Where can I find the 21 bullet points Jason posted after the April Fools d21 system? I recall one of them mentioned that the breastplate may allow an AC bonus of 9 with a good Dex score.
I think it would be inelegant to make "Armor Training +3" mean you pick different types of bonuses (e.g., +1 Armor bonus and +2 DEX bonus). More likely, IMO, is Breastplate has been changed to +6 Armor Bonus and +2 Max DEX bonus, which is an improved progression from Chain Shirt anyway. That means armor training increases Max DEX bonus only.
I noticed that there are no skill penalties. Breastplate used to have -4 check penalty. For this character, masterwork would bring it to -3, and the +3 armor training could knock off the rest.
Regarding hit points, the bonus portion works out to 4 (CON bonus and toughness) * 14 (level) = 56. Pretty straight-forward. If hp per HD are static, the most likely spread is 10 (max hp at 1st) + 5*13 (2nd-14th) = 75. Since there are 56 bonus and 137 total, that leaves 6 unaccounted-for. One of the options in Beta was to give all characters 6 starting hit points... I wish the starting hit points here CON/2, but you can't have everything. :)
Regarding toughness (and the possible drop to +1/level from 3+1/level), I am happy. If you raise STR or DEX by 2, you get benefits that are better than 2 feats (or perhaps as good as 2 good feats). For example, for STR, first feat-equivalent bonus (+1 to STR-based attacks) and second feat-equivalent bonuses (+1 damage, +1 to a couple skills, increased carrying capacity). For DEX, you could make a decent argument that it is as good as 3 feats, but I don't really care about balance between STR-DEX at this point, so let's just agree STR and DEX are worth 2 good feats each. INT, WIS, and CHA are generally worth 2 good feats each if you have the right class abilities to go with. Now for CON: first feat-equivalent bonus (+1 hit point per level) and second feat-equivalent bonuses (+1 Fort save). The second feat-equivalent bonuses are clearly sub-standard since you can take Great Fortitude to get +2 Fort save. And if Toughness gave 3 bonus hit points, then the first feat-equivalent bonus would also be clearly sub-standard. I didn't like the old Toughness feat because it made CON seem sub-optimal. So I hope that Toughness has been nerfed.
Moreover, Toughness was a wizard feat in the old version. Why were more wizards taking Toughness than fighters? It just seemed silly. Now wizards start with 6 hit points bonus (speculating) and 6 starting hit points (for class). It is not as critical for players of wizards to take this feat at 1st level to ensure survival to second. At higher levels, Toughness will start to make sense to characters with hit points that don't get them as far as they would like, and I would guess that would be the characters who get hit a lot and actually need to be tough. So the feat feels better without the +3 hit point boost.
I'd put these more under wishful thinking than likely:
I hope improved speed comes as a natural result of reduced check penalties and increased Max DEX bonus when armor penalties drop to the worst of the lower armor type. For example, if Chain Shirt is +4 max DEX and -2 check penalty and, as I predict, Breast Plate is +2 max DEX and -4 check penalty, then Armor Training +2 would result in Breast Plate having the same stats for the Fighter as a Chain Shirt for anyone else. Also, if Scale or Chainmail is +3 max DEX and -3 check penalty (as I hope but have no reason to believe), then Armor Training +1 would result in Scale having the same stats for the Fighter as a Chain Shirt for anyone else. If you have the same stats as a Chain Shirt (that is, -2 skill check penalty and +4 max DEX bonus), then you are treated as wearing Light Armor.
I have always been of the opinion that armor should scale elegantly. If the changes are made to medium armor, as I hope, then I also hope we see Banded Armor with a +7 armor bonus, +1 max DEX, and -5 check penalty; and Full Plate with a +8 armor bonus, +0 max DEX, and -6 check penalty. This will mean that Armor Training +4 allows a Fighter to treat Full Plate as Light Armor. Throw Splint and Partial Plate in there wherever you want. Nobody uses them anyway.
Valero will still be better off with his Breast Plate at 15th level (Armor Training +4) than with Full Plate, as long as he upgrades his belt of physical perfection to +4.
----
I wish I had noticed the Pathfinder playtest. I was still trying to like 4e right up until the Beta closed. What I *would* have said is make Bravery into a standard "good" save. That is, Fighters have normal will saves except against fear, in which case they have +2 +1/2 levels. That keeps the numbers about the same as for Bravery (a little better early on) and makes Fighters just as brave as Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, Sorcerers, and Wizards (assuming you discount the WIS bonus to Will saves) at all levels.
