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

[tintagel]

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.

Archchancellor? Heh, I suppose I did come off a bit strong. My sincerest apologies.

But I do wish folks would realize that yes, as a DM, they do control every single aspect of their world. If crickets chirp or dogs bark - they control that. Change what you need to. Rule 0 is your friend. Life goes on, and sometimes a player or PC has a tougher time. Buy him an ice cream or give him a suit of magic armor afterwards - it's ok.

There were a lot of posts on here that said something in the order of, "Tough dude. Your adventure sucks because 4th Edition can't handle anything deviating from the norm." or "Trying to do anything different than status quo will just get you a TPK and everyone will hate you."

This is D&D we are talking about, right? Perhaps I was a bit too haughty in my tone, but it was meant to snap us back to reality and not directed at anyone in particular. Again, my apologies. Just remember - it's YOUR game - You can change anything you want to make it more fun.

Happy gaming,

Tintagel (the mid-level mage)

 

[tintagel]

Oh Gort, I see now that you were actually quoting an Arch Chancellor, LOL!

I first mentioned targeting other defenses than AC, and thought you were referring to my post - and so thought that you were diplomatically asking me to tone it down a bit...

My bad... *embarrassed*

 

[Gort]

Archchancellor? Heh, I suppose I did come off a bit strong. My sincerest apologies.

Heh, I was actually referring to the user "Mustrum Ridcully", whose character in the Discworld series of books is Archchancellor of the Unseen University. Continue coming off as strong as you like

Edit: Ach, beaten

 

[zillah]

just make the paladin use armor. he can be the decoy. everyone else jumps the bad guys while the paladin runs towards the party. That way, you kill off groups in a sneaky way, and the paladin can do his job effectively.

What do i mean by effectively? Surviving encounters. Less AC means less survivability, and anyone who disagrees can go try it themselves. Paladins don't get bluff. They get intimidate. They get heal, endurance, religion, diplomacy. They are the least skilled group members, and luckily have the most healing surges. Which, might not matter if the cleric is out of heals.
Attacking a different defense won't matter. Reflex? Awesome cause it dropped 2 points cause of no shield. AC? ok, back to 10. maybe 11/12 depending on dex/int, which are dump stats for a paladin.
Fort? Decent cause of con/str if your a str/con paladin.
Will? if you are a CHA paladin it can be decent.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

If I was to guess, I think the party could still handle an equal level challenge "fine", but don't count on them on taking on a second one, since their healing surges and dailies will be mostly expended. But there's nothing wrong with that - if there are many combats in that area per day, the Paladin would of course get his armor back!

 

[tintagel]

just make the paladin use armor. he can be the decoy. everyone else jumps the bad guys while the paladin runs towards the party. That way, you kill off groups in a sneaky way, and the paladin can do his job effectively.

What do i mean by effectively? Surviving encounters. Less AC means less survivability, and anyone who disagrees can go try it themselves. Paladins don't get bluff. They get intimidate. They get heal, endurance, religion, diplomacy. They are the least skilled group members, and luckily have the most healing surges. Which, might not matter if the cleric is out of heals.
Attacking a different defense won't matter. Reflex? Awesome cause it dropped 2 points cause of no shield. AC? ok, back to 10. maybe 11/12 depending on dex/int, which are dump stats for a paladin.
Fort? Decent cause of con/str if your a str/con paladin.
Will? if you are a CHA paladin it can be decent.

Don't forget that a human paladin effectively has +2 to all defenses. Most paladins will have either good Str/con or good Wis/Cha. Make a few encounters with creatures that target fort/will and armor will not matter at all. Religion and Diplomacy sound like absolutely perfect skills for this kind of scenario too. Jeez, give me the pally to play in this one - it sounds like a fun challenge to me.

 

[Regicide]

Make a few encounters with creatures that target fort/will and armor will not matter at all.

My impression is that the "creatures" are all going to be human guards, as it's a castle. If the paladin pulling off his armor means I as a DM have to give NPCs tasers, my players would roll their eyes... then promptly steal the tasers.

 

[SteveC]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like this particular scenario will revolve around the group having to go without armor, but it will be one game and not the entire campaign, yes?

If so, what's the problem? The ability to adapt and overcome challenges is part and parcel with being an adventurer. Sometimes you have to overcome and adapt to unusual challenges, and that's a fun game. I wouldn't want this sprung upon me as an entire campaign, mind you, but for a single adventure? Sounds fine to me.

I don't know the particulars of the adventure, but in taking place in a castle, it would seem likely that it is possible to get some armor or a shield at some point, like, say, in the aftermath of one of the battles.

I think this is one of those "kids these days moments."

--Steve

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My impression is that the "creatures" are all going to be human guards, as it's a castle. If the paladin pulling off his armor means I as a DM have to give NPCs tasers, my players would roll their eyes... then promptly steal the tasers.

Actually I'd assume it aren't guards, since if where them, the PCs have no reason to not wear armor, since apparently they are hostile to the entire castle. If they are not, then the enemies might be intruders/traitors and might be lead by spellcaster types or "real" monsters which typically don't have AC-targeting abilities.

If there is a lot of combat in the castle, I doubt that the "no-armor" restriction would hold long, either.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like this particular scenario will revolve around the group having to go without armor, but it will be one game and not the entire campaign, yes?

That's how I understood it, too. So I suspect that the 3 pages spend so far might be a little more then really needed. It is not a terrible flaw if the PCs are not in a perfect situation from time to time.

 

[Spatula]

If so, what's the problem? The ability to adapt and overcome challenges is part and parcel with being an adventurer. Sometimes you have to overcome and adapt to unusual challenges, and that's a fun game. I wouldn't want this sprung upon me as an entire campaign, mind you, but for a single adventure? Sounds fine to me.

The problem is a lot of whining, from what I can see. Adapting to and overcoming challenges is old school, apparently.

I agree with Mustrum_Ridcully that the practical effect of the lack of armor and weapons (well, they would still have daggers, no?) is that the group will be forced to burn through their daily resources much faster. And as a result will be forced to choose their fights very carefully, and not have a lot of staying power.