Improving the armor proficiency feats

[Hawk Diesel]

Different people have fun in different ways. If I can take a feat that lets my wizard wear heavy armor in a meaningful way, then that changes everything about how looks and acts and perceives himself, even if the only mechanical benefit is having a high AC.

I thought the fun of feats was that they let you customize your character in interesting ways, not necessarily that they add great complexity or make the character more difficult to play. I'm already juggling enough actions on a round-by-round basis.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not judging how different people use or find enjoyment in the game. I'm simply providing my perspective on what I find fun and my table experience. And from that, passive or purely mechanical abilities have provided less fun or enjoyment than abilities that are more active and flashy. That's not to say passive abilities can't be or aren't fun, but in general that is my preference.

But I also think as they are currently designed, a 2-3 feat tax for a wizard to get heavy armor proficiency is way too high. But also, I think armor feats would fair better among other options if they granted proficiency in addition to adding something new, as most feats do (especially the more popular feats).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But I also think as they are currently designed, a 2-3 feat tax for a wizard to get heavy armor proficiency is way too high. But also, I think armor feats would fair better among other options if they granted proficiency in addition to adding something new, as most feats do (especially the more popular feats).

It's a difficult design goal, because there are conflicting priorities. It's hard to make a feat that grants proficiency, and also make it appeal to someone who already has proficiency, without conceding mathematically that proficiency is inherently without value.

Neither Great-Weapon Master nor Sharp-Shooter grant automatic proficiency, do they? They require you to gain proficiency somewhere else, before you can benefit from them, if I recall. And the feats which do grant proficiency, tend to offer little to anyone who already has proficiency. So that sets a precedent that feats should exist in two stages, where one stage grants proficiency and another stage makes them complicated.

I know that this is likely to get me pilloried, but has anyone considered bringing back 4E-style multi-classing feats? They were probably my favorite aspect of 4E. Instead of having a feat the only granted proficiencies, you could have a feat that granted proficiencies with all weapons and armors and one skill from the fighter skill list and let you action surge once per day. That's relatively more interesting than mere proficiency, or proficiency and a +1 bonus to Strength, and it would also cut down on anyone just taking one level of a class for the proficiencies.

 

[mrpopstar]

It's a difficult design goal, because there are conflicting priorities. It's hard to make a feat that grants proficiency, and also make it appeal to someone who already has proficiency, without conceding mathematically that proficiency is inherently without value.

Neither Great-Weapon Master nor Sharp-Shooter grant automatic proficiency, do they? They require you to gain proficiency somewhere else, before you can benefit from them, if I recall. And the feats which do grant proficiency, tend to offer little to anyone who already has proficiency. So that sets a precedent that feats should exist in two stages, where one stage grants proficiency and another stage makes them complicated.

I know that this is likely to get me pilloried, but has anyone considered bringing back 4E-style multi-classing feats? They were probably my favorite aspect of 4E. Instead of having a feat the only granted proficiencies, you could have a feat that granted proficiencies with all weapons and armors and one skill from the fighter skill list and let you action surge once per day. That's relatively more interesting than mere proficiency, or proficiency and a +1 bonus to Strength, and it would also cut down on anyone just taking one level of a class for the proficiencies.

All of this reinforces (for me) the fact that feats probably shouldn't grant proficiency at all. Instead, feats should offer special capability that augments the proficiencies a character has gained by way of background, class, and training during downtime (what are weapons and armor but tools of war!?).

Feats in 5e don't get much attention from me, but now I'm viewing their role in the game much more critically.

 

[jaelis]

I have thought about 4e style multiclassing. I agree it could work, hadn't really considered in the context of proficiencies, but of course it makes sense to.

 

[Stalker0]

Found the feat I was thinking of.

Trained (replaces Heavily Armored, Lightly Armored, Linguist, Moderately Armored, Skilled, and Weapon Master)
You may take this feat more than once.

You gain any combination of the following benefits, adding up to 10 points:

- 5 points: Increase one ability score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
- 4 points: Learn a cantrip(1), or gain proficiency in light armor, medium armor(2) and shields, or heavy armor(3).
- 3 points: Gain proficiency in shields or a class of weapons (simple, martial(4), melee, ranged, firearms).
- 2 points: Gain proficiency in a skill.
- 1 point: Gain proficiency in a tool(5) or language.

