What even is armor proficiency?

[Greywander]

I mean, I know it's a game abstraction that exists to preserve class balance. But what is it supposed to represent? Or, more importantly, how do I roleplay not having armor proficiency? If my wizard is in danger and finds a suit of plate armor, why wouldn't they put it on?

Also, do we really need four different armor proficiencies? What is the difference between them? What does it mean if my character is proficient with one kind of armor and not another? Could we collapse it down to fewer types of armor proficiencies? Aside from stats, which can be set to whatever is balanced, how do we determine which category a given armor type should be sorted into? For example, is half plate really fundamentally different from full plate that it would use a different proficiency?

If we were to tweak the armor system, would it make sense to eliminate armor proficiency altogether? Perhaps we could replace it with some kind of penalty for anyone wearing armor, one that might be mitigated with high STR. Or maybe we could combine medium and heavy armor proficiency and make light armor not require proficiency, so that we only have one armor proficiency. Shields make sense to be a separate proficiency, maybe more like a weapon proficiency.

[LudicSavant]

If we were to tweak the armor system, would it make sense to eliminate armor proficiency altogether?

Probably.

Keep in mind however that there's an aesthetic desire for some people to not wear heavy armor all the time, so there'd have to be some reason not to wear the heaviest armor possible all the time. Which is totally something you can do without armor proficiencies, mind -- there are like 1000 different ways a system could tackle it.

[Amnestic]

I mean, I know it's a game abstraction that exists to preserve class balance. But what is it supposed to represent? Or, more importantly, how do I roleplay not having armor proficiency? If my wizard is in danger and finds a suit of plate armor, why wouldn't they put it on?

It gets in the way of their spellcasting. They're not used to the weight on their torso/arms/hands/everything so it messes up their spells. (Also if their strength is bad it slows them down).

If we were to tweak the armor system, would it make sense to eliminate armor proficiency altogether? Perhaps we could replace it with some kind of penalty for anyone wearing armor, one that might be mitigated with high STR. Or maybe we could combine medium and heavy armor proficiency and make light armor not require proficiency, so that we only have one armor proficiency. Shields make sense to be a separate proficiency, maybe more like a weapon proficiency.

What are you aiming to accomplish by doing so? What problem are you solving?

[Kurt Kurageous]

Actively monitor weight and apply encumbrance. Reduce weight of items while worn by half. Eliminate the STR minimums as they are penalized by weight. AAAAND make it impossible except by feat that grants armor proficiency to cast arcane/eldrich magic in metal armor unless you are a divine caster (cleric, paladin).

But don't nerf fighters further by making their proficiencies meaningless. Since we are on the path of removing meaningless proficiencies...

(Un)Related, I have proposed multiple times doing away with weapon proficiencies in a way that doesn't break the balance of the game. After all, it's not the weapon, but the person using it.

Wield what you will, but your damage done with the weapon is one dice category lowered than your hit die in one hand, damage equal to your hit die if 2-handed. Ranged and thrown count as one handed.

Now you can have Goodgulf the Wizard with a two handed sword and not mess with multiclassing, fighters and barbs cannot be equalled by anyone else in their base damage/hit, etc... But its been ignored and rejected here. And it will be again.

[Naanomi]

AAAAND make it impossible except by feat that grants armor proficiency to cast arcane/eldrich magic in metal armor unless you are a divine caster (cleric, paladin).

Sounds like a big Bard, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster... And to a lesser degree Warlock... Nerf

[PhantomSoul]

Sounds like a big Bard, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster... And to a lesser degree Warlock... Nerf

Can only Cast Spells from a Class or Subclass if that Class or its Subclass granted you the Armor Proficiency. Done!

[Kurt Kurageous]

Can only Cast Spells from a Class or Subclass if that Class or its Subclass granted you the Armor Proficiency. Done!

Yeah, this is better that what I suggested.

[PhantomSoul]

Yeah, this is better that what I suggested.

Though really, I'm a heretic who wouldn't be opposed to still having some Spell Failure, which could be partly or wholly mitigated in various ways.

