Armor proficiency question

[barna10]

I haven't looked at all the classes since noticing this but the Duskblade description says the they are proficient in "All Armor and Shields (except Tower Shields)". Doesn't this mean they would be proficient in Exotic Armors as well?

[Jeraa]

It might not of been their intention, but yes. Duskblades are proficient in all armors, so that would include exotic armors as well.


A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (including tower shields).
The fighter class also says they are proficient in all armor, but then makes the note of (heavy, medium, and light) clarifying that is what they meant.

The duskblade don't have that note, but just says they are proficient in all armor.

[Amphetryon]

I haven't looked at all the classes since noticing this but the Duskblade description says the they are proficient in "All Armor and Shields (except Tower Shields)". Doesn't this mean they would be proficient in Exotic Armors as well?

I checked the errata, and there's no mention of this. Looks like an exploitable bug feature.

[BowStreetRunner]

Keep in mind that the wording on the duskblade's weapon and armor proficiency entry has two unusual exceptions. First, it excludes any reference to proficiency in Simple weapons. Second, while most classes have a parenthetical notation after the words 'all armors' where it states "(heavy, medium, and light)", this notation is missing from the duskblade.

Players often like to argue with their DMs that the first exception is just an oversight - of course anyone with proficiency in martial weapons would also have proficiency in simple weapons - while at the same time arguing that the second exception was intentional - of course the duskblade must be proficient in all exotic armors.

Unless you are exceptionally convincing, you should be prepared for your DM to rule the same way on both items - either RAW duskblades can't use simple weapons and can use exotic armors, or else the DM will decide that RAI it should be understood that simple weapons are included and exotic armors are not. (And if your DM finds your arguments particularly obnoxious he would be fully justified in issuing a split decision ruling that not only do they not get exotic armors, but they don't get simple weapons either! So try not to push your luck.)

[Amphetryon]

Keep in mind that the wording on the duskblade's weapon and armor proficiency entry has two unusual exceptions. First, it excludes any reference to proficiency in Simple weapons.The aforementioned errata addresses this explicitly; Duskblades are proficient in Simple weapons.

[Jeraa]

Keep in mind that the wording on the duskblade's weapon and armor proficiency entry has two unusual exceptions. First, it excludes any reference to proficiency in Simple weapons. Second, while most classes have a parenthetical notation after the words 'all armors' where it states "(heavy, medium, and light)", this notation is missing from the duskblade.

Players often like to argue with their DMs that the first exception is just an oversight - of course anyone with proficiency in martial weapons would also have proficiency in simple weapons - while at the same time arguing that the second exception was intentional - of course the duskblade must be proficient in all exotic armors.

In the Player's Handbook 2 errata, duskblades are given simple weapon proficiency. It make no mention of changing their armor proficiencies. WotC had the opportunity to change the armor proficiencies, but didn't. So either it was missed twice (once upon initial printing, and again with the errata), or its intentional that duskblades are proficient with every type of armor.

[barna10]

First, I am the DM. That being said, I like to research and be fair before making a decision. I would have denied simple weapons and allowed all armor. I'd rule this way because I like to do things by RAW as much as possible. That is until RAW is just stupid. (would have changed my mind after seeing errata)

On a similar note, has anyone noticed that the descriptions of the various armor feats (light, medium, and heavy) all mention particular classes that gain the feat. This makes armor proficiencies ripe chaos shuffle food! Just yet another reason to not allow the chaos shuffle...

[BowStreetRunner]

While I admit I hadn't noticed that the errata corrected the Simple weapon issue, the fact remains that a DM is free to rule that the (heavy, medium, and light) notation is assumed.

My defense of this is the Exotic Shield proficiency in Races of Stone, which is in fact a Fighter Bonus Feat. Since fighters are already proficient with shields (including tower shields), this feat would be redundant.

I would suggest that any reasonable DM should rule that proficiency with all exotic weapons, armors, and shields require specific mention of proficiency in the class features or a specific feat and should never be assumed to be implied.

[barna10]

While I admit I hadn't noticed that the errata corrected the Simple weapon issue, the fact remains that a DM is free to rule that the (heavy, medium, and light) notation is assumed.

My defense of this is the Exotic Shield proficiency in Races of Stone, which is in fact a Fighter Bonus Feat. Since fighters are already proficient with shields (including tower shields), this feat would be redundant.

I would suggest that any reasonable DM should rule that proficiency with all exotic weapons, armors, and shields require specific mention of proficiency in the class features or a specific feat and should never be assumed to be implied.

If this would be your ruling, would rule that Dragonslayer's DO NOT get Tower Shield Proficiency? If you are going to assume that an exclusion was missed in one case, why not another? NVM, reread Dragonslayer and this is a bad example.

[Talderas]

On a similar note, has anyone noticed that the descriptions of the various armor feats (light, medium, and heavy) all mention particular classes that gain the feat. This makes armor proficiencies ripe chaos shuffle food! Just yet another reason to not allow the chaos shuffle...

It's also worth noting that exotic appears to be treated as a subtype of armor rather than a major type like weapons. Exotic Weapon Proficiency only requires a +1 BAB and neither simple or martial weapon proficiency have a prerequisite. Exotic Armor Proficiency (RoS) requires that you are proficient in the weight category of the armor you're attempting to take proficiency for. Likewise, Dwarven Armor Proficiency requires that you be proficient in Heavy Armor before taking it.

It's also worth noting that CW Samurai is also proficient in all armors though it specifies "all types of armor". RAI for Duskblade is almost certainly meant to be identical to the proficiencies of Fighter.

[barna10]

It's also worth noting that exotic appears to be treated as a subtype of armor rather than a major type like weapons. Exotic Weapon Proficiency only requires a +1 BAB and neither simple or martial weapon proficiency have a prerequisite. Exotic Armor Proficiency (RoS) requires that you are proficient in the weight category of the armor you're attempting to take proficiency for. Likewise, Dwarven Armor Proficiency requires that you be proficient in Heavy Armor before taking it.

It's also worth noting that CW Samurai is also proficient in all armors though it specifies "all types of armor". RAI for Duskblade is almost certainly meant to be identical to the proficiencies of Fighter.

I don't see the point of your post, sorry. Could you explain more?

Regarding the Samurai, how is "all types of armor" more of an indication than "all armors"? I don't see how one could be RAI to be the same as the Fighter yet the other would not.

[Talderas]

I don't see the point of your post, sorry. Could you explain more?

Regarding the Samurai, how is "all types of armor" more of an indication than "all armors"? I don't see how one could be RAI to be the same as the Fighter yet the other would not.

Certainly.

All weapons and armor have types and sub types. You can glean these based on how feats interact with each other and how they are assigned.

For weapons, their types are Simple/Martial/Exotic. Their subtypes are Light/One-Handed/Two-Handed. For weapons this is clearly shown by not requiring simple weapon proficiency to gain martial or exotic weapon proficiencies. Also, when granting weapon proficiencies they are (to the best of my knowledge) always granted as simple/martial or they may reference a subtype of a weapon group (one-handed martial) but it is unlikely to give proficiency to all one-handed weapons since it is just a subtype.

For armors, their types are Light/Medium/Heavy. This can be derived based on classes and feats to an extent. While medium requires light armor proficiency and heavy requires medium which shows a clear pattern for armors, exotic requires any of those three proficiencies and not any specific one meaning that exotic is not a major type in itself but rather dependent on the major type. A bard, for example, cannot take Exotic Armor Proficiency (Battle Armor) since he lacks heavy armor but he can take Exotic Armor Proficiency (Mammoth Leather) since he has Light Armor Proficiency.

The differences between how weapons and armor handle exotic as major vs subtypes lead me to believe that the RAI for Duskblade is that the armor proficiency is identical to Fighter. Nothing in the flavor of the class would suggest that is a faulty interpretation.

[BowStreetRunner]

It's all just a matter of poor templating on the part of the designers. What they should have done is established that the weapon and armor proficiency section of class features be formatted something like this:


Weapon proficiencies: Simple, Martial, Spike Chain, Hand Crossbow; Armor proficiencies: Light, Medium, Heavy, Mountain Plate; Shield proficiencies: Light, Heavy, Tower, Extreme