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

[Emirikol]

That map looks very familiar...
OP, you sure the group is up for this kind of adventure?

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?" This might require something that 4e doesn't address and that is, how to approach situations that require more depth than just a skill challenge or combat..or perhaps the skill challenges may work out quite well! Each of the characters will then get a chance to use whatever they need: paladin/cleric may need to use diplomacy and the rest can sneak around..and when combat comes, they will need to have their defenses cleverly hidden. I think the scenario will certainly be a challenge, even for my veteran group.

Without being an edition-war, D&D B-3.5 were able to handle this sort of thing without breaking right? Perhaps I'm misguided, but I really want to push 4e to the limits and see if all this hype is really true. Is it in fact the "universal" system?

jh

 

[Emirikol]

Is there a particular reason that he will be armorless? Pure stealth isn't going to work for the typical paladin anyway (no stealth, no dex mod), so is he giving it up purely for a disguise? Or are you going with the "the party have been captured" plot hook?

That's what I was thinking or somewhere along those lines. We did that a lot in our 3.5E Conan games, where the PC's would be heavily armored in one game and not in the next with just that 'pulpy' intro to preface the adventure.

Starting naked in the dungeon wouldn't be much fun, but it does say that there are cerimonial suits of armor around..it just wouldn't make much sense to try to sneak around in that stuff.

As for the paladin's motives: He's in a fort that is generally run by "good" people. He should have enough social grace and nobility to know how to get around right?

jh

 

[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.

 

[JohnBiles]

Without being an edition-war, D&D B-3.5 were able to handle this sort of thing without breaking right? Perhaps I'm misguided, but I really want to push 4e to the limits and see if all this hype is really true. Is it in fact the "universal" system?

jh

No, a Paladin trying to fight in any edition of D&D without his armor, unless he had access to a bunch of magic items to give him the same AC, would be completely hosed. Paladins, in every edition with them, are intended to get into melee and kill things and losing most of their AC will screw them.

The Paladin is actually somewhat less screwed in 4E in one way because his AC goes up every 2 levels by 1, so at least he doesn't fall as far behind as a 3E Paladin would by losing his armor.

However, in his roll as soaker up of enemy attacks, the low AC is extra-bad with cheese for the 4E Paladin.

(I can tell you from personal experience that 2E hosed you too if you lost the armor you normally wore, as I was in a party which got dumped in our underwear with no weapons into a Duergar hold when I was stupid enough to miss half the session. So when I got there, they'd put me in a sack and were using my poor Halfling as a club. We got carved like rumproast by fairly weak foes (Level 3-4 Duergar vs. 9-11th level PCs and they beat us like a drum thanks to no armor.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Excuse me? My advice was helpful, you have to accept the fact that the paladin wears armour all the time. Yours was downright silly. Make the fights easier? Why? So the wizard can tank and it can be a cakewalk? Yeah, thats... great. You'd be better off removing the fights all together.

"I want to do X. How can I do it best."
"Don't do X."

For some values of X, your approach might be a good idea. (Say, X = Suicide, Buying Britney Spears Albums)

A crippled wizard in a wheelchair who has never left the library is more agile and better able to deal with avoiding blows than a battle hardened paladin without armour. DO NOT REMOVE THE ARMOUR FROM THE PALADIN. The system DOES NOT SUPPORT IT. It makes more sense to let the paladin sneak in the armour than it does to watch the crippled wheel-chair bound wizard be the tank. He's just so good with that armour he doesn't even make a sound.

The Paladin is still the better tank, since he has loads of hit points and healing surges, and is able to mark his foes.

As for the paladin's motives: He's in a fort that is generally run by "good" people. He should have enough social grace and nobility to know how to get around right?

Well, I think he should, whether he does - you'll see.

I'm wondering why the D&D 4e system is unable to handle this type of adventure. Supposedly the math is "perfect" right?

The math is "perfect" if you use the basic assumptions of the system. One part of is that some classes use armor, not their own reflexes or cunning to rely on their AC. And to some degree, every class needs its armor - the Wizard will be wearing magical clothing that increases his AC.

If you want to remove the armor on a general basis (not just for one scenario), you will have to compensate for it. You might want to give Paladin a "Armor of Faith" ability that is equivalent to a plate armor, or a Fighter the "Tough Armor" ability that is equivalent to scale mail. If you want to remove magical items, you need something to replace the +1 to +6 to AC/Defenses/Attacks/Damage and the +1d6 to +d6 to critical hits.

The nicety of the system is that the assumptions on bonuses from equipment are very transparent.

I am wondering - if people are not allowed to wear armor, will they allowed to carry weapons (or implements)?

 

[pemerton]

I can tell you from personal experience that 2E hosed you too if you lost the armor you normally wore

I'll second this - the one time my Skills & Powers melee-oriented cleric got killed was when the GM attacked us with trolls on a boat and I wasn't wearing my full plate . . .

 

[Pedestrian]

Make a Charisma swordy paladin (Str 13/Con 11/Dex 14/Int 10/Wis 12/Cha 16). Let him pick up a heavy shield by improvising a dinner plate or something. 14 AC. Still get hit a lot, but not so much as otherwise.

Give them some useful skills for the wordy parts. Diplomacy, Insight are on the Pala skill list. Play a human and drop a feat on Stealth. You are the secret police paladin of somegod, and should feel useful outside of stabbing bad guys in the face.

Grab toughness with the other feat. That should (with con 11) get you 31 hit points at first level.

Make sure your players are aware of what is required of them. Remember to pace things so that in between shaking swords at the baddies there's time for the Paladin to suck it up and patch up that nose bleed.

You could use some handwavium and allow leather armour (a swish coat).

 

[Fanaelialae]

For this type of scenario:

1) allow a spellcasting NPC to imbue them with a shield of faith type ritual that grants them their normal armor bonus,

2) decide that armor falls outside the catagory of "implements of war" and let them enter the fort with their armor, or

3) recognize that the party (particularly the armor-proficient members) will be weaker than normal and plan accordingly.

Every edition of D&D has had problems with the "unarmored in dangerous territory" scenario. It's inherent in the nature of the AC system, coupled with the d20 system (or pseudo-d20 system if we are referring to pre-3rd ed). If I am playing the d20 system, plate mail grants me +8 to AC, and monsters are calibrated to hit me 50% of the time when I am wearing plate mail, then they will hit me 90% of the time when I am unarmored.

Being hit almost every round, rather than every other round, is a rather severe increase in difficulty but not necessarily an insurmountable one (assuming the DM is feeling at least somewhat merciful). You do, however, have to recognize that it is a significant increase in difficulty (primarily for heavy armor wearers but also for those they are protecting; if the paladin drops in half the time he normally does, the wizard will have to think fast and pick up the slack).

Another option, relating back to 1), is to give the characters an unarmored armor bonus similar to that found in Star Wars Saga. (Keep in mind that this bonus should never stack with armor). Even if the unarmored bonus is one or two points less than a PC's normal armor bonus (to discourage relying on this bonus outside of similar scenarios) the increased difficulty of being unarmored is greatly reduced.

As a parting note, there is a bit of advice in the DMG regarding Swashbuckling campaigns (but that also seems applicable here). DMG pg 137, under Swashbuckling:

"...so you might want to make some cosmetic changes- particularly where heavy armor is concerned... The paladin who normally wears a suit of plate mail might instead sport a relatively light breastplate. In this case, you might need to adjust the armor bonus to match that of plate in a standard campaign."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I just noticed something else - what if you let the monsters "ignore" the Paladins mark a little more often? This means the Paladin deals a little more damage, takes a little less, but his comrades take a little more damage, too. I wonder if the game is balanced around the assumption that monsters could ignore all marking/defenderish abilities. So far I have never seen the complaint that ignoring the Defender is too deadly...

 

[Kraydak]

Simply put, the paladin will start every fight bloodied, and healing effects on the paladin are halved (removing armor will approximately double the incoming hit rate). Every light-armored character in the party will tank better (much better) unless the paladin is pumping either int or dex (in which case the paladin's player needs to be smacked around). If the players insist on going through with such an absurd plan, the paladin should hide out in the back and use thrown weapons to maintain his marks while the wizard/rogue/ranger take the front lines.

As Regicide astutely notes, 4e assumes that heavy armored characters are always in armor, and has no contingency rules for when that isn't the case. It follows that no-armor scenarios should be run with house rules, or avoided. Personally, I am confused as to why moving around a castle requires stripping one's armor. Castles are busy and noisy places in which people in armor wouldn't have to stick out.