[Talamare]

I mean, I know it's a game abstraction that exists to preserve class balance. But what is it supposed to represent? Or, more importantly, how do I roleplay not having armor proficiency? If my wizard is in danger and finds a suit of plate armor, why wouldn't they put it on?

Also, do we really need four different armor proficiencies? What is the difference between them? What does it mean if my character is proficient with one kind of armor and not another? Could we collapse it down to fewer types of armor proficiencies? Aside from stats, which can be set to whatever is balanced, how do we determine which category a given armor type should be sorted into? For example, is half plate really fundamentally different from full plate that it would use a different proficiency?

If we were to tweak the armor system, would it make sense to eliminate armor proficiency altogether? Perhaps we could replace it with some kind of penalty for anyone wearing armor, one that might be mitigated with high STR. Or maybe we could combine medium and heavy armor proficiency and make light armor not require proficiency, so that we only have one armor proficiency. Shields make sense to be a separate proficiency, maybe more like a weapon proficiency.

They actually did a fairly good job and dividing the differences between Armor Types

Light = Full Dex
Medium = +2~3 Dex
Heavy = No Dex

Edit
Also, the 15 STR Restriction is on par with what other Armors require
While the other armors may not have any HARD restrictions, they absolutely have Soft Restrictions.

A 10 DEX wearing Light or Medium Armor only have 12 and 15 AC
A 15 DEX wearing Light or Medium Armor have 14 and 17 AC, Heavy has 18 AC

[kazaryu]

I mean, I know it's a game abstraction that exists to preserve class balance. But what is it supposed to represent? Or, more importantly, how do I roleplay not having armor proficiency? If my wizard is in danger and finds a suit of plate armor, why wouldn't they put it on?

Also, do we really need four different armor proficiencies? What is the difference between them? What does it mean if my character is proficient with one kind of armor and not another? Could we collapse it down to fewer types of armor proficiencies? Aside from stats, which can be set to whatever is balanced, how do we determine which category a given armor type should be sorted into? For example, is half plate really fundamentally different from full plate that it would use a different proficiency?

If we were to tweak the armor system, would it make sense to eliminate armor proficiency altogether? Perhaps we could replace it with some kind of penalty for anyone wearing armor, one that might be mitigated with high STR. Or maybe we could combine medium and heavy armor proficiency and make light armor not require proficiency, so that we only have one armor proficiency. Shields make sense to be a separate proficiency, maybe more like a weapon proficiency.

because if you don't actually train to acclimate yourself to heavy armors they can actually be a danger in batter. similar to a shield, although probably less involved. yes, wearing the armor theoretically makes you safer, especially from ranged attacks. but getting into a melee fight, you'd actually likely be at a severe disadvantage if you weren't used to the weight and how it affects your movement.

definitely not something that is likely to *actually* take a while to get used to, but its still somewhat realistic...at least for like...suits of armor.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I mean, I know it's a game abstraction that exists to preserve class balance. But what is it supposed to represent? Or, more importantly, how do I roleplay not having armor proficiency? If my wizard is in danger and finds a suit of plate armor, why wouldn't they put it on?

Let me do a direct rephrasing to illustrate the point. "How do I roleplay not having Weapon Proficiency? If my wizard is in an anti-magic field and finds a greatsword, why wouldn't they wield it?"

The answer in both cases is they can, but they don't know what they're doing.

Nothing stops that Wizard from putting on Plate Armor, but without Proficiency they suffer disadvantage on ALL Strength and Dexterity Rolls and can't accurately cast spells.

Nothing stops that Wizard from swinging a greatsword, but without Proficiency they only add their Str to hit and are less likely to connect.

Armor is not simple to wear, even a basic suit of Leather is somewhat complicated to put on, strap in place correctly, make sure it moves with you without binding up.

[Laserlight]

Wearing armor and walking around in it just isn't that hard. The main thing that I recall was when I got knocked down, the weight, especially the weight of the helmet, made getting up some work. I wouldn't try lock picking while wearing gauntlets, but plenty of historical figures wore chain or gambesons without gloves. (Using a shield, particularly a heavy shield, *does* take some work and technique, though) The restriction has zero to do with realism, and everything to do with "I don't want wizards to wear armor".