I wish I had noticed the Pathfinder playtest. I was still trying to like 4e right up until the Beta closed. What I *would* have said is make Bravery into a standard "good" save. That is, Fighters have normal will saves except against fear, in which case they have +2 +1/2 levels. That keeps the numbers about the same as for Bravery (a little better early on) and makes Fighters just as brave as Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, Sorcerers, and Wizards (assuming you discount the WIS bonus to Will saves) at all levels.
See, this is just a case of misunderstood semantics.
WILL saves, in general, are not about bravery or courage at all.
There are countless effects that require WILL saves and only a tiny portion of them are fear-related.
All those classes you list are better equipped to handle the myriad panoply of magical/mental effects out there than fighter are.
For most of them, it's their training. Training to cast magic, and to handle magic, and to expand their mind to be aware of all the things tht magic can be, leads to a better understanding of the magical world, and hence a better resistance to the mental tricks that can originate from this magical world.
For the monk, it's a mystical sense of self-awareness, inner focus, that allows him to shrug off outside effects that attempt to sway his inner balance.
It would be unreasonable for a fighter to be equal to these classes against all the countless mind-affecting effects out there that require a WILL save.
As to fear, and bravery, and courage.
Within the mundane world, the world that everyone understands equally, the 3.5 fighter is no more or no less brave than everyone else. In fact, if a troll jumped out of the jungle with a mighty roar and bounded forward to attack, I'm quite certain that most fighters would leap forward and meet this ferocius monster, placing themselves in harm's way and shielding their friends from the danger. A wizard or sorcerer wouldn't even think of doing something so brave, and it's not very likely that any class on your list, save maybe the monk, would do so either. And monks are a special case.
So fighters are as brave as anyone, and likely braver than most.
But, within this magical world exists all kinds of magical compulsions, one of which is magical or supernatural fear. This is not the simple fear we all feel when a troll attacks us, but rather, it is a magical effect that compels our mind to behave in a manner that is entirely out of our control.
That's crucial to this understanding.
Fear effects are magical or supernatural mind-altering effects that force us to behave in a manner that is out of our control.
This kind of fear is something that no sword can cleave, no mail can blunt, and no combat training can endure.
The 3.5 fighter has no defense against this magical compulsion to be afraid, any more than he would have a defense against a magical compulsion to fall asleep, or a magical compulsion to freeze in place, or a magical compulsion to kiss a Succubus, or any other magical compulsion.
However, those among the magically trained are more able to recognize the magic working against them and know it for what it is, and more apt to use this awareness, combined with their magical training, to shrug off any of these magical compulsions.
That's why a wizard can resist magical fear, as well as magical sleep, magical holds, and magical lust, better than a fighter can - despite the fact that it is most likely the wizard running for the hills when that troll charged out of the jungle.
Then along comes Pathfinder, and they give the fighter a special class ability and call it Bravery.
This is perhaps a poor choice of names, for it implies just what Totoro wrote - that for some reason, even with this special Bravery ability, fighters are still more cowardly than all those other classes he listed.
This is simply not true, and it is a false impression arising from the name of the ability.
I don't know what they should have called it. Fear Resistance. Magical Resistance to Fear. Whatever I come up with sounds pretty silly.
Maybe Bravery is the best name after all, despite the misimpression it gives.
What is important to remember, is that the fighter is not resisting normal fear here - he's already better at that than just about everyone else. He's resisting magical compulsions, and doing so with no training to understand magical compulsions whatsoever.
All those magical classes feel the fear, recognize the magical compulsion for what it is, and they know what to do about it. How to fortify their minds, ignore the effect, and continue on unabated despite the magical compulsion going on all around them.
Everyone else has no advantage against Fear, or any other compulsion.
Except Pathfinder fighters. These guys are so tough, so brave, so sure of themselves, that with no training to handle magical compulsions or any other mental magic, they can still grit their teeth and shrug off the Fear effect with greater ease than any other magically-untrained character class in the game.
That's what Bravery does.
And in that light, it makes perfect sense at any mechanical level it might be applied or houseruled.
|
A lot of stuff
GAH.
You know he was just suggesting that only Will saves *against fear* be treated as Good saves, right? And that all other Will saves are Poor? Your response makes it sound like he was asking all Will saves for the Fighter to be Good.
As much of it I read, at least. I only skimmed the chapter you just posted. :)
|
I think it would be inelegant to make "Armor Training +3" mean you pick different types of bonuses (e.g., +1 Armor bonus and +2 DEX bonus). More likely, IMO, is Breastplate has been changed to +6 Armor Bonus and +2 Max DEX bonus, which is an improved progression from Chain Shirt anyway. That means armor training increases Max DEX bonus only.
I hope not... I liked Breastplate as it was, and my players said that Armor Training in Beta *finally* rewards the fighters who did not invest heavily in DEX. Not only that, but it helps to bring the numbers into balance (in comparison to the spellcasting classes). If it only gives you a flat +1 to AC now, it's far less enticing as a class feature (if it *was* changed from Beta, I assume it was done because of backwards compatibility) and once more emphasizes the fact that the game math is reliant on certain magic items (i.e. the "mandatory" Magical Armor + Ring of Protection + Magical Shield). Plus this would feel a bit awkward, at least to me, because I like *consistency* in numbers -- why have one 'Training' that nets you +3 to X, another with +1 to Y, and one with +2 to Z and W?
I sure as hell hope toughness didn't loose the +3hp neither toughness nor improved toughness were worth wasting a feat on in 3.5, the beta finally made toughness a worthwile feat, I'd hate to have to houserule something as lame as toughness.
Huh? Improved Toughness was very much worth a feat. I used it quite a lot.
In fact, I think Beta toughness was a bit much.
KaeYoss, I suspect it's just the +2 being returned from TWF:
You're right! I forgot all about that!
I think it would be inelegant to make "Armor Training +3" mean you pick different types of bonuses
Agreed. It would be needless complexity.
More likely, IMO, is Breastplate has been changed to +6 Armor Bonus and +2 Max DEX bonus
Actually, I think the AC for medium (and maybe heavy) armour was increased across the board without decreasing anything.
My guess is that light is +1 to +4, medium +4 to +6, and heavy +6 to +8 or +9.
Regarding hit points, the bonus portion works out to 4 (CON bonus and toughness) * 14 (level) = 56. Pretty straight-forward. If hp per HD are static, the most likely spread is 10 (max hp at 1st) + 5*13 (2nd-14th) = 75.
Actually, monsters and NPCs in 3e use average HP.
Thus, the fighter gets 10 points from his first HD, 5.5 for the other HD, plus con and toughness as usual.
That's 10 + 13*5.5 + 14*4 (assuming toughness is like 3e improved toughness - just 1 HP per level), which adds up to 137.5 (which is rounded down to 137)
I'd put these more under wishful thinking than likely:
I hope improved speed comes as a natural result of reduced check penalties and increased Max DEX bonus when armor penalties drop to the worst of the lower armor type.
That sounds awfully complicated.
Throw Splint and Partial Plate in there wherever you want. Nobody uses them anyway.
That's just because they suck. There are a number of armour types that are just flat out worse than others:
Hide armour would be crappy even for light armour, and it's medium.
Chainmail and scale mail are simply worse than breastplate.
And no heavy armour except full plate really makese sense.
The only way those can work is if money is an issue, and with the usual wealth guidelines, that sort of money problems disappears before you hit level 3.
That is, Fighters have normal will saves except against fear, in which case they have +2 +1/2 levels.
Nah, too complicated. Better give them a flat bonus.
A lot of stuffGAH.
You know he was just suggesting that only Will saves *against fear* be treated as Good saves, right? And that all other Will saves are Poor? Your response makes it sound like he was asking all Will saves for the Fighter to be Good.
As much of it I read, at least. I only skimmed the chapter you just posted. :)
Nope, you bailed too early.
I started there, justifying the difference in general will saves between magic classes and non-magic classes, then drilled down to Bravery and its application both within and without those justified differences.
So what was the point of it, fellow Blake? Agreement?
The point was right there, in black and white, for all to see - but you've gotta read the post.
Or at least, skip to the end and de-engineer the paragraphs in reverse order. That way there's less reading, if you like.
Director of Narrative
|
I'll jus' deviate from the statistical norm a bit gov'nor, 'an say that this Valeros fella is tough enough to put a snickersnak in any creature's rathole 'an put 'em in an early earth bath, if ya know what I mean!
