Starting without equipment

[Mad Hamish]

The DM will. Without armor, you could be looking at a party with AC 10 Fighter, AC 10 Cleric, AC 12 Warlock, and AC 10 Invoker. Or also without armor, you might be looking at AC 17 Swordmage, AC 19 avenger, AC 14 Shaman, and AC 18 Wizard. Or some combination of these. Your defenders are still likely to have more hit points and surges than anyone else, so they will still be decent up front, but if the AC 14 Shaman is the highest AC you've got, him and his spirit companion might be taking point for an encounter. And the AC 10 fighter may just not mark for an encounter.

It matters a great deal in terms of allowing a character to contribute.
If a fighter can't take attacks because they all hit (having 8 int and 10 dex) and can't do damage then they aren't contributing in combat and they certainly aren't fulfilling their role.
That's a great way to frustrate players.

It really doesn't matter. DM can lower attack bonus of creatures vs AC, or design the encounter so most things attack non-AC defenses, or a combination of things. Maybe use low damage creatures with no or few status effects. It's just going to be a few such encounters, it's not like we're running a campaign in this fashion.

It really does matter in terms of giving characters a chance to contribute, and remember the idea is that it's the start of a campaign.
So if the first couple of sessions have the fighter and rogue sidelined from effective contributions in combat (no armour that fits the fighter, guards have axes and no daggers for example) then you have people's characters being heavily handicapped at the stage when people are learning about them.

It's possible that cloth wearers will have the feat that gives +2 to AC with only cloth armour so you could easily have a situation where a wizard has 17 AC and a fighter has 10. Which means either the wizard is almost never hit or the fighter is almost an automatic hit.

Life of an adventurer is not meant to be easy and straight forward, everything working within the mechanical boundaries of a game system. Sometimes they'll be underequipped, sometimes they have to worry about innocent people getting in the way, or joining the wrong side with good but misguided intentions. Sometimes they will be overwhelmed, and fail, be forced to retreat or surrender. Without failure, success means very little. Getting out of a sticky situation is half the fun.

Sure, but arbitrarily depowering half the party isn't exactly fun for that half of the party.

If a story element tosses the group in an area where arcane spells can go awry, the arcane casters in the group aren't going to just up and quit. They'll deal with it. If an ongoing enemy ritual is suppressing or diminishing healing powers in an area, the PC's will just have to tough it out until they can disrupt the ritual. If some transformation causes PC's to lose access to their daily powers and racial powers for an encounter, again, they just deal with it.

Hopefully in all these cases people will actually have some information ahead of time to let them know what's coming.
Because otherwise they're all either
a) ways of arbitrarily screwing people over
or
b) pointless because you've watered the opposition down enough that it doesn't make things tough.

and they mostly have the same problem that different classes are affected much more by them than others (lack of healing is a huge problem for everyone) but loss of daily powers is a much bigger issue for a wizard than an archer ranger (for instance)

The rules are not meant to be a straight jacket for the DM. The rules are simply a method of conflict resolution. Sometimes we get so engrossed on system and balance, and encounter levels, and combat rules, and skill challenges, we forget the big picture. We are playing characters in an adventure.

we're playing heroes in adventures. If you take away the ability of a player to contribute meaningfully then you've got a problem.
(Anybody remember the joy of a 3rd ed rogue up against undead?)

 

[Jhaelen]

or is a new player or has tried things before and been shut down...

Errm, have you actually ever played with players that are new to roleplaying games? In my experience they're exactly the kind of players who would have zero problems with such a scenario, since they haven't already been brainwashed into believing everything they're able to do must be written down somewhere!

which is highly dependent upon the GM style and the rules are in the DMG

Are you talking about the book that gives DM advice, includes rule zero, page 42, and the advice to say 'yes'?

a) that assumes that you know you're going to be without gear when you design the character.

Not necessarily. It wouldn't be a bad idea, though, for a DM planning to do something like this to mention it to the players, so they'll know what to expect.
The alternative is to do what I've done: I'm very lenient about switching powers. Whenever they get an extended rest they can exchange them with other powers.

Twin Strike doesn't have an attribute added but other powers still lose a fair amount of damage, combined with the reduced chance to hit...

But isn't that sort of the point? If there was no noticable mechanical effect of not having any equipment, why bother at all? It's supposed to be a different kind of challenge.

