Nonproficient in Cloth Armor = Naked?

[Achan hiArusa]

So if I don't have proficiency in cloth armor does that mean I have to go around naked? I wouldn't want to take penalties because I'm wearing clothes.

 

[Nifft]

Easy answer: impossible situation, so don't worry about it.

Just like how to heal ability damage.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Surgoshan]

If you're not proficient in clothes, then you're invisible.

 

[Saitou]

There's no feat for Cloth proficiency. That should be a pretty big hint.

 

[Cryptos]

If you're not proficient in clothes, then you're invisible.

If only to show what 18 CHA is worth "under the hood."

In all seriousness, cloth armor is different than clothing.

Cloth armor is layers upon layers of clothing. Robes, vestments, cloaks, vests, hat, hood, and so forth... all the fancy stuff that wizard types typically wear. It doesn't provide mechanical protection in combat, but it's the equivalent of what you'd wear if you might unexpectedly walk into a room that's like an ice box, or face things spitting acid at you, etc. It's not just pants and a shirt. Without magical bonuses that doesn't provide protection in D&D terms, but think of it as the flavor of protective gear, from the perspective of an adventurer, who is going to be crawling through muck, suffering scrapes, entering various environmental conditions, and so forth.

Or think of it as a wizard's version of a burka. Imagine a Saudi Arabian woman in fully appropriate gear for her culture trying to run and jump around a dungeon.

That's why there's a listed proficiency for it. It's different than just wearing clothes.

 

[Gloombunny]

"All characters are proficient with cloth armor." - PHB, page 212.

The only way a character could lack proficiency with cloth armor is if he's only disguised as a character and is actually a cabbage or something.

 

[mach1.9pants]

"All characters are proficient with cloth armor." - PHB, page 212.

The only way a character could lack proficiency with cloth armor is if he's only disguised as a character and is actually a cabbage or something.

I am often told I have the brains of a cabbage, does that count?

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

"All characters are proficient with cloth armor." - PHB, page 212.

The only way a character could lack proficiency with cloth armor is if he's only disguised as a character and is actually a cabbage or something.

I couldn't help but laugh at this.

I did play with a character who was in fact an owl bear disguised by a magic fez hat that made him seem like he was whatever race the onlooker was. It also gave him just above bestial intelligence (int 4). He did a really good job roleplaying it, and presumably in 4e he wouldn't be proficient in the hat that he was wearing

 

[Achan hiArusa]

I've known players who would forgo proficiency in cloth armor. Usually they are guys playing women, but hey...

 

[ladycass]

Hummmm now I am pondering allowing my players to switch thier cloth armor proficiency for an additional weapon proficiency. Unbalanced? Yes. Hillarious? Absolutly!


I did let one character who wanted to play an illiterate but street wise rogue an additional spoken language. Same thing right?