I know 'twas church work gittin' the game done, but our incredible capp, Mr Bulmahn, deserves a round of praise, 'an a better ale than that rotgut he was a drinkin' in that photo at the finish line. Give that man a fine sideshow quickwife, 'cause he done right by us! 'An that Valeros chum looks new & Pathfindery, but all the while still keepin' in with 30+ years 'o game history.
Well done, Jason.
Nice!
And seconded.
Good points, all. (DM_Blake, good points, too. Still prefer my house rule even though I agree with your logic, but I shouldn't have even gone there because it derails the thread.)
Regarding the complexity of reducing check penalty/increasing Max DEX and determining armor weight thereby, it's actually quite simple. You provide a list of armor:
Leather +6 Max DEX / -0 Skill Check Penalty
Studded Leather +5/-1
Chain Shirt +4/-2
Scale Armor +3/-3
Breastplate +2/-4
Banded +1/-5
Plate +0/-6
If you have +4/-2 or better, treat the armor as light. +1/-5 or worse, treat the armor as heavy. Otherwise, treat the armor as medium. It's really not very complex. The more I think about it, though, the less I think PF went this way. It's too different.
I think it would be inelegant to make "Armor Training +3" mean you pick different types of bonusesAgreed. It would be needless complexity.
More likely, IMO, is Breastplate has been changed to +6 Armor Bonus and +2 Max DEX bonusActually, I think the AC for medium (and maybe heavy) armour was increased across the board without decreasing anything.
My guess is that light is +1 to +4, medium +4 to +6, and heavy +6 to +8 or +9.
Regarding hit points, the bonus portion works out to 4 (CON bonus and toughness) * 14 (level) = 56. Pretty straight-forward. If hp per HD are static, the most likely spread is 10 (max hp at 1st) + 5*13 (2nd-14th) = 75.
Actually, monsters and NPCs in 3e use average HP.
Thus, the fighter gets 10 points from his first HD, 5.5 for the other HD, plus con and toughness as usual.
That's 10 + 13*5.5 + 14*4 (assuming toughness is like 3e improved toughness - just 1 HP per level), which adds up to 137.5 (which is rounded down to 137)
I'd put these more under wishful thinking than likely:
I hope improved speed comes as a natural result of reduced check penalties and increased Max DEX bonus when armor penalties drop to the worst of the lower armor type.
That sounds awfully complicated.
Throw Splint and Partial Plate in there wherever you want. Nobody uses them anyway.That's just because they suck. There are a number of armour types that are just flat out worse than others:
Hide armour would be crappy even for light armour, and it's medium.
Chainmail and scale mail are simply worse than breastplate.
And no heavy armour except full plate really makese sense.The only way those can work is if money is an issue, and with the usual wealth guidelines, that sort of money problems disappears before you hit level 3.
That is, Fighters have normal will saves except against fear, in which case they have +2...
Majuba, it could be x1 for light weapons, not specifically off-hand ones.
Power Attack gives 2x a BAB or level based penalty as bonus damage to primary, 1x to off-hand, and probably 3x to two-handed. [Not sure if I like this - Double Slice and the new PA finally made offhand damage bonus = primary for easy calculation.]
Perhaps, prehaps not. But I agree with Majuba. I'm not sure I like this.
But melee characters probably need a healthy boost to their damage output, so it might work.I hope they give us a preview of the new bard. ....let's hope the DC casting on the defensive have changed as casting defensively is far too easy now. A peak at the ranger or paldin would be nice to :-).....I hope for caster level = character level,....I hope for so much. I want to buy the book now, noe, now :-)
No matter what I will still be pleased when I ge6t my hands on teh new product. It's better than 3.5 and far better than 4:e. ..the beta is anyway.
Regarding AC, either the base AC of Breastplate has been lowered or (more likely) Armor Training now allows for different abilities for every +1 you gain (like, faster movement in heavier Armors and so on).
And this is good, too [...].
Agree, this is good. I never did like the fact that the fighters AC was way higher than the Paladin's or the Barbarian's. And now players will not always play a dwarf fighter (as they always do). The 20 feet move is now a penalty. It never was in the beta since the obvious choise of class when playing a dwarf was the fighter and the obvious choise of armor was heavy armor.
Throw Splint and Partial Plate in there wherever you want. Nobody uses them anyway.That's just because they suck. There are a number of armour types that are just flat out worse than others:
Hide armour would be crappy even for light armour, and it's medium.