I've toyed with the idea of simply giving PCs armor protection based on level. If you want to say the attack missed because of your arcane protection, or your agility, or your steel plate, or your bare chested barbarian testosterone, that's fine.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Wearing armor and walking around in it just isn't that hard. The main thing that I recall was when I got knocked down, the weight, especially the weight of the helmet, made getting up some work. I wouldn't try lock picking while wearing gauntlets, but plenty of historical figures wore chain or gambesons without gloves. (Using a shield, particularly a heavy shield, *does* take some work and technique, though) The restriction has zero to do with realism, and everything to do with "I don't want wizards to wear armor".

I've toyed with the idea of simply giving PCs armor protection based on level. If you want to say the attack missed because of your arcane protection, or your agility, or your steel plate, or your bare chested barbarian testosterone, that's fine.

What was your experience, if I may ask? What type of armor was it? Did someone help you put it on to make sure every strap was in place? Did you then actively fight and move in it? Not just for a few moments or half an hour for for a day?

I ask because I've also had experience in armor and worn full plate and it is remarkably easy to move in, but it does still slow you down some AND if it's not put on properly will constantly interfere with movement.

Your anecdote is valid and would love to discuss it more, but it reads similar to someone who picks up a sword and is able to casually swing it without much issue and then thinking actually fighting with it is similarly easy.

[kazaryu]

Wearing armor and walking around in it just isn't that hard. The main thing that I recall was when I got knocked down, the weight, especially the weight of the helmet, made getting up some work. I wouldn't try lock picking while wearing gauntlets, but plenty of historical figures wore chain or gambesons without gloves. (Using a shield, particularly a heavy shield, *does* take some work and technique, though) The restriction has zero to do with realism, and everything to do with "I don't want wizards to wear armor".

I've toyed with the idea of simply giving PCs armor protection based on level. If you want to say the attack missed because of your arcane protection, or your agility, or your steel plate, or your bare chested barbarian testosterone, that's fine.

in general you're right that moving around in armor isn't that hard. however, there is a difference between you putting on full plate and running around just to see what its like. and putting on full plate for the first time, then getting into a fight against multiple enemies.

even if you were already a good fighter, without prior practice in full plate, you'd find yourself far less effective that you'd think, since so many of what would be naural movements are just that much slower, or cost that much more energy.

its not entirely unrealistic. what *is* unrealistic is how difficult it would be to gain that proficiency.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

in general you're right that moving around in armor isn't that hard. however, there is a difference between you putting on full plate and running around just to see what its like. and putting on full plate for the first time, then getting into a fight against multiple enemies.

To second this, there may be SOME truth in that the penalty for non proficiency shouldn't necessarily be Disadvantage on Str and Dex.

That's because it should be a penalty on what the actual AC bonus is. Wearing armor for protection isn't just about having that plate there to be banged by a sword instead of your skin. You have to learn to move in it, move with it, angle so certain plates take certain hits.

So if you want to rework the system to have Full Plate be only worth say AC 15 instead of 18 for a non proficient person, that might be interesting.

Not quoted by Kazaryu also mentioned that it was unrealistic how hard it is to gain armor proficiency. You could during downtime but it's DM discretion. It's not so much that you can't learn easier, it's that the system is built around leveling and so that puts limitations that aren't always realistic in order to maintain balance.

But, even then, you can reflect training with Multiclassing. A Wizard who wants to learn to use armor is either going to spend a Feat at 4th level, or take a level in a class with armor, or both. The fact that this hinders their spellcasting is a reflection that they devoted time to this skill instead of their main focus of magic.

[warty goblin]

I have no experience in plate armor, but I've both hiked and done sparring in chain mail. The only proficiency thus really takes is "can carry heavy stuff" because it's basically a very heavy sweater. There's downsides to mobility - you have to be more careful when trying to stop quickly, particularly on wet grass, and stuff like climbing etc is harder because you're carrying more weight, but it's hardly a complex science or something that requires next level athletic skills.