Entirely dependant upon the DM. Which is why I'm saying "keep it in mind"

As is the whole idea of creating a scenario involving (temporary) loss of equipment. Is this thread about giving advice how to run such a scenario or not?

I have seen at least 4 threads on these boards to the effect of "my players don't look past their power cards, how can I get them to try X?"

So, your argument is that we should accept this as the status quo?
How about adding a power card 'Do something awesome!', so nobody forgets it?

A rogue without his specific weapons may as well not have a class: that's really how bad it is.

I disagree

Which is what this thread is for: to help DMs work through the issues.

Exactly!

It's really counterproductive to say "lets not discuss this, because clearly anyone interested in reading this thread will have already solved the problem"

Well, it's one thing to point out potential problems (RAW or otherwise) and ask for suggestions to solve them. And it's another thing to say 'It cannot be done because RAW says xyz - just you try to prove me wrong!'

If temporary is 3 encounters, then that could easily be two sessions of "I'm sorry rogue, but you don't have a class today! Wooo!"

This could happen with a bad or inexperienced DM whou didn't put some thought into it.
Note, that I'm not recommending for a DM to simply take the pc's equipment away without adjusting anything else.

...overwhelm a non-combat NPC to get weapons?

Umm, yes? Have you never minionized an unimportant npc?

the point to any DM who's intending on running this scenario is that some characters will perform much better/worse than others.[...]
Unless they're a rogue, in which case they can't attack using their powers at all...

You keep repeating that... Have you ever noticed that rogues get the highest number of trained skills? Now, maybe in your games, skills aren't useful for anything, but in my games and in such a kind of scenario I'd actually expect them to excel. Rogues tend to have exactly the kind of skills that would be helpful in such a scenario: Stealth, and Thievery!

 

[mysticknight232]

Yes indeed. My group and I are starting a DS campaign in about a month and the DM has already informed us that the opening scene will begin with us naked in an arena. The gate begins to open opposite of us and inbetween us are two racks. One a rack of weapons, the other a rack of shields and helms. So in a sense, we're not really starting with nothing...however if we're in an arena, that implies we're slaves and we have nothing even after the arena battle ends.

I'm already antsy with anticipation regarding this campaign and can't wait to see where it leads. I am playing a Shaman so I won't have any issues at first lvl in the arena, but I'm guesing most of my party members will go right for the weapons rack.

 

[Mistwell]

AD&D Module A4 - In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, starts the characters bereft of equipment and spells. I think it would be relatively easy to convert that module to 4e. The monsters are relatively common now (but would need to be increased in quantity), and the rooms are fairly big (so no changes needed there really for the most part). Some treasure would need to be tweaked, but not by much as most of the "treasure" is improvised weapons and equipment anyway. I think it would make for a good way to start a Dark Sun campaign.

 

[Saeviomagy]

As is the whole idea of creating a scenario involving (temporary) loss of equipment. Is this thread about giving advice how to run such a scenario or not?

It is. So when you say "bah, it's not an issue", then that's a problem, and it's why I keep reiterating that it's an issue.

The rules say that it's a problem. I'm not advocating sticking with those rules. I advocate doing all of the following:

1. Adding "unarmed" to the groups of weapons that rogues can use their powers with (because at present, it's not possible to use powers like blind or garotte without holding a knife, which makes no sense to begin with).

2. Allowing improvised weapons to count as whatever weapon type seems appropriate (ie - if I pick up a length of chain and bash someone with it, it should count as a flail).

That's the cleanest solution and it makes the most sense in the long term.

I don't advocate saying "it won't be an issue" or "it doesn't matter if the rogue doesn't get to fight for 2 sessions", or even "I'll change hit chances so the rogue can have heaps of fun with his basic attacks!" and that's what it sounds like you're saying.

You keep repeating that...

It was in reply to you specifically saying
"I know. But all of the classes that typically attack AC also have a number of power choices that don't target AC. If they pick those and don't have a weapon, their chance of hitting is identical to an implement user."

This is flat out wrong without a change to the rules. Why am I discussing the rules? Because that's the assumed base we all start from. Of course we can change them. Of course we don't need to stick to RAW like it's some sort of holy text. But unless you or I propose some alternative rule that we're following, how can we discuss the situation?

Have you ever noticed that rogues get the highest number of trained skills? Now, maybe in your games, skills aren't useful for anything, but in my games and in such a kind of scenario I'd actually expect them to excel. Rogues tend to have exactly the kind of skills that would be helpful in such a scenario: Stealth, and Thievery!

