The new FAQ and armor proficiency

[mcrow]

I think a better wording of the FAQ would say:


"The Armor Proficiency (scale) feat requires a 13 constitution. However, fighters are considered to meet all prerequisites for the armor proficiencies listed under "armor proficiencies" in the "Class Traits" section. "

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I wonder why Paladins, Clerics, Warlords, Rogues, Rangers, and Warlocks aren't also being thrown into this. You know, all the classes that don't just have cloth armor proficiency. Because if the fighter can't use scale mail if he doesn't meet the prereqs, then no one can. Which really, REALLY makes one question the point of class armor proficiencies.

Note: don't have the books with me, so I don't remember if there's ability score prereqs for the light armor feats or not. But my point still stands - if Fighters can't use scale if they don't have 13 Str 13 Con, then Warlords and Clerics can't use chainmail if they don't also have 13 Str 13 Con, and Paladins can't use plate if they don't have 15 Str 15 Con. Which I doubt many paladins are going to have at 1st level.

So, if you're happy with every defender and leader in your game needing at LEAST 13 in Str AND Con in order to wear the armor they are supposed to to make the game work, that's fine with me. Myself, I'm not gonna run things that way.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

So, if you're happy with every defender and leader in your game needing at LEAST 13 in Str AND Con in order to wear the armor they are supposed to to make the game work, that's fine with me. Myself, I'm not gonna run things that way.

I would say that if a successful game hinges on how the characters are equipped, there is something very wrong.

 

[ki11erDM]

We appear to disagree on the definition of "legitimate".

I'm on this guy's side.

 

[mlund]

The effect of the class is to give you a proficiency that "counts as" having the Feat. You don't actually have the Feat. You don't use the Feat. You don't have to concern yourself with gaining, losing, or meeting the requirements of the Feat.

You do "count as" having the Feat whenever an outside effect or dependency says, "Does X if the target has this Feat" or "You may do Y if you have this Feat."

That's all.

- Marty Lund

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I would say that if a successful game hinges on how the characters are equipped, there is something very wrong.

You would disagree that the defenders in 4e are intended to wear the heaviest armor they can get their hands on? You think a Paladin in hide armor is going to be as effective as one in plate, or a fighter in scale? Paladin in hide vs. plate is going to have an AC at least 4 points lower, assuming they don't go weird and put points in Dex or Int (I'm assuming they have 12 in one of these already). That's getting hit by 20% more attacks, which basically means they will survive 80% as long as the plate Paladin, or less. Doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

If that's your opinion you're certainly entitled to it, but there's really no mechanical advantage for either of those classes to do so, or for them to be required to not wear heavy armor if they slip up with their starting ability scores.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Though it's getting a little off topic, yes, a character might well decide to go with different armor than the heaviest he's proficient in. A Warlord, for instance, is proficient in Chain, but INT is an important secondary stat for him, so he might have just as good an AC in Hide - and faster movement.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Ok, so there are some reasons that a character proficient in heavy armor might choose lighter. But that's because of an advantage - not because the rules say he can't wear the heavy armor because, even though his class gives him proficiency, he doesn't have 13 Str and 13 Con to qualify for the feat he doesn't have to take.

"Gains Armor Proficiency (Plate) as a bonus feat, but must meet the prerequisites" is very, very different than "Class armor poficiencies: ... plate" with "counts as a feat".

And as an addendum to my last post, saying the game doesn't depend on player's equipment is a little silly. To be extreme, saying the defender should be able to be naked and swing a piece of grass as a 'weapon' and still be effective is ... much more than just silly. (Maybe that was too far over the top?)

I get what you're saying, Storm-Bringer, but the fact is that a person who is intended to get beat up on should have high defenses, AC included. If you don't have a high Dex or Int (as most fighters and paladins won't), then wearing scale or plate is the obvious way to go, and the game requiring that you pour good stats into just being able to wear your armor instead of the 100 other things that make you good at what you do is highly counter-intuitive. Punishing characters for build oversights like that doesn't seem to be in line with the 4e design philosophy at all.

Edit: Note to self: MAKE POSTS SHORTER. Sheesh, man.

 

[The Grackle]

You don't need a proficiency in scale to meet the prereqs for the feat Armor Proficiency (Plate), you need "training" with scale armor. likewise the proficiency feats give training.

If they had just listed the fighter, and other classes, with training in various armors rather than proficiencies it would have been clearer- separating the ability to use an armor from the feat that gives that ability.

Overlapping game terms cause confusion. It might seem like a silly question, but it is Frequently Asked after all...

 

[WalterKovacs]

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?

In 4th edition, you cannot "truly" mutliclass. The closest you can get is taking all the feats and then going into the paragon path.

In that case, you have dedicated 10 levels in "preparing" yourself to enter a class at level 11 ... and even then, you only get a portion of the abilities of someone of that class [you do, however, remain very good at your original class].

Basically ... a level 1 fighter has spent a great deal of their life training to become a level 1 fighter. The cleric has spent a great deal of their life becoming a cleric. As a cleric, he wasn't trained in the use of anything other than chainmail, as far as heavy armor is concerned. So to be able to pick it up VERY QUICKLY [the time between 2 levels], he'd need to have suitable strength and constitution.

[Of course, this was in 3 as well. Monks and Rangers anyone?]