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

[Arnwyn]

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

A wise DM should consider that the "legions" might know what they're doing before making changes? Irrelevant, IMO. As long as the DM considers how it might affect his/her personal campaign, that's all that's necessary. (If that's what you're trying to get at, then I'm agreeing with you.)

 

[ForceUser]

A wise DM should consider that the "legions" might know what they're doing before making changes? Irrelevant, IMO. As long as the DM considers how it might affect his/her personal campaign, that's all that's necessary. (If that's what you're trying to get at, then I'm agreeing with you.)

Yep, that's all I'm saying - I don't mind house-ruling, but a good DM considers the how and why of the way things are in the core rules before making big changes. Regarding this particular change (severely limiting heavy armor), I suggest that people need to think about what exactly they're trying to accomplish and why. In the case of clerics, the change is almost transparent as long as magic vestment and other AC-buffing cleric spells exist. If you want to drop the cleric's AC into the toilet because he's not a "real" fighter, disallowing him heavy armor will not accomplish that goal. Therefore, why bother?

 

[Sanackranib]

heavy armor

I have seen 3 things that I like on this thread
1) paladin as a PrC. you should have to be a squire before you get to be a knight.
2) everybody looses heavy armor prof.
3) paladin as a PrC gets it for free at lev 1 (character is 6th level+ by then)

of course I don't think anyone should get the shield prof. for free either.