What even is armor proficiency?

[Witty Username]

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

Yeah, if pound for pound is too tedious then a system like Load from Five Torches Deep could work better (in jist, can carry a number of items equal to strength score, with some items not worth tracking, and some items like armor being worth multiple items).

[Greywander]

Encumbrance is not, generally speaking, a system people love to deal with.

I feel these are probably the same people who complain about how DEX is OP and STR is useless. And yes, if you completely ignore a major subsystem that one particular ability score ties into, then that ability score is going to come off as weak. It would be like if you did away with CHA checks and instead had players use real life social skills, then complained about how CHA is useless.

I get that not everyone is into the minutiae of things like tracking encumbrance. I think the encumbrance system could be more elegant, but I'm not sure how you'd do that exactly. You could make it easier by using automated tools; I made a character sheet in Google Docs that will automatically tally up the weight of each item in your inventory (so long as you've entered it), and it even tracks what's in or on your pack vs. what's on your person and allows you to drop your pack to shed some weight. A lot of people use VTTs now that often have built in character sheets that could offer similar functionality to this. If you want an in-person option, something fun might be to give each player a scale and then get a bunch of little weights and tape/glue a paper token with a picture of the item onto a weight of the corresponding size, e.g. a 5 lbs item might use a 5 oz weight. Then to check their weight, players literally put all their items on the scale.

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?

I think that ship has already sailed. Medium armor and shields are only one dip away, and a cleric dip gives a lot of other goodies besides. You might see fewer dips if casters don't have to worry about armor proficiency, but being stricter about encumbrance means they might not want to haul around that half plate, and full plate is out of the question.

If you want to give martials something nice, something I'm considering for a homebrew I'm working on is to multiply carry weight by √2 for each +1 to your STR modifier, or, in other words, double your carry weight for each +2. This means you could carry 300 lbs at 14 STR instead of 20 STR, and with 18 STR you could carry 600 lbs. This, for one thing, helps mitigate the penalties of variant encumbrance, but also helps STR builds feel actually strong. 300 lbs is pretty pathetic. Well, not for you or I, but for someone with super heroic strength, it's hugely disappointing. Instead, this tweak would let a 20 STR character lift just a couple pounds shy of 850 lbs, which feels way more in line with what 20 STR is supposed to be. It also makes the loss of carrying capacity a bit more severe for those who dump STR, with 8 STR giving you only about 106 lbs of carrying capacity. Now, this also means you won't need as much STR to avoid encumbrance penalties, making it easier to wear heavy armor with less STR, but it still requires investing at least a little into STR.

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.

This is what leads to fiddly rules, though. I mean, I could see, say, having a battle mage class that gets a class feature specifically allowing them to cast in armor. But the general rule should be a single rule that applies to everyone equally. If we're making exceptions for clerics and paladins and rangers and warlocks and EKs and ATs, etc., then it's not really a general rule. Besides, I like the idea of a wizard being able to plate up if they jump through the requisite hoops, the problem is that jumping those hoops is way too easy right now. My preference is for a general rule the produces the desired outcome emergently, rather than a list of specific exceptions to try and force the desired outcome.

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.

I'm still curious if anyone can explain to me what armor proficiency actually is. I'm not strictly opposed to the idea, I just want to understand what it represents, and I want armors to be grouped together in a way that makes sense. It makes no sense to me that half plate and full plate would have different proficiencies when half plate is literally just half of a suit of full plate.

The excerpt from the PHB above doesn't really explain it; it mostly just tells you the mechanical effects. I want to know what a person actually does to get trained with armor, and how it helps them wear armor better, and what would happen if you wore armor without being trained.

Honestly, the closest thing I can think of when it comes to armor proficiency is maintenance and care. Think about how expensive plate is; the last thing you want is for it to start rusting away, or for the joints to get rusted shut, or for dents to impair mobility or make the armor uncomfortable. If we wanted to go that route, then we might have to add some system whereby armor has HP and loses it during combat and gradually over time, but if you're proficient then you can repair it during a rest. I'm not sure it would be worth the effort, but maybe if we could do something to make it more interesting and engaging.

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

It... it literally is the same armor. Look up what half plate is. They literally decided that they didn't really need all of the armor, so they only put on half of it. It is literally half a suit of full plate armor.