I've always figured the solution to keeping wizards out of plate armor is dead simple; metal just repels magic. You just can't go pulling magic into yourself or effectively unleashing it when covered in the stuff, it's like trying to take a shower covered in grease. Just flat out disallow magic in metallic armor, and let eldritch knights ignore this for spells learned through EK levels because mumble mumble arcane training or something.

As an additional benefit, thus would justify giving people wearing armor a bonus on saves vs. magic damage. Seems cool for the big tough armor dude to actually be a hard target.

[JackPhoenix]

Though really, I'm a heretic who wouldn't be opposed to still having some Spell Failure, which could be partly or wholly mitigated in various ways.

I've been thinking about that recently. The easiest solution is to force Concentration save, DC equal to the armor's base AC, when casting in an armor, with specific (sub)classes ignoring it for specific types of armor.

[Naanomi]

I've always figured the solution to keeping wizards out of plate armor is dead simple; metal just repels magic. You just can't go pulling magic into yourself or effectively unleashing it when covered in the stuff, it's like trying to take a shower covered in grease.

So every wizard of any appreciable strength is decked in Dragonscale or the like?

[PhantomSoul]

I've been thinking about that recently. The easiest solution is to force Concentration save, DC equal to the armor's base AC, when casting in an armor, with specific (sub)classes ignoring it for specific types of armor.

I've mused a bit -- I agree that for 5e using a Saving Throw seems ideal (Checks have too much garbage in them; a percentile is less typical for the system). I'd perhaps even make it a Spellcasting Ability Check with Proficiency if Proficient in the Armor, but I'd want to run numbers to see what failure rate actually seems desirable if it's not 100% (having it take into account the Spell Level would be nice, whether through the Sorcery Point Cost or the Spell Level).

[LudicSavant]

It's entirely possible you could just write a game with no armor proficiency and all armor options are essentially sidegrades (with pros and cons for each), and/or are better suited for one build than another (for a case straight from 5e, light or mage armor would be the best armor for a 20 Dex Rogue even if they were proficient in medium and heavy).

For example, plate armor might slow your speed, affect your stealth, agility, or endurance, scale its benefits based on strength, etc. Maybe Mage Armor scales on your best mental attribute. And light or no armor scales on Dex. Things like that. There are a thousand different levers a game designer could pull to balance out a variety of armor types other than proficiency

Heck, you could just straight up have a system that goes 'oh sure, your Wizard can wear plate just fine, if you cough up the strength score for it.' And then you see that wizard and know, on sight, that they're a Muscle Wizard build (or an Eldritch Knight, or whatever). If anything I think a system like that has the potential to be more elegant.

As an example from other systems, in Dark Souls / Elden Ring / etc you'll often see people in little to no armor, and it doesn't have any armor proficiency system. That's just one of a thousand ways designers can approach this.

[stoutstien]

It's entirely possible you could just write a game with no armor proficiency and all armor options are essentially sidegrades (with pros and cons for each), and/or are better suited for one build than another (for a case straight from 5e, light or mage armor would be the best armor for a 20 Dex Rogue even if they were proficient in medium and heavy).

For example, plate armor might slow your speed, affect your stealth, agility, or endurance, scale its benefits based on strength, etc. Maybe Mage Armor scales on your best mental attribute. And light or no armor scales on Dex. Things like that. There are a thousand different levers a game designer could pull to balance out a variety of armor types other than proficiency

Im halfway there already with my system. Armor Prof still exists but it's akin to skills where you can avoid certain negative features. anyone with proper strength can wear heavy armor but Prof allows someone to avoid disadvantage on str or dex checks when moving at full speed.

[Tanarii]

The PHB sums it up fairly succinctly:
Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.

You role play your character not having proficiency by making the decision not to wear it because it will impede you ability to cast spells, or degrade activities that involve Str/Dex ability checks/saving throws/attack rolls. Or the decision to wear it in spite of that.

[Greywander]

Which is totally something you can do without armor proficiencies, mind -- there are like 1000 different ways a system could tackle it.

