So Rangers would get martial armor?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.
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.So Rangers would get martial armor?
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.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.
in this variant, there is no armor proficiency, if you have strength high enough, you can use armor.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?
making requirement of 13+ in basically saying you need 14.I prefer to use odd numbers for ability requirements because the even numbers already give a bonus.
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.in this variant, there is no armor proficiency, if you have strength high enough, you can use armor.
STR is your proficiency here.
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.making requirement of 13+ in basically saying you need 14.
That's why requirements should be odd numbers, to make them desirable and somehow relevant.no one wants an odd score, unless it's a step for the next even score with next half-feat.
abilities should be IMHO reworked that modifiers and scores go one by one.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.