For that matter, so is the breastplate. The breastplate was basically the central part of plate armor, then you add on other pieces like gauntlets, a helmet, pauldrons, greaves, etc. You could buy a suit of full plate armor and then only decide to put on the breastplate. Or you could put on a few more pieces to make it half plate. Or you could don the entire thing to complete your suit of full plate. This actually provides some nice flexibility for characters in plate, as they can e.g. strip down to the breastplate for a stealth section.

It's like asking, Why can't my Fighter cast Fireball?

It's more like asking why I need to multiclass into cobbler to be able to wear shoes.

I understand there's mechanical balance at play here, I'm just looking for more intuitive ways to achieve that balance. This isn't a thread about letting wizards wear plate, it's a thread asking if there's a better way to stop wizards from wearing plate than the one we're using right now.

If you want to delete Armor Proficiencies, then you might as well just make everyone a Full Caster as well.

Uh, about that. I'm pretty much doing exactly that in a homebrew project I'm working on. But let's not sidetrack this thread with a discussion on that.

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.

I get what you're saying, but honestly, it should be expected that not wearing armor makes you more vulnerable. That's why people wear armor. Being unarmored will always be worse than being armored, unless you have some super special ability. Barbarian gives us natural toughness, monk gives us zen-like battlefield awareness to see attacks before they're made, Mage Armor gives a spell-based alternative, dragon sorcerer gets dragon-like scales that act as natural armor, and so on. You could say the same thing about playing an unarmed character, but at least they have a fighting style for that now. So maybe they could add a feat or fighting style that would be available to a broader variety of builds.

Also, the DMG does specifically call out having a cleric trade away all their armor proficiencies in exchange for the monk's Unarmored Defense framed as a divine blessing. It's not strictly RAW, but it's an example of how the DM can bend the rules to accommodate a concept that the player has.

Yeah, if pound for pound is too tedious then a system like Load from Five Torches Deep could work better (in jist, can carry a number of items equal to strength score, with some items not worth tracking, and some items like armor being worth multiple items).

My issue with something like this is that it really hurts people who like to carry all kinds of odds and ends items that might someday be useful. Either you ignore those items because they're small, in which case there's no cost to carrying them, and thus less of a payoff when they finally come in handy, or they're big enough to take up a slot, in which case your slots fill up very fast. Does a hachet take up a slot? What about a shovel? Lamp oil? Rope? Bombs? Does each flask of oil take up its own slot, or are they grouped together? What about soap? A bag of flour? Salt?

It seems like this type of encumbrance system is meant to focus the players on specific sets of items that are important for the type of game being played. It's trying to discourage you from carrying 37 sets of silverware, and more focus on things like weapons, armor, potions, spell scrolls, torches, etc. It's a better, more elegant system for the kind of game it's trying to be, but that's not quite the game I want to play myself.

[Psyren]

Yeah, if pound for pound is too tedious then a system like Load from Five Torches Deep could work better (in jist, can carry a number of items equal to strength score, with some items not worth tracking, and some items like armor being worth multiple items).

Starfinder does basically this too via its Bulk system, which also allows it to keep track of how your load changes in non-standard gravity.

My issue with something like this is that it really hurts people who like to carry all kinds of odds and ends items that might someday be useful. Either you ignore those items because they're small, in which case there's no cost to carrying them, and thus less of a payoff when they finally come in handy, or they're big enough to take up a slot, in which case your slots fill up very fast. Does a hachet take up a slot? What about a shovel? Lamp oil? Rope? Bombs? Does each flask of oil take up its own slot, or are they grouped together? What about soap? A bag of flour? Salt?

For the record I'm okay with granular encumbrance, but that's because D&D Beyond tracks it for me.

Assuming you're not using a tool like that though, I don't see the big deal with soap, flour, salt, rope etc. not weighing anything. Adventurers, especially martials, should have utility belts. Two-handed tools like shovels should probably take up a slot though.

[Witty Username]

I have never felt like encumbrance in 5e has been too low for high strength characters. That is actually one of my complaints with the system, actually, often totaling equipment and supplies and load is often well below the threshold for a character even with decent strength. Which is part of why the math gets frustrating. Factoring in every 1/2 pound healing potion, gold/50 and so on to discover your still below str ×5 most of the time.