I hate Hide armor and I agree: "Hide armour would be crappy even for light armour, and it's medium."
Chainmail and scale mail are simply worse than breastplate.
And no heavy armour except full plate really makese sense.
The only way those can work is if money is an issue, and with the usual wealth guidelines, that sort of money problems disappears before you hit level 3.
Sometimes money is an issue and "That sort of money problems" does not always disappears before you hit level 3. In our current party we are all almost hitting level 5. Only one of us has a fullplate. He got it at level 4 and my, soon to be level 5, cleric still uses a splint.
Also, if your party get into a situation when you are stranded without gear and money you use what you can find or aford.
My characters been taken prisoner twice. A challenge and much fun :-)
..and I hate Hide armor
Armour should have more going for it than "it's all you can afford".
let's hope the DC casting on the defensive have changed as casting defensively is far too easy now.
The whole system has changed. It's no longer a skill check. But that's all we really know. I suspect it's a caster level check, maybe a caster power check, now.
Beta defensive casting/"concentration" wasn't too easy. Not as such. It was just wrong.
For a wizard, it was indeed too easy because of their high int, while for clerics it was too hard (because they don't tend to have high int).
And that's just the opposite of what should be: wizards should not be as good at casting in the thick of battle as clerics, and clerics really need this more. Plus, int doesn't fit. Con or wis are better fits.
Armour should have more going for it than "it's all you can afford".
Agree, but if splint is all you can afford it's nice if you still can get one.
let's hope the DC casting on the defensive have changed as casting defensively is far too easy now.The whole system has changed. It's no longer a skill check. But that's all we really know. I suspect it's a caster level check, maybe a caster power check, now.
Nice. Where did you catch that?
Beta defensive casting/"concentration" wasn't too easy. Not as such. It was just wrong.For a wizard, it was indeed too easy because of their high int, while for clerics it was too hard (because they don't tend to have high int).
And that's just the opposite of what should be: wizards should not be as good at casting in the thick of battle as clerics, and clerics really need this more. Plus, int doesn't fit. Con or wis are better fits.
Yes you do have a point about clerics (and druids), but at level 10+ it's just get silly. You just need to pick skill focus spellcraft and then everything is all and well. Add a potion of heroism (I hate and love that spell) and then you never fail.
And yes con and wis make more sense, even dex would fit (but dex would make it some sort of a dodge ability). Anyway, it will be great to see how they have solved the problem.
Beta defensive casting/"concentration" wasn't too easy. Not as such. It was just wrong.For a wizard, it was indeed too easy because of their high int, while for clerics it was too hard (because they don't tend to have high int).
And that's just the opposite of what should be: wizards should not be as good at casting in the thick of battle as clerics, and clerics really need this more. Plus, int doesn't fit. Con or wis are better fits.
In my playtest campaign, I eliminated casting defensively and simply allowed a fortitude save to keep your spell with a DC based on damage taken. So far, it has done exactly what you recommend: only burly casters cast in melee. The rest do what frail casters ought to do: use their ample selection of mobility spells to distance themselves from their victims, and rain terror down from above.
You'd be surprised how much this one change alters the dynamic of the game. We've been seeing a lot more of the fighter playing "linebacker" because if the wizard/quarterback gets his spell disrupted, it's all over. Like the good old days.
Chances that the PRPG final does this? Slim to none. But I enjoy it as a house rule at present.
Beta defensive casting/"concentration" wasn't too easy. Not as such. It was just wrong.For a wizard, it was indeed too easy because of their high int, while for clerics it was too hard (because they don't tend to have high int).
And that's just the opposite of what should be: wizards should not be as good at casting in the thick of battle as clerics, and clerics really need this more. Plus, int doesn't fit. Con or wis are better fits.
In my playtest campaign, I eliminated casting defensively and simply allowed a fortitude save to keep your spell with a DC based on damage taken. So far, it has done exactly what you recommend: only burly casters cast in melee. The rest do what frail casters ought to do: use their ample selection of mobility spells to distance themselves from their victims, and rain terror down from above.
You'd be surprised how much this one change alters the dynamic of the game. We've been seeing a lot more of the fighter playing "linebacker" because if the wizard/quarterback gets his spell disrupted, it's all over. Like the good old days.
Chances that the PRPG final does this? Slim to none. But I enjoy it as a house rule at present.
