D&D 5E removing heavy armor profiency

[GlassJaw]

The Strength Fighter (especially without armor) can focus on Jumping and Climbing, and Athletics generally.

Boost running speed. Maybe bonus action Dashes? Let them Push farther, knock prone, even stun, when hitting.

Break bones. Throw enemies into other enemies.

Hit with sword and grapple to restrain with free hand, at the same time.

I like these but curious about how you see them being implemented. New Fighter Archetype? Expanding the Champion or Battle Master? New combat options? New class?

I'd love to see an unarmored Archetype for the Fighter class.

 

[GlassJaw]

Indeed. Maybe we've argued [MENTION=22103]GlassJaw[/MENTION] into using your idea.

Not that we were actually arguing.

Heh, not exactly, but I appreciate all the discussion! Exactly what I was looking for.

I've been doing some investigation and honestly, I'm leaning towards either doing nothing or something fairly simple. The best idea I've heard so far is to replace heavy armor proficiency with the Defense Fighting Style (further, maybe grant light armor +1 AC and medium, +2). Still unsure though. If I did something like that, it feels like it grants an unnecessary bonus to wearing armor, and I'm not sure that makes sense. Again, for a seafaring/pirate campaign, does armor really make sense?

Which is why I'm ok with simply making heavy armor (and maybe even some mediums) extremely rare and let the campaign work itself out. If that eliminates some archetypes, I'm ok with that. In this case, it's a situation of the rules enforcing the campaign (the best kind of rules IMO). Also, I'm not concerned with powergaming and simple is better since some of my players are still new to 5e and RPGs in general.

I actually took a look at my Conan d20 rulebooks earlier today (still one of my favorite d20 variants) and if I was going to completely reinvent the wheel, I'd do something like that where armor grants DR and there are separate Dodge or Parry AC values (modified by Dex and Str respectively).

 

[mach1.9pants]

I'd just make all PCs armour proficiencies one step less. If you have heavy by the book, you get medium. Mediums get light and light get none. Tougher game, but not by much.

 

[Yaarel]

I like these but curious about how you see them being implemented. New Fighter Archetype? Expanding the Champion or Battle Master? New combat options? New class?

I'd love to see an unarmored Archetype for the Fighter class.

I would start with a Fighting Style at Level 1. One-handed weapon (typically a knightly sword), and a free hand. The style allows the weapon to be used at the same time as a grappling. Something like that.

 

[Zippee]

I'd leave it as is - it's a prof that some get for free but will be irrelevant until someone finds some rare heavy armour. Why tax the find?

 

[Blue]

Question - does the setting want the mechanics of heavy armor to be rare, or just the materials? A simple solution would be to reskin the armors - they all work mechanically the same but give them new names and descriptions that fit your setting.

So your light armors become even lighter - bracers, etc. Your medium armors become things like bamboo, sharkskin and the like, bringing in local materials. Heavy armors are the same - conch shell shoulders over some other material, etc. The expensive (and therefore rare) 1500gp Plate could be the shell from some exotic and dangerous sea creature. Or more prosaically crafted from a giant tortoise.

 

[clearstream]

I've been brainstorming on a campaign setting in which heavy armor will be extremely rare. The technology to craft it exists but it is impractical to do so (tropical island setting, hot & humid, lots of sea travel, scarce resources).

So while it's possible to acquire heavy armor, I'm wondering if it actually makes sense for starting characters to have proficiency to use it, nevermind actually own a set.

So campaign setting aside, what would be the implications of removing heavy armor proficiency from any class that would grant it? Will it upset class balance all that much (my gut says no)? If so, what are some options that it could be replaced with?

If I go this route for my setting, I'm inclined to simply remove it and not replace but wanted to some other opinions first (in favor or against).

Thanks!

It would be bad for game balance, but I can appreciate your setting concerns. How about ceramic or laminate armor that is functionally the same?

 

[LordEntrails]

Don't remove the proficiency, just tell your players before you start the campaign that the characters will probably never be able to find or buy heavy armor and let them choose what to do with their characters.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

You could delay the acquiring of the heavy armor proficiency to a higher level, rather than taking it away completely. That would give the players a chance to experience the world and find out if they would even want to risk the health of their character by wearing heavy armor.

Or maybe because of the extra physical stress of the environment you are describing, maybe set a minimum STR requirement that a character has to meet before they will even be taught heavy/bulky armor proficiency.

Or do both.

Or you could get together a group of players who want to play fun character concepts, rather than being min-max monkeys who think any character without heavy armor is useless.

 

[Yardiff]

So this thread about proficiency in removing heavy armor? I believe most characters who wear armor know how to take it off.

/joke