Ain't that the truth. But for now at least let's focus on things that minimally change vanilla. We can always start a thread in the homebrew subforum if we want to explore more radical options.

It gets in the way of their spellcasting.

We could figure out a reason to justify this, if it wasn't for the fact that this is a selective restriction. Full plate casters are something the system wants and expects, mostly clerics and paladins, but also things like EKs. Clearly, a universal nerf to casting isn't an option. However, I do notice a trend among classes that are expected to cast in armor, and that's that they tend to be STR builds. Some could also be DEX builds, but then you're not wearing heavy armor anyway.

What are you aiming to accomplish by doing so? What problem are you solving?

Things like this break my immersion. Some things are fine as game abstractions, but this influences how my character behaves in the world. My character behaves a certain way because the game mechanics dictate that that's the most optimal way to behave. But from a roleplay/realism perspective, it would make far more sense for them to behave a different way.

What I'd like to do is figure out a way to tweak the system so that it better aligns with the fantasy reality it is meant to be simulating, while being more intuitive, and also hopefully streamlining it to be easier to use. If, for example, anyone can use light armor and only one armor proficiency exists that covers both medium and heavy armor, that's fewer things to keep track of. If we eliminate armor proficiency altogether, then it becomes even simpler.

They actually did a fairly good job and dividing the differences between Armor Types

Light = Full Dex
Medium = +2~3 Dex
Heavy = No Dex

This is the opposite of what I'm asking for, though. I already know that an armor that gives 14 AC and allows a max of +2 from DEX is going to be medium armor. What I want to know is what type of armor a chain shirt would be. We can figure out the stats of a chain shirt later to align with the category we sort it into, but which category does it go in and how are we determining that? Again, I'd expect half plate to require basically the same sort of training to use effectively as full plate would, so why do they require different proficiencies? If you were to get proficiency with plate armor in real life, what would you actually be learning how to do, and how would that differ from getting real life proficiency in half plate, or chain mail, or a gambeson?

because if you don't actually train to acclimate yourself to heavy armors they can actually be a danger in batter.

I remember a while back I proposed that rope should be a tool proficiency. A central part of my argument was that there currently was no proficiency associated with using rope, so there was no way to add your proficiency bonus to an ability check that involved using rope. Adding it as a proficiency would have had zero effect on characters who didn't take it, but those who did would actually have the opportunity to be better at using ropes.

The reason I bring this up is because one of the objections I got in that thread was that every adventurer would know how to use rope. Apparently just the existence of a proficiency implied that anyone who didn't take that proficiency was a complete novice in that task, and that rustled some jimmies. But the point is, if we're assuming every adventurer knows how to use ropes, shouldn't we also assume they know how to use armor? Every class, even wizards, get proficiency with a few weapons, and with unarmed strikes. This means every class has at least some limited martial training. Adventuring is a dangerous profession, so of course anyone choosing that lifestyle would learn how to wear armor.

Let me do a direct rephrasing to illustrate the point. "How do I roleplay not having Weapon Proficiency? If my wizard is in an anti-magic field and finds a greatsword, why wouldn't they wield it?"

I know what it would look like for someone to be swinging around a weapon they're not trained with. I don't know what it would look like for someone to be running around in armor they're not trained with.

It's more like asking, "How do I roleplay not having yellow proficiency?" What does it even mean to be proficient in yellow? What sort of training does that require? What sort of tasks would use yellow proficiency, and what sort of penalties would I have if I lacked proficiency?

Armor is not simple to wear, even a basic suit of Leather is somewhat complicated to put on, strap in place correctly, make sure it moves with you without binding up.

Bruh, padded armor/a gambeson is just a really thick shirt. Do you need proficiency to wear clothes?

I can accept that something like plate armor might limit your articulation to the point that you'd need to learn how to move your whole body in order to get the range of motion you'd need to perform certain tasks, especially fighting. But even then that would only apply to a few types of armor. Most armors really are just heavy clothing.

The restriction has zero to do with realism, and everything to do with "I don't want wizards to wear armor".

