Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 5868132" data-attributes="member: 14159">Part of my objection is the fact that the ability to wear heavy armor is not something that would plausibly be learned by somebody not specifically training for war.In 3.x, only 3 out of 11 core classes get Heavy Armor Proficiency: Fighters, Clerics, and Paladins.  Most other classes have abilities that would suffer if they took the feat (only exception I can think is Druids, if they could get a non-metallic heavy armor).  It's a 3-feat chain.Also, I know from real-life experience that wearing armor takes some getting used to.  Knowing how to wear light armor is quite plausible for anybody.  In d20 Modern they consider biker's leathers and football helmet & padding to be examples of light armor.  I am a peace officer, and sometimes on duty I wear a bullet-resistant vest under my uniform (of a kind that d20M would call medium armor.  It's a little awkward, but you get used to it after a while.  I am also in the National Guard.  The body armor worn as combat gear by the modern US soldier would probably count as heavy armor (reenforced wraparound vest with inch-thick ceramic plates on the front and back, a kevlar helmet, and hard-shell elbow and knee pads).  Getting used to wearing that "full battle rattle" takes some time and effort, and in Basic Training you spend a decent amount of time just wearing it around for training to get you used to wearing it.  After probably a couple dozen days (at least) spent wearing that armor on an everyday basis during the 10-week span of Basic Training, you're fairly able to move around in it and shoot accurately in it (the concept of armor-check penalties to your to-hit rolls for nonproficient armor made complete sense to me after going to the firing range the first time in full armor, you spend about a week going to the range every day learning to shoot while wearing armor)To me, heavy armor proficiency denotes that somebody has engaged in fairly extensive and dedicated training in the wearing of armor for a period of weeks of wearing it everyday, or otherwise racked up a couple-hundred hours or so in armor.  Are all fantasy seminaries (or apprenticeships at local temples) supposed to throw this in as part of the training?I'll fully admit that D&D is its own creature with its own quirks, but it was also put together out of bits and pieces of a lot of fantasy and historic elements.  Races from Tolkien, Arcane Magic from Vance, Paladins and Trolls from Anderson, Monks from 70's Kung Fu films, Barbarians out of Howard, Thieves out of Lieber's Lankhmar series, Clerics from the Song of Roland, ect.   I think it's not unreasonable to want D&D to be able to be able to make a somewhat plausible imitation of most mainstream fantasy fiction or pretty much any historic era (2e AD&D had a great series of sourcebooks on how to refit D&D to any era from the ancient world to the Renaissance). . .especially since D&D was pieced together from bits & pieces of .Does it now?Sorcerers, and Wilders (if you're using Psionics) are innate in nature and untrained in their power.  I've seen many Rogues/Thieves that had a background of being a street urchin or petty crook that learned as they went.  Do Barbarians have to go to Barbarian Academy or have a Barbarian apprenticeship before they can Rage?  If you're using Warlocks, then once you make that initial pact, it's just something you can now do.Some classes imply training, some more than others.  Wizards obviously require training.  Monks strongly imply training too, Druids probably have had at least some mentoring (to learn the Druidic language if nothing else).  On the other hand, Barbarians, Sorcerers and Wilders are things that people just do.  Thieves/Rogues or Fighters can go other way, with learn-as-you-go or some kind of apprenticeship.</blockquote>

Verification