do his.
One thing to point out ... with limited healing resources per combat, it is possible for the party to be weaker with a "nearly useless" paladin than with it. Unless they are willing to allow the paladin to die without healing him, the resources they need to spend on keeping him alive will not be "worth" the little damage he can dish out.
The monster stats assume certain ranges of AC, as well as certain ranges of "to hit" modifiers. A characters role is in part determined by their relative AC. Controllers and Strikers have around 14-16, the Leader likely has 16-17, while the shielded defender has 19-20. Marking allows a defender to "shield" his allies, giving them effectively the +2 bonus that the heavy sheild provides. When you remove the armor, many of the ones wearing heavy armor drop to having the lowest AC in the party, 10-12, making the wizard and anyone with comparable Dex [some of the strikers] or Int [a tactical warlord perhaps].
From a player perspective ... a weaponless/armorless party should avoid combat at all costs, unless they feel the wizard [maybe the rogue if he has found a dagger] can take out a small enounter easily and on their own. If they can find enough gear to at least have some passable [if sub optimal] weapons and armor, then at least they can fight as a group.
Chain, light shields, short swords ... the paladin/fighter won't have great AC [17], or greater damage output, but at least they can still do their job as defenders if it comes down to that. Even without armor check penalties, those trained in stealth wth a good dex will have a stealth that is 7 or more "better" than the paladin. It is probably not going to make the difference between success and failure. [There may be non skill check related reasons, such as disguises ... however there should be ways to have some sort of armor involved in a disguise ... unless they are invading a monastary and everyone needs to be in robes].
EDIT: Also, it is the scenario/DM that "intends" [as the original poster put it] for them to be out of armor. It's not a player choice at this point. It is one thing for the players to choose that he best course of action is to strip [say, for example, the paladin needs to do something underwater ... they don't want to risk drowning in their fullpate, a scenario common in 3.5 situations] than it being forced on the player. I'm sure the OP would have recieved slightly different feedback if he was asking how to address his players making the decision to go without armor, instead of how to address his decision to have them go without armor.
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
How bad is the Paladin to be without armor in combat is the thread title, right?
Well, his AC might lower by approximately 6-8 points lower (depending on Dex and Int). So he will take approximately 30-40 % more damage per round then usual, assuming that his enemies all target AC.
From the DM side, I'd suggest using more monsters that attack a different defense then AC. The loss of the armor is meaningless against these opponents. I might also consider lessen the number or level of monsters to compensate, and run a few lower level challenges then usual. They will still be comparatively challenging.
It might also be wise to allow more extended rests between encounters, but this depends mostly on the story of the module, which I haven't checked. Remember that 4E often assumes larger encounter areas and more monsters, so if the converted module originally consists of multiple combats, consider whether they should belong together now. You can typically keep the monster numbers if you "minionize" some monsters. As a boon to the party, you can have the enemies attack in waves (naturally occurring due to the original groupings of monsters and the different rooms they fight in.)
Minions that target AC probably get a lot more dangerous now.
So maybe mix one or two spellcaster (artillery or controller type) with some Minions. The tactical approach of the PCs should then be to take out the Minions first to clear the path for the Paladin to the spellcasters, who the Paladin will challenge first.
From the player side, the Paladin himself might choose to be more careful with his defending abilities, and only "intervene" with Divine Challenge and similar abilities if other party members are pressed to much. He might also decide to rely more on ranged weapons. (but note that the kind of weapons that are available might also be limited).
He should also prioritize enemies that don't attack AC with his marks and divine challenges.
The rest of the party has to be ready to grant either more healing to the Paladin, or to take more damage themselves.
Overall, they will probably strive to rest earlier, as they run through healing surges and daily powers faster (taking more damage and working to reduce the length of the encounter and consequently damage taken)
Well, his AC might lower by approximately 6-8 points lower (depending on Dex and Int). So he will take approximately 30-40 % more damage per round then usual, assuming that his enemies all target AC.
From the DM side, I'd suggest using more monsters that attack a different defense then AC. The loss of the armor is meaningless against these opponents. I might also consider lessen the number or level of monsters to compensate, and run a few lower level challenges then usual. They will still be comparatively challenging.
It might also be wise to allow more extended rests between encounters, but this depends mostly on the story of the module, which I haven't checked. Remember that 4E often assumes larger encounter areas and more monsters, so if the converted module originally consists of multiple combats, consider whether they should belong together now. You can typically keep the monster numbers if you "minionize" some monsters. As a boon to the party, you can have the enemies attack in waves (naturally occurring due to the original groupings of monsters and the different rooms they fight in.)
Minions that target AC probably get a lot more dangerous now.
So maybe mix one or two spellcaster (artillery or controller type) with some Minions. The tactical approach of the PCs should then be to take out the Minions first to clear the path for the Paladin to the spellcasters, who the Paladin will challenge first.
From the player side, the Paladin himself might choose to be more careful with his defending abilities, and only "intervene" with Divine Challenge and similar abilities if other party members are pressed to much. He might also decide to rely more on ranged weapons. (but note that the kind of weapons that are available might also be limited).
He should also prioritize enemies that don't attack AC with his marks and divine challenges.
The rest of the party has to be ready to grant either more healing to the Paladin, or to take more damage themselves.
Overall, they will probably strive to rest earlier, as they run through healing surges and daily powers faster (taking more damage and working to reduce the length of the encounter and consequently damage taken)
tintagel
Explorer
Again, though, this isn't that big of a deal. Seriously, it's not the end of the world for the paladin or his party. Throw lightly armored (but still higher defenses) creatures at them and you have dealt with the 2-3 point hit on weapons. Let them grab kitchen knives or table legs for a makeshift +1 prof. weapon. Build more non-combat encounters for the paladin to shine in, maybe even make him critical to one of them by setting the DC for non-paladins 5 higher.
In short, you are the DM and have full - FULL - control of what challenges you put in front of your party. Change the module, change the stats and numbers of typical creatures, heck, design brand new ones. In short, there is no excuse why any of your PCs should be a liability to the group, regardless of the current story-driven hinderances. Some may not be performing in the most optimal way, but they shouldn't be hurting the group all night. Make their character critical to the story in some way.
Jeez, folks, take control of your own game and stop thinking that it's beyond your control or that 4E is inherently inflexible. With multiple defenses, good powers, skill challenges, and Completely freeform monster design, it's arguably the best system yet for DM's to design with. You just have to use that grey lump in your cranium.
In short, you are the DM and have full - FULL - control of what challenges you put in front of your party. Change the module, change the stats and numbers of typical creatures, heck, design brand new ones. In short, there is no excuse why any of your PCs should be a liability to the group, regardless of the current story-driven hinderances. Some may not be performing in the most optimal way, but they shouldn't be hurting the group all night. Make their character critical to the story in some way.
Jeez, folks, take control of your own game and stop thinking that it's beyond your control or that 4E is inherently inflexible. With multiple defenses, good powers, skill challenges, and Completely freeform monster design, it's arguably the best system yet for DM's to design with. You just have to use that grey lump in your cranium.
Gort
Explorer
Agreed. At the end of the day, the paladin's going to be severely below-par and unable to perform his role if you take his AC away. So find a way around that. Either make the combat so easy that he won't be in danger anyway, or simply make armour irrelevant to the combats in the way the Archchancellor suggests.
Similar Threads