Using it for a balance point armor would probably require changing encumbrance numbers, armor weight or both. As it is, high strength builds are either not particularly impactful or if variant encumbrance is used disadvantaged because of the magnitude of difference in armor weight.
Some quick thoughts, up leather armor to 15 lbs, and studded leather to 25 lbs. With variant encumbrance that will give the less strength having characters some consequences for improved armor. Maybe up chain shirt and breastplate to 30 lbs. as well, but the dex cap has a built-in in limiter so it may be less of an issue than the light armor.

I am not sure that load systems hurt a many small item collection, 5e already has items like soap and ink as having no weight.

[Talamare]

Because nitpicking every pound is a pain?

How about a simple system, a character can carry an amount of weight equal to their strength

Large/Heavy items may weight more than 1
Small items still weight 1, BUT there are items such as bags and belts that can hold multiple Small items


So
Sword Weight 1
Dagger Weight S
2H Maul Weight 2

[Grim Portent]

As you said in the OP, it's a gameplay abstraction. Worse, it's one that doesn't correspond to an actual thing, so once you start thinking about it there's no good ways to forget about it again. Real life humans adjust to wearing/carrying heavy equipment really fast, the distinction between being proficient and non-proficient in armour is a matter of wearing it from time to time for a few weeks and making sure it's properly fitted in the case of the more complicated or heavy armours.


Really armour in D&D is just about niche protection and 'thematics'. In practice most characters wind up with about the same AC, because otherwise they wind up getting knocked down a lot unless the GM softballs things, which just makes heavy armour about the cosmetics, and something of a mechanical disadvantage.

Personally would prefer it if heavy armour was just better than light or medium armour, and served as a natural progression for characters to aspire towards and budget loot with an eye to purchasing. There's a reason armour in real life generally kept getting heavier and more complex prior to the proliferation of powerful guns and field cannons. But D&D doesn't really do gear progression well anyway.

[Talamare]

As you said in the OP, it's a gameplay abstraction. Worse, it's one that doesn't correspond to an actual thing, so once you start thinking about it there's no good ways to forget about it again. Real life humans adjust to wearing/carrying heavy equipment really fast, the distinction between being proficient and non-proficient in armour is a matter of wearing it from time to time for a few weeks and making sure it's properly fitted in the case of the more complicated or heavy armours.


Really armour in D&D is just about niche protection and 'thematics'. In practice most characters wind up with about the same AC, because otherwise they wind up getting knocked down a lot unless the GM softballs things, which just makes heavy armour about the cosmetics, and something of a mechanical disadvantage.

Personally would prefer it if heavy armour was just better than light or medium armour, and served as a natural progression for characters to aspire towards and budget loot with an eye to purchasing. There's a reason armour in real life generally kept getting heavier and more complex prior to the proliferation of powerful guns and field cannons. But D&D doesn't really do gear progression well anyway.

In a way it kinda is...
AC for Light and Medium is by default only 17
Heavy goes to 18

Tho, I agree that it should be a more pronounced difference


Personally, I would leave Light and Medium alone and make Full Plate go to 19
However, Heavy Armor Proficiency is basically unlocked at Lv5 for all classes.

That would make Light Armor max at 17
Medium Armor would be able to reach 18 with Feat
Heavy Armor would be 19, and would essentially be a class feature.

Spoiler: Minor Changes

Show

Ring and Chain Mail is deleted
Scale Mail is now Heavy Armor at 17
Splint Mail is now 18
Full Plate is now 19

Altho, I guess I disagree with you that everyone moved towards heavier and more complex armor. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm saying that it wasn't everyone.
Sure, plate up your front line from head to toe and everything in between, but you REALLY don't need your Archers in that much armor. You probably don't even need your 3rd line in that much armor. Especially if they are just Polearm carriers.

Which DnD kinda does replicate. To a smaller scale, but similar ratios.

[Grim Portent]

Even archers got more heavily armoured as time went on, not to the degree of cavalry or front line infantry, but they were still better armoured in the 1500s than they were in the 1100s.


My personal thoughts on armour would be that full plate should make someone basically immune to 'small' arms, justifying it's exorbitant cost, high weight and stealth penalties, while other armours function on a gradual scale of improving effectiveness before the paradigm shift of full plate.

No Dex mod to AC, but also no strength requirement to wear heavier armour beyond the need to have the carrying capacity. Light armour is for sneaking or wearing in situations where actual battle armour is socially inappropriate (penalty to social checks when openly wearing armour or carrying weapons in a civilian context.) No armour proficiency mechanic, if you can carry it you can wear it.