(1) If you learn a cantrip, you may choose Wisdom, Intelligence, or Charisma as the spellcasting ability modifier for that cantrip.
(2) You must be proficient in simple weapons before gaining proficiency in martial weapons.
(3) You must be proficient in light armor before gaining proficiency in medium armor.
(4) You must be proficient in medium armor before gaining proficiency in heavy armor.
(5) Your DM may require an extra point for certain particularly useful tools.
* Your DM may allow you to gain expertise or advantage on checks with a skill or tool with which you are already proficient.

 

[Horwath]

I would rather remove armor proficiency as a whole and add strength requirement as main thing.

I.E. leather armor needs 8 strength, plate needs 20 strength. Fill any armor in-between from 10 to 18 str as you wish. Mithril can reduce str requirement by 4 or 6.

 

[Eubani]

I would rather remove armor proficiency as a whole and add strength requirement as main thing.

I.E. leather armor needs 8 strength, plate needs 20 strength. Fill any armor in-between from 10 to 18 str as you wish. Mithril can reduce str requirement by 4 or 6.

Great another thing to take away from Martial characters.

 

[5ekyu]

To me, having not read the three pages - grouping armor and weapons and shields into package feats does not give them more. For all but a few characters, it just adds clutter.

A wizard or sorc or rogue seeking "armor" isn't also (normally) looking for weapon attack optiins that tie up hands.

So, count me with the "give it more things to do".

I would start with

"If you already have proficiency in the armor, gain +1 AC while wearing that type."

So, it gives you the proficiency *or* gets you a little better if you already are.

Second, i would reduce the don/doff time and i would explicitly allow with the feat sleeping in armor without penalty - maybe up to long rests per con mod.

Finally, maybe allow a 1/lr "take it on the armor" reaction that reduces damage taken but damages the armor and then requires fixing during long rests before it can be done again.

 

[mrpopstar]

I would rather remove armor proficiency as a whole and add strength requirement as main thing.

I.E. leather armor needs 8 strength, plate needs 20 strength. Fill any armor in-between from 10 to 18 str as you wish. Mithril can reduce str requirement by 4 or 6.

See Variant: Encumbrance (Basic Rules, pg 60).

 

[Li Shenron]

The existing armor proficiency feats seem too weak to me. I would like it if the feats were at least somewhat competitive with a multiclassing dip for a player interested in upgrading their armor.

Those feats are rarely taken IMHO. They are there mostly just so that the option of adding proficiencies exists at all in the game, even if multiclassing is not allowed. In that case, they are weak (or rather they are "expensive") partly because of a sort of niche protection: having the best (martial) weapons is a feature of Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger, having heavy armor is only for Fighter/Paladin and half of the Clerics. And partly because of the traditional idea that arcane casters should not cast spells in armor. Of course as soon as you allow multiclassing, niche protection is out of the window...

If you allow multiclassing, I think it's ok to merge these feats so that some PCs will get more for their bucks without having to take a level in another class.

Just keep in mind who would ever want to actually gain these proficiencies in the first place:

- an occasional Ranger or Cleric is the only character that may want to gain the missing heavy armor prof
- Rogues and Bards may want to gain medium armor and shield, but at least many typical Rogues won't probably upgrade to heavy armor even if it's free (because of Stealth disadvantage)
- Druids, Barbarians and Monks already have all the armor proficiency they ever need (everything more messes up with their other features)
- Fighters and Paladins are set since the start with full proficiencies

So actually the main beneficiaries of armor profs are Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks, because they are missing all the armor profs (except Light Armor for Warlocks) and they have only to gain from additional proficiencies. This means that your house rules will largely benefit the arcane casters, is this what you want?

As for weapon proficiencies... I don't think they are actually as important as the armor ones. It's a damage bump, but I think that everyone who doesn't have martial weapon prof, already has bonus damage from somewhere else (e.g. sneak attack, martial arts) or is supposed to do something else entirely than swinging or shooting arrows (spellcasters).