Oh may steal this
Beta defensive casting/"concentration" wasn't too easy. Not as such. It was just wrong.For a wizard, it was indeed too easy because of their high int, while for clerics it was too hard (because they don't tend to have high int).
And that's just the opposite of what should be: wizards should not be as good at casting in the thick of battle as clerics, and clerics really need this more. Plus, int doesn't fit. Con or wis are better fits.
In my playtest campaign, I eliminated casting defensively and simply allowed a fortitude save to keep your spell with a DC based on damage taken. So far, it has done exactly what you recommend: only burly casters cast in melee. The rest do what frail casters ought to do: use their ample selection of mobility spells to distance themselves from their victims, and rain terror down from above.
You'd be surprised how much this one change alters the dynamic of the game. We've been seeing a lot more of the fighter playing "linebacker" because if the wizard/quarterback gets his spell disrupted, it's all over. Like the good old days.
Chances that the PRPG final does this? Slim to none. But I enjoy it as a house rule at present.
In 3.5, we houseruled that you coudln't cast defensively unless you had the feat. This worked also, the only people casting defensively were those who took the feat, and they had to think about whether it was worth giving up that feat to be able to do it. So those who didn't, got protected, and those who did, were less worried about getting into melee.
let's hope the DC casting on the defensive have changed as casting defensively is far too easy now.The whole system has changed. It's no longer a skill check. But that's all we really know. I suspect it's a caster level check, maybe a caster power check, now.
Beta defensive casting/"concentration" wasn't too easy. Not as such. It was just wrong.
For a wizard, it was indeed too easy because of their high int, while for clerics it was too hard (because they don't tend to have high int).
And that's just the opposite of what should be: wizards should not be as good at casting in the thick of battle as clerics, and clerics really need this more. Plus, int doesn't fit. Con or wis are better fits.
I mostly agree, except for CON.
Casting Defensively in 3.5 was never about "OK, you took a hit, and it hurts like the demon, so roll a CON-based check to see if you can handle the pain and still cast."
That would be CON-based.
But it was never that.
Instead, it was "Gosh, I don't want to be hit, so I will roll a CON based skill check to see if I can focus my brain on casting this spell while I still try to duck and weave through this battle."
How does Constitution affect a spellcaster's ability to focus their mind on their spell?
It never should have been CON.
I think the simple fix is to make the skill flexible. It uses whatever ability score your class uses to cast spells.
So mages concentrate by focusing their intellectual mind, clerics/druids/rangers/paladins concentrate by focusing their insight to channel the magic from their deity, sorcerers and bards bend the magic to their casting through sheer focus of their forceful charisma.
Then everyone is equally able to concentrate to maintain spells while also maintining their own defenses.
It looks like CMB vs CMD is going to suck at high levels and become useless.
Eric, could you break that down with labels for me?
I find it hard to believe it could be much worse than 3.5, since it required 2 abilities on the defensive as well.
It looks like CMB vs CMD is going to suck at high levels and become useless.Eric, could you break that down with labels for me?
I find it hard to believe it could be much worse than 3.5, since it required 2 abilities on the defensive as well.
Here:
The level 1 guy will have say:
CMB (1 BAB + 3 Str =)4
CMD (10 Base + 1 BAB + 3 Str + 2 Dex =)16Need to roll 12 (10 if you have the improved manuver feat)
But when he's level 20:
CMB (20 BAB + 8 Str =)28
CMD (10 + 20 + 8 + 5 + 5 =)48
CMD (10 Base + 20 BAB + 8 Str + 5 Dex + 5 Deflection =)16Need to roll 20 (18 if you have the improved manuver feat)
He is somewhat correct, as far as we know. However I think it is very important to note that we *do not* know all the modifiers that affect maneuvers and maneuver defense. If there are many factors that apply (bless, heroism, prayer, guidance, etc.) than offense nearly always benefits more than defense, particularly "touch" defense only.
|
First of all I would say that, unless the Breastplate has changed his base Armor Bonus, Valeros should have AC 30, not 28 (as pointed above, Breastplate 5, Enhancement 4, Armor Training 3 = 12).
Bumping this out of the archive to note that we now know that the breastplate's AC bonus is 6, so it has changed - but not in a way that makes sense. Apparently armor training adds nothing to the armor's AC whatsoever now. So what exactly is it doing, I wonder?