Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 1886619" data-attributes="member: 2011">I beg to differ."you are considered to be wearing heavy armor"It does not say:"you are NOT considered to be wearing heavy armor"This should mean (regardless of designer intent) that this is just like you are in heavy armor with respect to ALL rules. For example, you cannot run at more than a x3 pace.So with your interpretation of this sentence, can a warforged with an Adamantine Body run at a x4 pace?If so, why?If not, why would he automatically get the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat for free?It's not a matter of being nonproficient. It's a matter of being constantly bulky. The fact that you get a -5 to certain skills ALREADY means that you are nonproficient with your skin.However, it does make Adamantine Body more than just a single feat.It makes it:Heavy Armor Proficiency Featplus all the bonuses (and few penalties) of Adamantine BodyI can understand the designer intent here, but I consider it bogus when one feat is a superset of another feat and the second feat is not a prerequisite of the first feat. It smacks of power gaming.Also, according to the "designer intent" interpretation (i.e. where this is not an ACP), swimming would be at 2 * ACP penalty for heavy armor, but only 1 * "skill penalty" for Adamantine Body (since it is not an ACP in that interpretation).This is inconsistent. Inconsistent rules are annoying as well.It would have been better if they made it an ACP and then added a sentence that the character automatically acquires the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat with this feat if that is what they meant.It would have made designer intent clearer, the rule would be more consistent with the rest of the armor rules, AND it would have taken fewer sentences.</blockquote>

Verification