Yes, and I understand why it needs to be that way for balance reasons, but it feels like such an arbitrary restriction.

I have no experience in plate armor, but I've both hiked and done sparring in chain mail. The only proficiency thus really takes is "can carry heavy stuff" because it's basically a very heavy sweater. There's downsides to mobility - you have to be more careful when trying to stop quickly, particularly on wet grass, and stuff like climbing etc is harder because you're carrying more weight, but it's hardly a complex science or something that requires next level athletic skills.

Yeah, I'm leaning more and more towards the correct answer being to eliminate all armor proficiencies and just enforce some form of encumbrance. See my previous comment above about how casters expected to cast in armor coincidentally tended to be STR builds.

I've always figured the solution to keeping wizards out of plate armor is dead simple; metal just repels magic.

But not all magic. Only the ones we don't like casting in armor. That's always going to be the major problem with this. If it was really all magic, we could figure out a reason why. Even if we limit it to just arcane magic, that still hangs the EKs out to dry.

It's entirely possible you could just write a game with no armor proficiency and all armor options are essentially sidegrades (with pros and cons for each), and/or are better suited for one build than another (for a case straight from 5e, light or mage armor would be the best armor for a 20 Dex Rogue even if they were proficient in medium and heavy).

This is the ideal situation, I think. All forms of armor (including being unarmored) should spend some minor resource (unless it's specifically a feature of your class, i.e. monk and barbarian), whether that resource is spending a 1st level slot or spending some gold and taking up some of your carry weight. Being unarmored without a special class feature should be a downgrade, but the choice between wearing armor or casting something like Mage Armor should be a trade-off.

Heck, you could just straight up have a system that goes 'oh sure, your Wizard can wear plate just fine, if you cough up the strength score for it.' And then you see that wizard and know, on sight, that they're a Muscle Wizard build (or an Eldritch Knight, or whatever). If anything I think a system like that has the potential to be more elegant.

I think this is the way to go. Boosting STR is costing you a major build resource. Most builds that "should" wear armor already want to boost STR for other reasons, so they shouldn't be affected. There's lots of videos of people doing gymnastics and whatnot in full plate, but those are people who have athletic training. If you put your scrawny wizard butt in a tin can, they're definitely going to feel the weight.

So something like variant encumbrance might do the trick, maybe with some additional penalties to spellcasting specifically for carrying too heavy of a load.

As an example from other systems, in Dark Souls / Elden Ring / etc you'll often see people in little to no armor, and it doesn't have any armor proficiency system. That's just one of a thousand ways designers can approach this.

Well, part of that is that armor has limited effectiveness when it comes to damage reduction, and is mostly important for poise. But yes, when you have an encumbrance system that properly penalizes you for being over weight, then you'll find that people will willingly take off their armor to avoid those penalties. I'm currently playing through DS3 for the first time, and most of my equip load is my greatsword. I have little in the way of armor equipped because I've prioritized my damage output and my ability to dodge. There is no armor I could equip right now that would make fat-rolling worth it. I did, however, heavily invest in boosting my HP, so I'm still pretty tanky.

[LudicSavant]

Ain't that the truth. But for now at least let's focus on things that minimally change vanilla. We can always start a thread in the homebrew subforum if we want to explore more radical options.

Alright, well let's see. In vanilla, we can basically already identify a few practical categories of worn armor use:

1) Heavy with 15+ Str
2) Medium with 14+ Dex
3) Light or Mage Armor with max Dex
4) Unarmored Defense
5) "Disadvantaged" armor (none of the above)

Options 1-3 are at least roughly balanced against each other, even without proficiency. All of them provide 17-18 AC. The ones that provide 18 AC have some extra opportunity cost (heavy requires more money and a meaningfully worse statline, Mage Armor requires a spell slot). For example, a Rogue would generally still rather wear light armor even if they were proficient in heavy. And I've totally seen some veteran players using medium armor even on Cleric subclasses that get heavy proficiency. (If you don't believe me, google it and I guarantee you'll find a bunch of results for people advocating for this. Here's just one of many examples I pulled up on Google just 5 seconds ago).

