D&D General Do armor proficiencies make sense?

[Garthanos]

Its almost like saying you have to learn how to wear clothes.

Casting penalties do seem to serve certain flavors of fantasy magic (like fae related
magic not working well if you are carrying a significant amount of iron metal armor) but by far not all.

Stealth penalties are usually over blown

And plate armor is in reality less of a movement hindrance than some lighter
armor and easier to wear by someone with lower stamina your mount carries
the weight while traveling so its even better while exploring.

We might include other ways of serving the tropes A barbarians Woad might
provide extra protection and intimidation benefits. A Wizards robes might allow them
to use Intelligence instead of Dex for defense

In 4e even if a fighter could use scale armor there were class features that encouraged using chain armor
if you wanted to shift your character towards a more striker functionality.

ch

 

[Guest 6801328]

I just take it as one of those (many) rules that derive from game balance not realism. And I'm ok with that. I realize that sort of thing bugs some people.

(Whether it's necessary or effective in terms of game balance I won't attest to.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Armor proficiency certainly make sense.

However, I would remove light armor proficiency (anyone can wear it and learn it's care with minimum training) and just have "armor proficiency" for medium and heavy armors.

I would then restrict magic use to the light armors only.

Stealth penalties certainly make sense for the bulkier and metal armors, but some of the choices don't quite jive. Why give padded armor (gambeson) a penalty? It is clothes and the layers are not as stiff as cured leather.

At any rate, I can hardly see how robes can use INT to boost AC... unless you make it via magic of course.

 

[billd91]

Why give padded armor (gambeson) a penalty? It is clothes and the layers are not as stiff as cured leather.

Maybe not as stiff, but they have some bulk to them. Think of how stealthy you are in a down jacket compared to without.

 

[Garthanos]

At any rate, I can hardly see how robes can use INT to boost AC... unless you make it via magic of course.

Well umm Wizard?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Well...you could just replace the armor proficiency and categories and just add a Str requirement equal to their AC bonus.

or go with the 13th Age model and have all character be able to wear any armor, but with increased attack/athletic/acrobatic penalties.
ex: Rogue armor table

Armor Type	Base AC	Atk Penalty
None	11	—
Light	12	—
Heavy	13	–2
Shield	+1	-2

Cleric armor table

Armor Type	Base AC	Atk Penalty
None	10	—
Light	12	—
Heavy	14	—
Shield	+1	—

 

[DND_Reborn]

Maybe not as stiff, but they have some bulk to them. Think of how stealthy you are in a down jacket compared to without.

Considering it is clothes such as linen and such, I don't think the penalty would be so bad as to require disadvantage. That is my point. If leather doesn't have it, nor brigandine (a.k.a. studded leather), than neither should padded since it is certainly not any worse than the others.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well umm Wizard?

Well, then there are already magic items which a wizard can boost their AC with. With spells, and the fact that casters can wear armor, it seems simply like something you want to buff wizards more than a balance issue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well...you could just replace the armor proficiency and categories and just add a Str requirement equal to their AC bonus.

I would be 100% in favor of this (or some variant of it) because it gives all classes a compelling reason to want higher Str, but I'd like to see the same thing done for all ability scores, beyond just their use with skills. In general all the classes, even the ones we call MAD, are far too SAD.

 

[Umbran]

As a game mechanic, armor proficiencies make perfect sense.

Its almost like saying you have to learn how to wear clothes.

Yes. If those clothes are constructed haute coutoure runway stuff that isn't made to wear on the street.

Stealth penalties are usually over blown

No. Not really. I've worn a few types of heavy armor - it clatters and clanks and jingles and creaks. And, honestly, knowing how to position yourself so your armor take the blows in the best way is reasonable. I could compare the bruises from early in my armored-fighting days to later, and I clearly figured out some stuff along the way.

And plate armor is in reality less of a movement hindrance than some lighter
armor...

While there are folks who have demonstrated that heavier armors may not be quite as restrictive as they've been made out to be... that doesn't mean those people didn't have to practice before they could romp around like playground kids in the stuff.

We might include other ways of serving the tropes A barbarians Woad might
provide extra protection and intimidation benefits. A Wizards robes might allow them
to use Intelligence instead of Dex for defense

Not having pants on means you can think your way around a sword to the guts? I am not sure you have the same idea of "making sense" as I do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In theory there already is a strength requirement for all armour. e.g. Scale Mail weighs 45 lb - if you use variant encumbrance rules anyone with a strength of 15 or less is encumbered whilst wearing it, reducing speed by 10 feet.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A Wizards robes might allow them
to use Intelligence instead of Dex for defense

You know, I could more support and understand a feature/feat that would allow you to use your INT instead of DEX for AC, the idea being you are calculating expected attacks and moving to avoid them instead of simply "reacting" via DEX.

A similar logic is present in the Unarmored Defense of Monks and Barbarians. WIS is used via "insight" into your opponent, CON is for your stamina and using your ability to absorb some blows (similar to how armor actually protects you). Both could be viable by you ability to go with the blow to avoid its impact.

Having studied martial arts, I can easily understand the logical arguments for any of them.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I would be 100% in favor of this (or some variant of it) because it gives all classes a compelling reason to want higher Str, but I'd like to see the same thing done for all ability scores, beyond just their use with skills. In general all the classes, even the ones we call MAD, are far too SAD.

I have worked a little on character creation to favor a little more the ''scores'' instead of the ''modifier''
Strength-> Load (a number of inventory slot equal to your score)
Wisdom -> Awareness (replace passive perception/insight)
Dexterity -> Initiative (as a fixed number instead of a roll)
Charisma -> Loyalty (as per the DMG)

Constitution is already important for most class, just remains Intelligence, which I dont know what to do with.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have worked a little on character creation to favor a little more the ''scores'' instead of the ''modifier''
Strength-> Load (a number of inventory slot equal to your score)
Wisdom -> Awareness (replace passive perception/insight)
Dexterity -> Initiative (as a fixed number instead of a roll)
Charisma -> Loyalty (as per the DMG)

Constitution is already important for most class, just remains Intelligence, which I dont know what to do with.

Like many others, we have INT modifier as bonus skill, weapon, or armor proficiency slot.

 

[bedir than]

Like many others, we have INT modifier as bonus skill, weapon, or armor proficiency slot.

I do use for tools, languages, and INT skills.

 

[Dausuul]

Are the armor proficiency rules realistic? Absolutely not. If they were, every party would be kitted out in full plate - fighter, wizard, cleric, maybe even the rogue - as soon as they could afford it.

And therein lies the reason the armor proficiency rules are written as they are. The goal is not realism but aesthetics: It's dull having every party go straight to plate as soon as they have the cash. The armor proficiency rules are designed to nudge different characters toward different gear.

 

[Yaarel]

I am mulling the following approach armor.

I like armor being a proficiency, in the sense that learning how to use a shield effectively, and wearing a helmet along with bulky clothing takes some getting used to. But, I think it is ok for one armor proficiency to cover any and every armor. So, merge ‘light, medium, and heavy’ proficiencies into a single armor proficiency.

Instead.

I wonder if it is possible to think of armor as something that applies double the Strength bonus to AC.

So, a Wizard with average or worse Strength would get no benefit from any armor.

A person with Strength +1 would use an AC 2 shield effectively.

A person with Strength +2 would use an AC 14 scale armor effectively.

And so on.

A person with Strength +4 would use AC 18 plate armor effectively.

By contrast, a person with Strength +2 would only benefit partially if wearing plate, upto AC 14.

A person who is sufficiently strong would also suffer no reduced speed while wearing the armor.

Because effective use of armor requires a person to invest in Strength, it might be balanced if a Fighter who invests in both Str and Dex, to benefit from both the armor AC and the Dex AC. So a person with both Str +5 and Dex +5 would have a natural upper limit of AC 25.

Anyway, these are thoughts I am curious about. I havent made any decisions on it.



As an aside, the stealth disadvantage from armors make no sense. It is absurd that ‘padded armor’ (such as a gambeson) interferes with stealth, while a chain tunic doesnt. And in reallife, when wearing a chain tunic, one is supposed to wear the gambeson underneath it! Sometimes I wonder if the disadvantage from padded was a typo.

 

[billd91]

You know, I could more support and understand a feature/feat that would allow you to use your INT instead of DEX for AC, the idea being you are calculating expected attacks and moving to avoid them instead of simply "reacting" via DEX.

I might get behind a feat allowing this, but I hate, hate, hate ways to swap (really concentrate) stat benefits that aren't expensive. I support more MAD, not less. Getting abilities like that for free or part of a class benefit just feed the optimization/power gamers to the cost of generalists and building for breadth.

 

[Yaarel]

Considering it is clothes such as linen and such, I don't think the penalty would be so bad as to require disadvantage. That is my point. If leather doesn't have it, nor brigandine (a.k.a. studded leather), than neither should padded since it is certainly not any worse than the others.

A brigandine would be a kind of D&D scale armor, where the scales are locked in place to form a kind of cuirass.

By contrast, ‘studded leather’ is just a hopeless popculture error.

Note, leather armor itself can either be a plate cuirass or scale tunic, so is torso armor only. I use a leather armor ‘suit’ that adds protection for limbs and neck, to be AC 12, to replace ‘studded leather’.

 

[Oofta]

If I cared enough to make a house rule on this (I've considered it) I'd do:

• Ban studded leather. It never existed, it's dumb.
• Limit dex bonus to AC, probably to +3 or maybe 1/2 your bonus. Armor matters.
• Give some other option to gain proficiency in heavier armors other than a feat. There should be a cost, but I'd probably just use a variant to learning a new skill.