How exactly I would make full plate resist weapons that were outdated for battle by the time it became a thing, I'm not sure, I'd need to crack open a spreadsheet and work out a desired balance point. Ideally I would find some point that results in something approximating the weapon armour clashes of the late 1400s-mid 1500s. Dream would be that fights in cities or towns would be done in light concealable armour with smallswords ad knives, or tools like mallets and hatchets, while actual battles would in some sense reflect the way people fought melees and tournaments and wars.

[Rynjin]

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.

No, but I imagine it takes a bit of practice to play a game of basketball while wearing it, for example.

More to the point a piece of the armor that a lot of people forget about is gauntlets. Even regular gloves reduce your manual dexterity. Now add a hardened plate to the back.

Somatic components require complex hand gestures. It wouldn't be impossible to move your fingers or anything, but try playing the piano or making high tier shadow puppets with gauntlets on. They are just not very conducive to delicate manual tasks.

[warty goblin]

No, but I imagine it takes a bit of practice to play a game of basketball while wearing it, for example.

More to the point a piece of the armor that a lot of people forget about is gauntlets. Even regular gloves reduce your manual dexterity. Now add a hardened plate to the back.

Somatic components require complex hand gestures. It wouldn't be impossible to move your fingers or anything, but try playing the piano or making high tier shadow puppets with gauntlets on. They are just not very conducive to delicate manual tasks.

I've worn chain backed gloves a bit, and work gloves a lot. There's plenty you can do in them, but a lot of fine manipulation is flat out of the question. If somatic components are on the order of, say, chopping an onion, it's plenty doable. If they're at the level of gem setting or playing the violin, it ain't happening in protective gloves.

[Gryndle]

Armor proficiency does not represent the ability to just wear armor. Anyone can do that. A non-proficient character CAN wear armor, they just Disadvantage with certain things.

What armor proficiency represents is the time spent learning the 'optimal" way of wearing so that it has minimal impact on your movement, agility and stamina.

For some types of armor physical fitness is going be a consideration; chain/mail, especially in its older iterations, is known for the weight just hanging on the shoulders. It doesn't take very long at all for that to contribute to fatigue.
But in almost ALL types of armor, learning the right way to wear it, to have the buckles and straps adjusted "just so" so the weight distribution is right. And getting used to moving in it are all important.

Take two people that have the exact same level of physical fitness. One has zero experience with armor, the other has spent the time & effort to count as what we would consider "proficient."
Both are probably going to have equal protection, in general. But the proficient person is going to be able to move better and fight longer than the non-proficient guy.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

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?

That is an issue I understand. The reality is... You don't unless you're trained, someone might look a bit clumsier, but it doesn't stand out much. But... Have you ever watched two people REALLY good at BJJ in a sparring match? To casual observers they're just "Laying on the ground holding each other" The torq, technique and skill that makes them good doesn't show up to the layman's eye.

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.

Yes, and Padded Armor should not impose Stealth Hindrances and in real life is better than leather armor. But some things stay unrealistic. I'm not really trying to argue it makes perfect sense, just giving a reasonable justification for the rule. Similar to how I don't really dwell on the fact that my Fullplate weighs around 33 pounds and not 65.


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

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?

Someone already gave the answer but, Halfplate has generally limited or no joint protection, probably no backplate. You're talking breastplate, grieves, vambraces. That's not the same from fully articulated plate that covers everything.

[Psyren]

No, but I imagine it takes a bit of practice to play a game of basketball while wearing it, for example.

More to the point a piece of the armor that a lot of people forget about is gauntlets. Even regular gloves reduce your manual dexterity. Now add a hardened plate to the back.

Somatic components require complex hand gestures. It wouldn't be impossible to move your fingers or anything, but try playing the piano or making high tier shadow puppets with gauntlets on. They are just not very conducive to delicate manual tasks.

I've worn chain backed gloves a bit, and work gloves a lot. There's plenty you can do in them, but a lot of fine manipulation is flat out of the question. If somatic components are on the order of, say, chopping an onion, it's plenty doable. If they're at the level of gem setting or playing the violin, it ain't happening in protective gloves.

I like Rynjin's analogy but I'll also point out - who says the somatic components are always the same?

Consider a divine focus for example - it can be a holy symbol, or a spell component pouch, or it can be emblazoned on the shield you're using to defend yourself. The level of fine control available in all three of these situations is very different, but you can successfully perform a somatic component in all three cases. Perhaps the training conferred by the proficiency isn't just to wear the armor, it's to move your hands "well enough" that you can cast spells properly even if you can't wiggle your fingers in the same way as you would unarmored.