Option 4 is providing 17-20 AC, but also doesn't let you use a shield.

And then there's the odd one out, option 5. These are your 'squishy casters' that didn't take an armor dip or a mitigating subclass or something. And I don't just mean unarmored casters, but also things like say a Bard with only light armor and 14-16 Dex. These are the ones you'd need to worry about if you were to just remove armor proficiencies from vanilla outright. So you'd have to introduce some new reason that they're 'disadvantaged' or Wizards are going to start rocking medium armor by default (with no additional investments. Where at least in the current game they'd have to spend something in order to bring their AC up).

[PhantomSoul]

Option 4 is providing 17-20 AC, but also doesn't let you use a shield.

Caveat that 17-20 is a lot more variable (much higher stat requirement) and that not being allowed a shield varies by source (monk vs. barbarian). L20 barbarian can also get a slight boost, but that requires getting to level 20 so I'm considering it functionally irrelevant to literally anything and everything!

[LudicSavant]

Caveat that 17-20 is a lot more variable (much higher stat requirement) and that not being allowed a shield varies by source (monk vs. barbarian). L20 barbarian can also get a slight boost, but that requires getting to level 20 so I'm considering it functionally irrelevant to literally anything and everything!

True, I was talking about the Monk version.

In the case of Barbarians, almost nothing would change for them if armor proficiencies no longer existed. They still wouldn't wear heavy armor, because it's incompatible with Rage.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, I'm leaning more and more towards the correct answer being to eliminate all armor proficiencies and just enforce some form of encumbrance. See my previous comment above about how casters expected to cast in armor coincidentally tended to be STR builds.

Encumbrance is not, generally speaking, a system people love to deal with. It's right up there with counting arrows and spell components. I mean you can do it, but it's fiddly, and generally ends up counting every pound, or some system where you get like 1 heavy item per two points of STR bonus, then making all the heavier armor heavy. Which sure is slightly more flexible than the armor proficiency system, but is a lot more bookkeeping. Which is really the major benefit of the prof system for armor, zero bookkeeping.

And does the game really benefit from making more backdoor ways for spellcasters to get all the cool fighter toys on top of all their other stuff?

But not all magic. Only the ones we don't like casting in armor. That's always going to be the major problem with this. If it was really all magic, we could figure out a reason why. Even if we limit it to just arcane magic, that still hangs the EKs out to dry.

D&D is full of stuff that is set up in specific, utterly gamist ways to allow for specific character fantasies. Saying the EK gets to cast EK spells in armor isn't any weirder than any number of other things in the game.

[LudicSavant]

Encumbrance is not, generally speaking, a system people love to deal with. It's right up there with counting arrows and spell components.

There's no particular reason your encumbrance system needs to involve tediously counting pounds of stuff ala carte. Just design it differently.

[Talamare]

Snipe

Just because they both have "Plate" in the name, doesn't mean they are the same armors.

Heavy Armor requires more proficiency because it's heavier and covers more of your body


Chain Armor would probably fit comfortably in Medium Armor
Padded Armor (AC11) is basically Gambeson

You're basically arguing "Why can't everyone just do everything?!" or "Why can't my Wizard run around in Heavy Armor?"

Because Balance...


It's like asking, Why can't my Fighter cast Fireball? I really should be allowed to freely cast Fireball if that's how I want to play my character...
Each class package comes with a different amount of advantages, Proficiency in Armor is one of those advantages. It's as simple as that.

"Oh, but then it makes my character seem dumb that they don't know how to basically wear clothes (gambeson)"
Then feel free to perceive it that way, but that's gamification for you

If you want to delete Armor Proficiencies, then you might as well just make everyone a Full Caster as well.
It's only fair if you're going to remove one of the barriers that is basically a martial advantage that you remove one of the barriers that is basically a caster advantage.

[Leon]

A design where you can chose your protection level to some degree would be good ~ irks me somewhat that to get "unarmored defense" for a character idea i have to MC into Monk or Barbarian to achieve that unequipped AC when I'd rather just stay single classed in the class I feel best suits the character.