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

[the Jester]

Because it doesn't look cool and there's other ways to get AC?

I suppose. Maybe.

I find the notion that a 2nd or 3rd level wizard would pass up a spell-slot-free, always-on, no penalty involved +8 to AC while facing monsters pretty dubious. "Hey guys, if I cast shield now, nobody is gonna hit me!"

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

 

[Umbran]

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

Then, rather than have this be an alteration to what armor proficiency means, have some ability - a feat, an NPC power associated with squire-types, or something - that gives a small bonus (a +1 to AC, a reduction in effective weight of the armor, or increases possible Dex modifier while wearing the armor) if you take the extra time for someone with the ability to help you put your armor on.

If you work with the faction, you can get a squire, or gain access to the feat.

 

[Blue]

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

But the implementation is that any PC with heavy armor proficiency can allow all PCs to wear whatever armor they want.

If it's wanted to be primarily a perk, then require something more like a feat. "Master Armsman" which allows fitting armor on others and some related points. But even there it pushes for the character who will get nothing from it to take the feat.

 

[LordEntrails]

I agree with @Umbran on this. Seems to me the idea is to grant a perk to PCs based upon what faction they are aligned with. His suggestion is a good one. Other factions/houses could have benefits for divine casters (bless anyone?) or arcane casters (mana potions).

I like that concept, of faction feats or perks, not of free armor proficiencies.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then, rather than have this be an alteration to what armor proficiency means, have some ability - a feat, an NPC power associated with squire-types, or something - that gives a small bonus (a +1 to AC, a reduction in effective weight of the armor, or increases possible Dex modifier while wearing the armor) if you take the extra time for someone with the ability to help you put your armor on.

If you work with the faction, you can get a squire, or gain access to the feat.

That’s a way you could do it, sure.

 

[Charlaquin]

But the implementation is that any PC with heavy armor proficiency can allow all PCs to wear whatever armor they want.

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. I wouldn’t assume that PCs would be able to access such proficiency easily, if at all, since that would defeat the point of the house rule.

If it's wanted to be primarily a perk, then require something more like a feat. "Master Armsman" which allows fitting armor on others and some related points. But even there it pushes for the character who will get nothing from it to take the feat.

Why even have PCs be able to gain this ability through a feat? The point seems to be for various factions to be able to reward players for their service with improved armor. If players can gain such better armor on their own, then it’s no longer an enticing reward.

 

[Umbran]

That’s a way you could do it, sure.

I am a fan of using the smaller changes to get the desired effect. No need to redefine "armor proficiency" when you can get what you need with a special-case exception ability.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am a fan of using the smaller changes to get the desired effect. No need to redefine "armor proficiency" when you can get what you need with a special-case exception ability.

Yeah, that makes sense. On the other hand, I can see why @Stalker0 might want to go with the bigger change of redefining Armor proficiency. That way working with one of these factions is required in order to to access armor at all, rather than just offering a small bonus to armor you already have.