[Not 3.5, but I wish] No one should start with the Heavy Armor proficiency.

[RangerWickett]

Yes, a revision to the Fighter to make it more flexible.

They get shield and light armor proficiency and two bonus feats at 1st level, then one bonus feat at 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and every even level thereafter. That way you can have a fast and light fighter, if you'd like. Also, add in new class skills of Balance and Tumble.

Compare, dwarf tank, 4th level (6 feats): Medium, Heavy Armor, Tower Shield Proficiency, Endurance, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization (dwarven waraxe).

Human duelist, 4th level (7 feats): Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Expertise, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization (rapier).

Elf archer, 4th level (6 feats): Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization (longbow).

Halfling knife-fighter, 4th level (6 feats): Two-Weapon Fighting, Combat Reflexes, Quickdraw, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization (dagger/small shortsword).

Half-Orc Berserker, 4th level (6 feats): Power Attack, Cleave, Great-Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization (great axe).


If we want to make things even more flexible, turn Sneak Attack and Rage into a fighter bonus feats.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

As I run things, you can loose the free heavy armor feat in return for two additional skill points per level.

 

[Numion]

Isn't the point pretty moot since you can use heavy armor without the feat? It just gives more penalties to maneuvers, which are pretty difficult anyway in a full plate.

IIRC, that is.

 

[Yeoman]

Isn't the point pretty moot since you can use heavy armor without the feat? It just gives more penalties to maneuvers, which are pretty difficult anyway in a full plate.

IIRC, that is.

From the SRD
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: If armor is worn with which a character is not proficient, the character suffers the armor's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill rolls that involve moving, including Ride.

Using it without the feat is possible, but not recommended.

 

[Kugar]

I think requiring a feat is very workable if that is the feel you want in the game, but no one is going to choose it. In order to make the feat more attractive I have 2 suggestions.

1) Give away a free suit with every feat purchase. That's right - Give him his father's plate or the field dress of his old military position!

2) Make the armor better. Maybe this will be addressed in 3.5, but the penalties for use of heavy armors far exceed their protective value for the versatile adventurer. Perhaps removing the move penalty.

Also before you fiddle too much with the core mechanics an other design solution could be to introduce "Exotic Armors" that need special feats and require heavy Armor Proficiency.

 

[ForceUser]

I'd be the first to admit, I don't enforce the encumbrance rules as much I would want to. I don't do the math, I just look at the list of equipment the party have and then ask, "How are you going to carry them around in your travel?"

Tracking encumbrance is vital for 3E combat and an important distinguishing point between the heavy and lighter armors; ignoring encumbrance means you're ignoring the disadvantages of wearing heavy armor, which maybe - just maybe - might be one of the factors that folks keen on chopping heavy armors in this thread are overlooking while they eagerly swing the nerf bat. A character that is moderately or heavily encumbered takes penalties to movement and certain skills, and it's important to know just how much you can lift, carry or drag. Encumbrance has played a large role in many of our combats as characters have had to make decisions on whether to drop gear or continue to carry it and incur penalties. I've seen characters drop backpacks to fight then have those unattended items destroyed by area effect spells, or be separated from their packs by the flow of combat and lose all their food while deep in a dungeon, or take Strength damage from poison or troglodyte nausea and be effectively pinned by their own gear.

But if a cleric suddenly finds a plate armor that he can wear (unless his religious oath forbids him), he will keep and wear it because he knows he has no penalty.

This is exactly why you track encumbrance: characters with less than 12 Str really shouldn't be trying to wear heavy armor. And if he can wear it, bonus. So what?

Personally, I'll grant anyone who select the War Domain a bonus proficiency in heavy armor as well as the proficiency in a martial weapon associated with his patron deity, assuming that I remove the heavy armor from the cleric's starting proficiency feats.

I just don't recommend fiddling with what classes get what armor. Could it be possible that maybe - just maybe - the professional game designers and legion of playtesters knew what they were doing? Besides, regardless of what level of armor a cleric gets to wear, there is an hour per level spell he's going to get that is going to ensure he often has fighter-like AC anyway: magic vestment. Take Extend Spell and, well, your cleric in his lg. shield & breastplate still has a rocking AC, making the whole "nerf hvy armor" change kind of irrelevant anyway since all he'll end up losing is up to 3 points of AC total (the difference between a breastplate and full plate), unless you want to swing the nerf bat on magic vestment. If you're looking to totally sh-tcan cleric ACs altogether, don't forget protection from evil, shield of faith, and dispel good/evil/law/chaos. God forbid the cleric should be able to stand toe-to-toe with foes so he can heal the front-line fighters during combat.

Anyway.

 

[Arnwyn]

What do people think?

I'd have no problem with such a rule change.

I'd also have no problem with some of the suggestions given in this thread (eg. free to Fighters and Paladins at 3rd level, or the cleric only loses proficiency unless he/she has War Domain, etc).

 

[Arnwyn]

I just don't recommend fiddling with what classes get what armor. Could it be possible that maybe - just maybe - the professional game designers and legion of playtesters knew what they were doing?

Just as an aside: I, personally, don't give a rat's patutie if the "professional game designers and legion of playtesters" know what they're doing. All I care is how it works for *my* game.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Just as an aside: I, personally, don't give a rat's patutie if the "professional game designers and legion of playtesters" know what they're doing. All I care is how it works for *my* game.

ditto.

 

[ForceUser]

Just as an aside: I, personally, don't give a rat's patutie if the "professional game designers and legion of playtesters" know what they're doing. All I care is how it works for *my* game.

That's nice. I think a wise DM should consider such things before making radical changes to the core rules, however.