Community

Cpt_Micha wrote:

I wore banded anyway.

I came to the realization at 20 it doesn't matter anymore. (actually before 20) Most of the high powered monsters in the MM (which is what we fought most of the time) didn't even need to roll to hit a fully kitted out for Ac PHB Plate Fighter so there was no point beyond aesthetics.

4e makes me so happy. I don't have that problem anymore. And Banded simply counts as Scale for our games :D

I agree. And even before THAT point, the loss of a few points wouldn't hurt you enough to warrant giving up the RP value of the armor. 3ed was just too easy to have to worry about maxing things out.

Cpt_Micha wrote:

There's Wizard feats that give you + to hit in the books released so far?

I want to quote the Cap here because I think this is important. I don't think there are, so the "10% spell failure" remains. With the importance of +Atk in 4e, it would be pretty weird if getting back +2 attack via feats was so easy. Maybe that'll change in Arcane Power, but I doubt it.

Batshido wrote:

Yeah, it was pretty dumb. My character can't start with plate (Because it's ridiculously expensive), but once I make it to +2 armor I'll never touch anything else again. Really just a bad implementation of the various numerical things that differentiated armor.

Yup. I wish they'd gone with an "all armors have their niche" plan instead of "all armors have their class niche" (especially with the magical enhancements), but oh well. Still better than 3e. (What I mean by "niche" is that each armor be more suited to certain tactics, give minor bonuses in certain things, etc., instead of being tied to class proficiency and feats.)

celloshane wrote:

I always assumed that not being able to start at low levels with plate was a reflection of reality though. Historically only the wealthy could afford to purchase new Plate. It sort of relates back to the whole 'zero to hero' thing.
I've always been slightly dissapointed with the way armor is treated in the game in general. It would be nice to see so many more types of armor represented, but if I want to add them to my home game I'd either have to reflavour them as existing armor or completely rewrite the armor system.

They might've tried for realism, but in 3e it only worked till about level 3 (when you had enough for plate and never turned back). I was one of those DMs who had plate take months of crafting, actually (and mundane plate being fit to one person, like the PC) - though I was also the DM that let you start paying for it early (give the blacksmith a down-payment, so to speak) and let you pay a bit extra to speed it up with the help of a local hedge-wizard's magics. And magical plate re-sized, of course.

But if they'd really wanted to make the realism "work", they would've made plate mail cost a lot more than it did, and scaled up the other armors to compensate. (Basically, they needed to make the mundane stuff scale up with magic prices, because of how your GP value rockets up with level.)

Though I still would've recommended having one "cruddy" kind of each mundane armor (light/medium/heavy) be affordable at 1st. You don't have to have plate to be an armored knight archetype at 1st - but you do need something that looks heavy and badass. :P

Batshido wrote:

There's also nothing saying that a starting PC isn't a member of a rich noble house (and thereby expected to wear only the best at all times) or didn't simply take the suit off of a dead soldier or knight on a battlefield somewhere and have altered to fit.

This seems meaningless to me (no offense Bats). In D&D you can just as easily say "I found this Helm of Brilliance on a dead guy at 1st level". Even the 4e DMG doesn't recommend allowing your players to be members of rich noble families at 1st level - not without a good excuse as to why they don't have tons of money. In such a world it in fact makes sense that the nobility/rich would be decked out in enchanted gear. There's no reason why this is more true for nonmagical plate than a Staff of the Archmagi.

Batshido wrote:

Starting gear has always been completely arbitrary. It's just frustrating when it's arbitrary in a way that won't let you play your concept (heavily armored knight) at first level because they're afraid everyone will be buying wands and horses.

williamhm75 wrote:

I pretty much just gave my players riding horses for free because it makes sense at the moment. Everyone got weapon, armour, adventuring kit+50 gold to spend, in addition to the horses.

I sort of did that too - do any of you own the 3e FR campaign setting? The most useful thing in that whole book, IMO, is the "regional starting equipment" tables. everything from getting a warhorse to a few potions to a wand of color spray, it added great flavor and a nice boost at 1st. I've used it for all my campaigns since, just picking regional benefits that fit the PC or their hometown.

greatfrito wrote:

I remember, today, just how good of an idea Warweaver has with this "sticking to one thread" thing. Good for the blood pressure, and what not.

Heh, indeed. I go elsewhere, but I don't really put much thought into threads besides this one. I do some stuff in Off-Topic Tavern or help newbs with minor corrections in the 4e and Previous Editions threads. Only other one I really dive into is probably Nifflas.

greatfrito wrote:

I would love to see further mundane equipment types introduced to 4th, but I really don't know what they could do other than "re-skin" the existing types.

I'd be ok with that. In fact I think it'd be great if the next set of core books had "example" sections. The PHB2 says "brigandine is closest to X", the MM2 says "you can use Y to represent panthers, bobcats, lions, tigers, cougars...", the DMG2 says "trap Z can be used to mimic this situation", etc.
It'd be nice if they added little changes too ("tigers get +2 stealth in tall grasses; a wooden shield grants fire resist 1 if soaked in water for an hour that morning")* to make them unique, but I'm not holding my breath.

*Just makin' stuff up here.

Cpt_Micha wrote:

If you were zeros you wouldn't have training in heavy armor or real weapons to start with though.

I know we're going over ground we've already covered here, but I'd like to see more opportunity in the rules to play characters that start as 'zeros' though. Like the farm boy who just picked up a longsword a few days ago and doesn't know much beyond "the pointy end goes in the other guy". A guy like that has never worn Plate and wouldn't know how to move in it if he did.

Batshido wrote:

There's also nothing saying that a starting PC isn't a member of a rich noble house (and thereby expected to wear only the best at all times) or didn't simply take the suit off of a dead soldier or knight on a battlefield somewhere and have altered to fit.

Starting gear has always been completely arbitrary. It's just frustrating when it's arbitrary in a way that won't let you play your concept (heavily armored knight) at first level because they're afraid everyone will be buying wands and horses.

That's true, but considering the starting wealth guidelines I think the rules of the previous edition intended that you shouldn't be able to start at 1st level with Full Plate. This makes sense too, because if you look at the majority of the monsters that 1st level characters should be facing a fighter with Full Plate and Steel Shield isn't going to be in much danger unless the monster crits.
If I started a 3.5 campaign at first level and you said you wanted to play as a heavily armored knight, I'd discuss it with you. I'd start off with asking if you'd be willing to hold that concept for a different campaign that starts at a higher level. If not, I'd like an explanation of how your first level character got his resources. In the situation of being a noble I'd ask for a justification of why you won't be using your backround resources as "free rp gold" and probably ask you to work with me closely to use your background to shape the campaign. Depending on the situation I'd be willing to compromise, but generally I'd be wary of starting a 1st level character with resources like that.

Warweaver wrote:

I'd be ok with that. In fact I think it'd be great if the next set of core books had "example" sections. The PHB2 says "brigandine is closest to X", the MM2 says "you can use Y to represent panthers, bobcats, lions, tigers, cougars...", the DMG2 says "trap Z can be used to mimic this situation", etc.
It'd be nice if they added little changes too ("tigers get +2 stealth in tall grasses; a wooden shield grants fire resist 1 if soaked in water for an hour that morning")* to make them unique, but I'm not holding my breath.

*Just makin' stuff up here.

*thumbs up* I'd love to see more "samples" like that, but so much "X gets Y," but just examples of ways the DM can tweak things, exactly along the lines of your examples.

celloshane wrote:

I saw that, although I didn't give it much thought at the time(what page was that on?). I'm saying I'd like to see rules like that in the books though.

(this is my page 138) Give it time.