If the entire escape can be accomplished through the use of skills, then the fact that people are unbalanced in combat is eliminated of course. Of course for the scenario to have much import, combat has to be at least possible - at which point you're back to scratching your head and wondering why the rogue's character walked to the corner of the battlefield and stealthed for the whole fight, while the player went to the kitchen to make himself something to eat.

Oh, and you also misattributed a bunch of quotes of mine to mad hamish, the poor guy.

 

[Mengu]

If the entire escape can be accomplished through the use of skills, then the fact that people are unbalanced in combat is eliminated of course. Of course for the scenario to have much import, combat has to be at least possible - at which point you're back to scratching your head and wondering why the rogue's character walked to the corner of the battlefield and stealthed for the whole fight, while the player went to the kitchen to make himself something to eat.

If the player wants to disengage himself for a kitchen run, he will do that whether he is butt naked, or wields a +17 dagger of god slaying.

For the rogue player who wants to be engaged, there are options. He can kill minions, grab, or push an opponent, provide flanks, aid another, trigger someone's second wind, ready actions to prevent enemy plans, intimidate bloodied targets into submission, or use terrain features the DM has provided knowing PC's won't have a lot to work with, such as pinning an enemy behind a crate, knocking a shelf over, tossing a torch at a barrel of explosives, or just plain jumping in front of bullets to take a few hits for the team.

Given a reasonable DM, the DM will not deny creative use of terrain, skills, or other efforts to make those standard actions useful, keeping the player engaged even if all the powers on his character sheet are unusable.

It's really not that different than designing a skill challenge where you try to make sure characters can each contribute in a meaningful way. Designing combat without weapons or armor can essentially follow the same process. You throw in some locks to be opened (or some prefer leverage), minions that can be easily killed, throw in some weak opponents to keep the combat capable characters busy, add in a prison inmate that's trying to be difficult who needs to be smooth talked, given false promises, intimidated, or punched out. Mix some guard dogs who can be animal handled with nature, or kicked and intimidated. Fight some guards as the party is climbing over some wagons parked too close to the prison wall. Guards trying to climb up can be pushed down, crates can be pushed on top of guards, and a torch can be lit to blow up some explosives that just happen to be on the wagon as the last person leaps over the wall. Add a fight against some guard drakes in the middle of a barbed wire obstacle course beyond the wall, where the barbed wires can be used as a weapon by shoving the drakes into it, or manipulating it to trap the drakes. Then while making endurance checks, a lizard riding patrol catches up to them, and just as the PC's refuse to surrender and begin to skirmish, three bulettes pop out of the ground attacking everyone indiscriminately. Some PC's fight, while others try to negotiate cooperation with the patrol to take down the bulettes.

Once you have the skeleton for such an encounter you start adding options depending on the characters in the group. There is a dwarf artificer in the group? Great make sure one of the doors they have to get by while fighting the guards is an arcanomechanic contraption that requires an arcana check and a thievery check to open. There is a pyro sorcerer in the group? Awesome, no need for a torch, just have the pyro notice the explosives. There is a summoner in the group? Make sure a situation arises to have a summoned creature hold back the tide as the PC's rush down a long hallway.

This is adventuring. A party does not always fight X creatures of level Y totaling up to Z-2 to Z+3 experience, with short rests in between for no more than 4-5 encounters per extended rest. These are guidelines (and admittedly important ones), but the system is there to resolve conflicts. It does not dictate the conflict. The conflict can be anything the DM wants it to be. Once the idea is in place, then you turn to the system for finding the right mechanics, tweaking them where needed, and you make sure the PC's have the means to deal with the conflict and are sufficiently challenged for that sense of accomplishment, with the occasional open door for failure.

I've had 6 PC's destroy over 1000 undead in one encounter. I've had 6 PC's, 2 tree ents, and a score of elf archers defeat wave after wave of gnolls, 100 or more in each wave, during a day long siege, running a total of 9 or so encounter in that day. I've also had PC's surrender against less than a dozen opponents. I've had them not even attempt to pursue a single very important enemy NPC because they were that depleted in resources, and did not believe they would be able to handle that one wounded NPC with what they had left. I've run a jail break scenario, where the PC's lost all their stuff, didn't recover any of it (more due to the choices they made than anything else), but found new and better stuff (again due to those same choices).

I sometimes still fall into the rut of designing an encounter with the XP budget I'm afforded and with suggested creature compositions. But I'm at least forcing myself to take a step back and look at the big picture, look at the adventure, and look at what the encounter does for the story. So if the story demands it, I will start the PC's without equipment and wrap the mechanics to work with that demand.

 

[Jhaelen]

The rules say that it's a problem. I'm not advocating sticking with those rules. I advocate doing all of the following:

1. Adding "unarmed" to the groups of weapons that rogues can use their powers with (because at present, it's not possible to use powers like blind or garotte without holding a knife, which makes no sense to begin with).

2. Allowing improvised weapons to count as whatever weapon type seems appropriate (ie - if I pick up a length of chain and bash someone with it, it should count as a flail).

Okay. Particularly 2. sounds very reasonable.

I don't advocate saying "it won't be an issue" or "it doesn't matter if the rogue doesn't get to fight for 2 sessions", or even "I'll change hit chances so the rogue can have heaps of fun with his basic attacks!" and that's what it sounds like you're saying.

I guess you're right. That's pretty much what I was reading into your posts. My apologies.

But all of the classes that typically attack AC also have a number of power choices that don't target AC. If they pick those and don't have a weapon, their chance of hitting is identical to an implement user."

This is flat out wrong without a change to the rules.

This, however is something I don't get. Are you refuting that every class has powers that don't target AC? Or are you refuting that a weapon using class using those powers unarmed will be in an identical situation as an implement using class using its powers unarmed?

Oh, and you also misattributed a bunch of quotes of mine to mad hamish, the poor guy.

Oh, dear. My apologies to Mad Hamish, then. I had some trouble using the multi-quote function - How is that supposed to work, anyway?!

[MENTION=65726]Mengu[/MENTION]: I'd love to give you some xp, but apparently you already received some too recently!

 

[Mapache]

Or are you refuting that a weapon using class using those powers unarmed will be in an identical situation as an implement using class using its powers unarmed?

I will. The default for weapon powers is to target AC and for implement powers to target a NAD. Weapon powers that target a NAD don't get to do it for free. They fact that they are getting their weapon proficiency bonus vs the NAD is a consideration taken into the design of the power when choosing how to balance it, and it is a feature the power gets in place of other features it could have. Thus, if they are not getting that proficiency bonus, they are not getting the full use of the power as intended, and are still behind an implement user who is getting to use their powers at full efficiency.

 

[Jhaelen]

I will. The default for weapon powers is to target AC and for implement powers to target a NAD. Weapon powers that target a NAD don't get to do it for free. They fact that they are getting their weapon proficiency bonus vs the NAD is a consideration taken into the design of the power when choosing how to balance it, and it is a feature the power gets in place of other features it could have.

Well, a common feature of powers for weapon using classes that target a NAD is that they're dealing less damage than powers of the same level that target AC. But they also often have effects you couldn't achieve with any other power (of that class and level). E.g. the fighter's at-will attack power 'Knockdown Assault' targets Fort and only deals Strength modifier damage, but it also knocks the target prone and it can be used in place of a basic attack when charging. Now, you could argue that these additional effects are not worth giving up your weapon damage, but that's just a matter of preferences.

When I am picking at-will powers for my pcs I tend to pick one that deals good damage and one that is either reliable or has another useful effect.

However, note that my answer was in reply to this:

Nope,
For a start some classes are always attacking AC which is higher than the NADs, proficiency bonuses on the weapons makes up for that.

There aren't any classes that are always attacking AC. Hence, the proficiency bonuses on weapons don't have to make up for anything when you pick powers attacking NADs.

These powers are designed to hit more reliably than powers of implement users. This advantage in reliability is lost, if they don't use the power with a weapon. But they're still exactly as reliable as an implement power targeting the same NAD.

That's the point I was trying to make.

I was not trying to argue that weapon users are as effective without weapons as they are with weapons, I was arguing that weapon users aren't 'completely hosed' without weapons.

I've seen quite a few battles where the most important thing a fighter was doing was making sure the right opponent was always marked. Damage is not the most important feature of a fighter.

Obviously for a rogue there are different priorities. That's why I was (implicitly) suggesting to allow a rogue to treat certain improvised weapons as if they belonged to a weapon group (e.g. slings, maces, light blades) required to use their powers.
Thanks again to Saeviomagy for (explicitly) suggesting how to change the rules to make it work

 

[mellack]

Assuming they are just starting off, a level 1 Ranger has no other option but to take attacks that target AC for both At-Will and Encounter powers.