d20 Modern Armor Proficiency - A Question?

[Michaelholland]

I was reading through the book when I noticed that if you have proficiency with a certain type of armor you do not suffer the Skill check penalty for wearing that type of armor. So as long as you are proficient all you suffer are any penalties from the extra weight.

How many of you like/dislike this and/or how many of you are already using this rule as a house rule?

Just curious. I have never thought of doing things this way and I am considering adding a house rule to my D&D game.

 

[kreynolds]

How many of you like/dislike this...

I really like it. Modern armor is much easier to move around in. An undercover vest doesn't really impede your movement any more than padded hunting vest would.

 

[Trainz]

Ditto, I really like it (except for heavy armors of course: I will apply the penalty on those).

Hell, these armors cost a damn feat (3 if you go heavy). No class comes with those feats (like the Fighter in D&D), so might as well get a good bang for the buck. The fact that you get very low bonuses if you don't have the corresponding feat is well thought.

 

[blueshade]

Re: Re: d20 Modern Armor Proficiency - A Question?

I really like it. Modern armor is much easier to move around in. An undercover vest doesn't really impede your movement any more than padded hunting vest would.

I agree but we might impose the house rule of penalties for archaic armor just as they would occur in DnD.

 

[Forcegypsy]

Do as you will...but check the f.a.q

Charles Ryan weighed in on this already, if I'm not mistaken. Ahh...found it, this is a copy paste from the sticky faq thread on the d20 Modern messageboard at WOTC:

10. Armor Proficiency

Q: [The Armor Proficiency (Light) feat doesn’t make sense to me.]

A: Sorry it's taken me a couple days to post an answer on this topic. When I had a look at the text in the book, I was rather surprised to read what it actually said. I don't know what bizarre text transposition occurred, but what is written there is needlessly confusing. Before answering, I wanted to check with the other designers and make sure that it's supposed to work the way I thought it's supposed to work. Here's the feat as it should appear:

Armor Proficiency (Light)
You are proficient with light armor (see Table 4-9: Armor).
Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, you get to add the armor's equipment bonus to your Defense. Also, the armor check penalty applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, and
Tumble checks.
Normal: A character who wears armor with which she is not proficient adds only the armor's nonproficient equipment bonus to her Defense. Also, she suffers its armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.

 

[kreynolds]

Ah. Thanks, Forcegypsy. I had forgotten about that post.

 

[Khur]

What?

The fact that one doesn't suffer the armor check penalty due to having the armor proficiency would be an assumption that's not stated or clearly implied in the feat. Nowhere does it say a character doesn't suffer the penalty in the "Benefit" of the feat. Now, I can see where there might be confusion due to the way the "Normal" section appears, but it's best to assume the benefit stated by a feat is the only benefit, rather than assuming what it doesn't say is also a benefit, don't you think?

That said, I certainly wish the feat worked out the way you all interpreted it. I've always thought armor check penalties were too steep, and proficiency was too limited.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: What?

The fact that one doesn't suffer the armor check penalty due to having the armor proficiency would be an assumption that's not stated or clearly implied in the feat.

Neither is it clearly implied that you do suffer the penalties with the feat.

Nowhere does it say a character doesn't suffer the penalty in the "Benefit" of the feat.

It also doesn't say that you still do.

Now, I can see where there might be confusion due to the way the "Normal" section appears, but it's best to assume the benefit stated by a feat is the only benefit, rather than assuming what it doesn't say is also a benefit, don't you think?

No, I don't think that. An assumption is an assumption no matter how you cut it. One isn't necessarily better than the other in all eyes. It depends on your point of view.

 

[Khur]

Hmmmmm...

Originally posted by kreynolds
Neither is it clearly implied that you do suffer the penalties with the feat.

Ah, but it is indeed implied by the rules in general, and the history of the d20 system, if nothing else. If one scrutinizes the rules, one notes that feats applied to rules are listed in several places to aid the learning of the system, such as the firearms feats listed with the guns in the Equipment section. It is also noted in passing in many places that certain rules apply only if the character "doesn't have the appropriate feat". Looking in the rules for armor in the equipment section, nothing indicates that any feat has any bearing on the armor check penalty, while just above it is indicated that feats apply to the equipment bonus.

No, I don't think that. An assumption is an assumption no matter how you cut it. One isn't necessarily better than the other in all eyes. It depends on your point of view.

It seems as if I offended you somehow by making an offhand statement. I did not intend to do so, nor was I trying to invalidate your opinion. Nor was I trying to imply that you weren't thoughtful in your reasoning. It may be important to note that I don't see myself as superior to those who made another assumption.

Unfortunately, though, one assumption is not likened to any other assumption no matter how you cut it, regardless of anyone's point of view. One assumption can be based on information present and clear precedent in a particular situation, such as assuming the only benefit one gets is what is clearly stated, as the precedent for WotC's feat design, and good feat design altogether, indicates. Another assumption can be merely based on the fact that there's nothing that clearly states you can't do something. In other words, the assumption adds to the meaning of an item without clear evidence that the added material is valid, and without considering that history dictates (such as through the Sage in Dragon and errata) that the rules are strict, and meant to be explicitly clear. Thus, implied meanings through absence of information are rarely accepted into canon.

So, one assumption is more valid than another, and more likely to be a right one, if it is supported by the evidence more than the other. This is merely logical, not a personal judgement.

However, like I said, I can certainly see how one would come to the conclusion you (and others) have. The feat is not clearly written. Yet, I personally would not have assumed there is no armor penalty for proficient use given the history of the rules and the context of the information. Such a rule would make no sense when applied, at least, to heavy armor. The proficiency feat for that armor states, "See Armor Proficiency (light)".

I also want to encourage the idea you have as right thinking. Now that it's clear (via Charles Ryan's post) the rules don't eliminate the armor check penalty, perhaps a house system (or even a published one) where it does to a degree is in order. Having seen some of your other ideas in various forums, I have no doubt you can come up with one that works. I for one would like to see it.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Hmmmmm...

Ah, but it is indeed implied by the rules in general, and the history of the d20 system, if nothing else.

Unfortunately, the history of the D20 System is somewhat irrelevant. Several aspects of the rules have changed, and though they are minor changes, they are changes none-the-less. For example, in D20 Modern, standing up from prone is still a move action (move-equivalent in D&D), but it provokes an attack of opportunity (it did not in D&D). If you weren't sure about the AoO, and you referrenced the D&D rules (which are based on the D20 System) to determine whether or not it should provoke an AoO, you would be misleading yourself. Haste also doesn't function in the same way at all, so the D20 system isn't a valid referrence either. I understand that keeping D&D in mind might help, but its certainly not the only way to approach the rules.

It seems as if I offended you somehow by making an offhand statement.

Oh, I'm not offended or anything. I just don't share in your point of view that its so clear cut and dry.

It may be important to note that I don't see myself as superior to those who made another assumption.

To be completely honest, it was hard for me to tell by the tone of your post. I still gave you the benefit of the doubt though, and assumed that you did not have a superior attitude, which is why I didn't get upset and/or wasn't offended. I just disagree with you. That's all.