D&D 5E A Campaign "Houserule" Idea - Armor Proficiency is based on the armor "donner" not wearer.

[Blue]

That seems like an unwarranted assumption - if @Stalker0 is changing armor proficiency to be based on the person putting the armor into the wearer rather than the wearer themselves, it stands to reason they would also be changing how one acquires the necessary proficiency to put armor on to someone.

That seems like an unwarranted assumption. The OP mentions it's the proficiency of the person who is donning it, and makes not a single comment about changing how armor proficiencies are assigned. In other words, my assuption is that the OP told us the change they wanted, which is not unreasonable. Your assumption is that the OP wants to make two closely related changes and is hiding one of them from us while asking for feedback on the other one, which is unwarranted. If they are looking for comments and we could only fully understand the first change in the context of the second change, they wouldn't hide that second change.

 

[Stalker0]

That seems like an unwarranted assumption. The OP mentions it's the proficiency of the person who is donning it, and makes not a single comment about changing how armor proficiencies are assigned. In other words, my assuption is that the OP told us the change they wanted, which is not unreasonable. Your assumption is that the OP wants to make two closely related changes and is hiding one of them from us while asking for feedback on the other one, which is unwarranted. If they are looking for comments and we could only fully understand the first change in the context of the second change, they wouldn't hide that second change.

As the OP, my original thought for this was that having the proficiency would allow you to do this, but people have rightly pointed the problems with that, so perhaps a greater change to proficiency in this model would be the right approach. Would that be too penalizing to classic heavy armor users....perhaps, let the debate continue!

 

[FrozenNorth]

By my reading, the purpose seems to be to have armor be a perk of working with certain factions.

The perk is only meaningful if no characters have native access to the proficiency and can help characters without it don armor.

 

[Charlaquin]

The perk is only meaningful if no characters have native access to the proficiency and can help characters without it don armor.

Which is why I (apparently incorrectly) assumed no characters would have native access to the proficiency.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That seems like an unwarranted assumption - if @Stalker0 is changing armor proficiency to be based on the person putting the armor into the wearer rather than the wearer themselves, it stands to reason they would also be changing how one acquires the necessary proficiency to put armor on to someone.

It seems to me that the unwarranted assumption is that the OP is changing something they made no mention of changing.

It is a lot more reasonable to assume that the OP, asking for feedback on a potential rule change, didn’t consider the effect of the rule change on the classes that have the proficiency natively.

 

[Blue]

As the OP, my original thought for this was that having the proficiency would allow you to do this, but people have rightly pointed the problems with that, so perhaps a greater change to proficiency in this model would be the right approach. Would that be too penalizing to classic heavy armor users....perhaps, let the debate continue!

I had suggested a feat, so perhaps armor proficiency is the less ability to don it for yourself, and there are also feats for the greater proficiency that let you don it for others.

 

[jasper]

The obvious solution is to have the character trained in heavy armor (or even an NPC squire hired for the purpose) dress the characters in armor every morning.

If that is the purpose, why not cut the middleman and just get rid of armor proficiencies?

Court, "Squire Sam is true you dress your adventurers funny?"
Squire Sam, "No!"
Wally the Wizard, "then why is my cod piece always on the back?
Squire Sam, "That is the lifting handle just in case you fall prone!"

 

[jasper]

Ok updating some 1E magic items to 5e.
Bracers of AC 18. Gives user a base AC of 18. Does now work with any armour or shields.
Braces of AC 16. Give use a base Ac of 16. ERc.TC

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

Make it an Aura, like a Paladin's aura.

"Radius of Armor Protection" - Requires Heavy Armor Proficiency. "While wearing Heavy Armor you may give any unarmored ally within 30' a +3 to AC, any lightly armored ally within 30' a +2 to AC, and any ally within 30' in medium armor a +1 to AC."

This is already overpowered even though it has been stepped down form the up to +8 your way would give, so doing the same thing with Shields should probably be a second feat.