OneDnD Armor training

Lojaan

Adventurer
I like this and I would go a step further - don't split weapons and armour.

You have access to simple weapons, you also have access to simple armor. You have martial weapons? That includes martial armor. Really no need to split them apart.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
Sure why not? If you don't want your rangers in heavy armor, give them a reason to not wear it. Penalty on stealth and some other skills should do the trick.
Ok, it doesn't bother me, but traditionally, Rangers have been a "no heavy armor but all the weapons" class (along with Barbarians). So there is a flavor reason to split weapon and armor proficiency apart that some would defend.

Plus some classes do have an eclectic mix of weapons for similar flavor reasons, like Rogues.

I'm not against the slaughter of sacred cows, but some would consider this a bridge too far.
 

Horwath

Hero
I mostly like this, but I think the Strength requirements should be lower, especially for light armor. Many classes that get light armor are not incentivized to have Strength, like Rogues.

If this is about "Strength should matter", armor already has weight, and you need some Strength to carry it around. Making people have to have higher Strength to be able to use a class feature (armor proficiency) seems a bit odd.

How about:

Light Armor, no minimum Strength.
Medium Armor, Strength 11.
Heavy Armor, Strength 13.

Instead?
in this variant, there is no armor proficiency, if you have strength high enough, you can use armor.
STR is your proficiency here.
 


Lojaan

Adventurer
I do like the idea of anyone being able to wear armor if they have the strength for it. I mean, the only training you really need for armor is how to put it on.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
in this variant, there is no armor proficiency, if you have strength high enough, you can use armor.
STR is your proficiency here.
Ah I see. While I prefer characters who are more well rounded and don't have "dump stats", I still wonder about forcing Dexterity-focused characters to invest in Strength, but I guess Str 12 isn't the worst thing that could happen.

I do disagree about "no one wants an odd score" though. A Nature Cleric might choose to have Str 15 so they can wear heavy armor effectively, yet have no real desire to make melee weapon attacks using Strength (say, by using shillelagh instead).
 

leonardozg

Because I'm the DM
making requirement of 13+ in basically saying you need 14.
No, because 13 gives you +1 bonus and 14 gives you +2, that's exactly the reason I prefer odd numbers for requirements. And it is basically a design pattern in 5e.
no one wants an odd score, unless it's a step for the next even score with next half-feat.
That's why requirements should be odd numbers, to make them desirable and somehow relevant.
But that's just a detail.
 

Horwath

Hero
No, because 13 gives you +1 bonus and 14 gives you +2, that's exactly the reason I prefer odd numbers for requirements. And it is basically a design pattern in 5e.

That's why requirements should be odd numbers, to make them desirable and somehow relevant.
But that's just a detail.
abilities should be IMHO reworked that modifiers and scores go one by one.

that is;
8 is -2
9 is -1
10 is +0
11 is +1
12 is +2
13 is +3
14 is +4
15 is +5(max without magic)

it would be much cleaner and more intuitive.

just have ASI give +1 to single ability.

or better yet, split the resource pool of feats and ASI's

or even better, no ASI's at all for character advancements except magic and possible high level class features.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top