Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Sessadore" data-source="post: 4287423" data-attributes="member: 57255">Ok, so there are some reasons that a character proficient in heavy armor might choose lighter.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; &quot;Gains Armor Proficiency (Plate) as a bonus feat, but must meet the prerequisites&quot; is very, very different than &quot;Class armor poficiencies: ... plate&quot; with &quot;counts as a feat&quot;.&nbsp; And as an addendum to my last post, saying the game doesn't depend on player's equipment is a little silly.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; (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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Punishing characters for build oversights like that doesn't seem to be in line with the 4e design philosophy at all.Edit:&nbsp; Note to self:&nbsp; MAKE POSTS SHORTER.&nbsp; Sheesh, man.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Sessadore, post: 4287423, member: 57255"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification