Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khur" data-source="post: 565407" data-attributes="member: 5583">Hmmmmm... 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. 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.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification