Alternate Proficiencies

[Xeviat]

Hey all. Have you ever had a character concept and then looked at the proficiencies granted by your class and realized that you had a lot of baggage there? Sure, your High Dex fighter COULD put on Plate Armor and get +1 AC (18) over their Dex+Studded (17), but that's not in your concept. Heck, that shield might not be in your concept either, along with medium armor, sucking up another proficiency.

Armor proficiencies are worth half a feat. There is a feat which gives you 3 skills.

With those equivalencies in mind, I'm proposing a little house rule. If your class grants Medium+Shields proficiency or Heavy armor proficiency, you can give up those proficiencies to gain 1 trained skill each. So my duelist paladin that I've been building in each and every edition can gain 2 skills for giving up medium armor+shields and heavy armor.

I'm also noticing that the Monk doesn't gain very many proficiencies. That's kind of odd; a lot of skills seem integral to their concepts. Bards, Rangers, and Rogues get a lot of proficiencies, and monks used to be one of the high skill classes.

Thoughts?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't think that being able to trade in any odd proficiencies for new stuff is a good standard rule. Its something you might ask your DM for as a one-off favour. Your Duellist Paladin might choose not to wear the armour, but is probably still trained in using it.

In fact, they are probably trained in a whole lot of weapons that they have no intention of using as well. On the basis of that logic they could probably get a bunch more useful skills by trading in their proficiency with all those non-finesse and other weapons they are unlikely to use, 4 for each extra skill.

Monks seem to get a a more standard amount of skills than they used to. Remember however that everyone gets additional background skills, so they aren't as far behind the "skill monkey" classes as it would first appear. It might be that most classes have enough slots to get around 1/3rd of the skills listed on their class. The Monk also gets an additional Tool/instrument proficiency.

Which skills do you think Monks are missing?

 

[Xeviat]

I'm the DM in this case, just referencing a character I frequently play. There was an Unearthed Arcana fighter build that did something similar back in the days of 3E.

Weapons are one thing, since they're all (roughly) equivalent. Heavy armor is flat out better than medium armor. Weapons aren't quite comparable.

As for monk skills, the consolidation of skills from between 3E and 5E makes it a little less necessary. But as I'd immediately imagine all monks being trained in athletics and acrobatics, the choice of background becomes difficult. Tough choices are good, though. It's just odd that they went from having comparable skills to the ranger to equivalent to the fighter.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Weapons are one thing, since they're all (roughly) equivalent. Heavy armor is flat out better than medium armor. Weapons aren't quite comparable.

Heavier armour is not necessarily better than lighter grades. It depends on your Dex and the actual armour within that grade that is available.

Would your Duellist Paladin for example actually be disadvantaged by choosing not to wear Heavy armour?

As for monk skills, the consolidation of skills from between 3E and 5E makes it a little less necessary. But as I'd immediately imagine all monks being trained in athletics and acrobatics,

Why?

I mean its certainly possible for some Monk character concepts, but certainly not necessary for all.

the choice of background becomes difficult. Tough choices are good, though. It's just odd that they went from having comparable skills to the ranger to equivalent to the fighter.

Not too odd. Think of it as spending so much lime in meditation on their magical and spiritual path rather than learning the mundane skills. Just like the Fighter spends a similar amount of time learning their physical path with a much greater variety of weapons and armour. That's the time the Ranger and Rogue are practising their skills.

 

[Xeviat]

Heavier armour is not necessarily better than lighter grades. It depends on your Dex and the actual armour within that grade that is available.

Would your Duellist Paladin for example actually be disadvantaged by choosing not to wear Heavy armour?

Strictly speaking, yes. Even at 20 Dex, Plate Armor is going to provide +1 AC (18) over Breastplate (17) or Studded Leather (17). Yes, it does come with a stealth penalty, but the character won't be trained in stealth anyway. Heavy armor would require some investment in Strength, though.

Within the rules, I could just start Rogue 1, 2, or 3 and then MC Paladin, getting extra proficiencies and only getting medium+shields+martials. Would probably work out really nicely.

 

[77IM]

Swapping out medium/heavy armor + shields seems like it's worth a skill to me. Not two skills; you can't compare directly to a feat. The secret to min-maxing is to give up things you really don't want (in this case, heavy armor) for things you really do want (in this case, a skill). As you point out above, heavy armor is really only +1 AC, but with a Strength requirement and Stealth penalty, so it doesn't seem like you're giving up much. Giving up shields is much more painful.

I'd also allow you to give up medium/heavy armor + shields in return for Unarmored Defense, AC=10+Dex+(Cha or Int). That seems to fit a duelist type very well and can eventually match plate+shield in terms of AC, but without all the hassle.

 

[Xeviat]

As I said in the previous post, for the character it looks like I'll build them as a Rogue3/PaladinX, starting Rogue. It nets me +2 skills, a loss of a bit of HP, and no heavy armor proficiencies. It delays some paladin stuff, but I get +2d6 sneak attack out of it (so delaying +1d8 radiant per hit is okay).