Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4287604" data-attributes="member: 32164">I suppose. But I don't see why the designers should have to assume we're all retarded gerbils.&quot;Wield&quot; means to use. &quot;Proficient with scale armor&quot; means &quot;proficient with scale armor.&quot; It's not nearly as complicated as it sounds.I mean, you don't see people saying &quot;I don't see where the feat is for all melee military weapons.&quot; If people are smart enough to figure out that the fighter can have a class feature of &quot;trained in all military weapons&quot; when such a thing is clearly impossible by taking feats, how is it hard to see how they could be trained in scale armor despite not having the prerequisite CON score?&quot;Every class, race, feat, power and monster...lets you break the rules in some way.&quot; (PHB, p. 11).General rule:&quot;Your class tells you what kinds of armor you're proficient with. You can take feats to learn the proper use of other kinds of armor.&quot; (PHB, p. 212, emphasis mine).Specific rule(s):FIghter Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail, scale; light shield, heavy shield (PHB, p. 75).Feat: Armor proficiency (Scale)Prerequisites: Str 13, Con 13, training with chainmailBenefit: You gain training with scale armor.So, all fighters are proficient in scale armor (class exception). Any character who is not proficient with scale armor because of their class may gain training with scale armor by taking the feat (feat exception). Taking the feat has prerequisites.Quite honestly, I think threads like this are the result of naysayer rules-lawyers who want to find fault with 4e, and are just picking nits.But that's just my opinion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 4287604, member: 32164"] I suppose. But I don't see why the designers should have to assume we're all retarded gerbils. "Wield" means to use. "Proficient with scale armor" means "proficient with scale armor." It's not nearly as complicated as it sounds. I mean, you don't see people saying "I don't see where the feat is for all melee military weapons." If people are smart enough to figure out that the fighter can have a class feature of "trained in all military weapons" when such a thing is clearly impossible by taking feats, how is it hard to see how they could be trained in scale armor despite not having the prerequisite CON score? "Every class, race, feat, power and monster...lets you break the rules in some way." (PHB, p. 11). General rule: "Your class tells you what kinds of armor you're proficient with. You can take feats to learn the proper use of [b]other[/b] kinds of armor." (PHB, p. 212, emphasis mine). Specific rule(s): FIghter Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail, scale; light shield, heavy shield (PHB, p. 75). Feat: Armor proficiency (Scale) [b]Prerequisites:[/b] Str 13, Con 13, training with chainmail [b]Benefit:[/b] You gain training with scale armor. So, all fighters are proficient in scale armor (class exception). Any character who is not proficient with scale armor because of their class may gain training with scale armor by taking the feat (feat exception). Taking the feat has prerequisites. Quite honestly, I think threads like this are the result of naysayer rules-lawyers who [b]want[/b] to find fault with 4e, and are just picking nits. But that's just my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification