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.