The new FAQ and armor proficiency

[BeholderBurger]

Here is one

 

[TimeOut]

And here is another

Edit: The best one, at least from a title viewpoint, would be: 4e -- Is The World Made Of Cheese?

 

[Falling Icicle]

Mocking people who have legitimate questions about the game is hardly constructive.

 

[Iku Rex]

Here is one

Nice. And where do I or anyone else say that "rules can only be used exactly as written"?

Can you comprehend the difference between saying "this is what the rules say" and saying "this is the rule that MUST BE OBEYED BY ALL!!!1!!one!"?

 

[TimeOut]

Mocking people who have legitimate questions about the game is hardly constructive.

I agree. Sorry.

But there is no real solution. I still think that you should interpret the FAQ in such a way that "regardless of the prerequisites" means that you gain the feat / ability in any case and can't lose it afterwards.

It also makes more sense this way.

 

[Zurai]

I love how everyone ignores my post :'(

Doesn't matter whether you read RAW or RAI - either way, it works, so long as you don't somehow go above 13 in a stat then somehow lose ability score points (as far as I know, there's no stat drain in 4E). You can't lose something without ever having it in the first place.

 

[Iku Rex]

Doesn't matter whether you read RAW or RAI - either way, it works, so long as you don't somehow go above 13 in a stat then somehow lose ability score points (as far as I know, there's no stat drain in 4E). You can't lose something without ever having it in the first place.

That might work as RAW, but it's a big stretch to call it RAI. Who on earth would sit down and design the rules that way on purpose? ("I'll simply assume that the reader will divine my intent through pedantic rules-lawyering.")

And it doesn't make any sense conceptually. The Con 12 fighter increases his Con to 13. Then he (somehow) loses a point of Con. Now he's lost the ability to use the armor properly. That's just silly.

Nor does it make sense to me to make proficiencies gained from a class so different from the same proficiencies gained from feats. Not from a game design point of view, and not from an in-game point of view.

 

[Archmage]

I really don't understand the confusion. The minimum ability scores given are required to choose the feat. However, fighters don't have to choose the feat - they know how to use the armor as a feature of their class. It really is that simple. A paladin who chose an 8 Str and 8 Con (and who obviously has about a 4 Int!) could wear plate. Why? Because a feature of the paladin class is proficiency with plate armor. The character doesn't have to meet the prerequisites of a class feature. If he did, you would expect to see something like "paladins with a 15 or higher in Str and Con can wear plate."

However, they probably should have left out the brief blurb in the class section that says armor and weapon allowances for each class count as the appropriate proficiency feats, or at least they should have emphasized that the prerequisites don't matter.

 

[Iku Rex]

It also makes more sense this way.

How does making class-gained proficiencies (that count as feats) different from the feats with the same names improve the game? Seems like an unnecessary and unintuitive complication to me. It also removes what would otherwise be a balancing cost of using heavy armor.

In-game it makes even less sense. If you're a "Fighter" or other class that grants the proficiency you can apparently use scale mail no matter how puny you are. Everyone else can never gain the same ability, no matter how experienced they are or how much they train. Why does that make sense?

 

[Zurai]

Then he (somehow) loses a point of Con. Now he's lost the ability to use the armor properly. That's just silly.

Yes, it's silly.

It's also impossible.

Joyeux day! No conflict.