It could even be mental to an extent. You must consider {spellcasting focus} to be your necessary component on an instinctive or subconscious level, and part of that includes how to move it a certain way, and part of your armor training encompasses or allows for that.

[RSP]

In another thread the idea of differences in weight while climbing caught my attention, and expanding on that is what is coming to mind reading this thread.

I think armor could be less a proficiency and more a hindrance to somethings other than combat.

Sneaking is already kind of accounted for. But I don’t get the idea of the character in full plate climbing easily (though the game says they should, it seems - Athletics, the climbing skill, being associated with Str, just like Heavy Armor), or anything that is impacted by weight, to include jumping, dancing/performing, acrobatics, animal handling that isn’t riding a strong enough mount, etc.

Maybe you could do away with proficiencies in armor, but Somatic casting is a no go in non-Light armor (replaced by a class ability that allows casting in armor for certain classes maybe) due to the gauntlets just being too thick/heavy; climbing is a no go, as is sneaking, picking locks, anything that requires fine motor skills. You can only wear it so long without passing Con checks or something. Movement drops by 5 (Med) or 10 (Heavy).

As a trade off, wearing certain armors grants DR (like baked in HAM), with the highest DRs being the heaviest armors. Maybe DR 2 for what were Med armors, DR 4 for what were Heavy armors.

Proficiency in Shield is still a thing, and the AC bonus from armors sticks around.

So your casters can wear light armor (which seems reasonable), but not the heavier ones (unless using Subtle, or no S components).

Would need some fine tuning, but I think it’s doable.

[Rynjin]

I like Rynjin's analogy but I'll also point out - who says the somatic components are always the same?

Consider a divine focus for example - it can be a holy symbol, or a spell component pouch, or it can be emblazoned on the shield you're using to defend yourself. The level of fine control available in all three of these situations is very different, but you can successfully perform a somatic component in all three cases. Perhaps the training conferred by the proficiency isn't just to wear the armor, it's to move your hands "well enough" that you can cast spells properly even if you can't wiggle your fingers in the same way as you would unarmored.

It could even be mental to an extent. You must consider {spellcasting focus} to be your necessary component on an instinctive or subconscious level, and part of that includes how to move it a certain way, and part of your armor training encompasses or allows for that.

Are Divine Focuses and Material components lumped into Somatic components in 5e?

They used to be separate things, so the distinction makes a lot more sense. Divine spells didn't entirely LACK somatic components by any means, but they often only needed Verbal components and/or a Divine Focus, omitting Somatic entirely. Spells like Command, for example, are entirely Verbal.

In combination with this, I always figured Divine spells just had simpler Somatic components in general. After all, a Cleric is basically just going "Hey, Sarenrae? I really want to Searing Light that undead. Please?" and then pointing at the bad guy. As long as they have the ability to point, or make big sweeping arm gestures, they're gold. Because the deity bridges the gap between intention and reality that Wizards and such need to bridge the hard way.

[Dr.Samurai]

People: *commentary on grounded martials*
This Forum: The game is not a simulation you rube.

OP: I want to get rid of armor proficiencies so my wizard can just tack on full plate if he wanders across it.
Also This Forum: This is a great idea and here are various history lessons to explain why...



You love to see it .

Remember kids, only YOU can prevent caster/martial disparity .

[kazaryu]

People: *commentary on grounded martials*
This Forum: The game is not a simulation you rube.

OP: I want to get rid of armor proficiencies so my wizard can just tack on full plate if he wanders across it.
Also This Forum: This is a great idea and here are various history lessons to explain why...



You love to see it .

Remember kids, only YOU can prevent caster/martial disparity .

i mean...to be fair, those aren't equivalent.

the former is 'martials *should* be X because Y. This implies that the rules themselves should be changed. or that somehow the premise of the rules is wrong. of course there's going to be push back on that.

the latter is 'hey, this is a homebrew that i wanna do.' members of this forum support homebrew, so they add some suggestions.

also, 'this forum' isn't a monolith. the people that replied to the different threads may not be the same people...

[Psyren]

Are Divine Focuses and Material components lumped into Somatic components in 5e?

Yes and no. If a spell has both (SM) then so long as your hand can manipulate the M you're able to perform S. This is true whether the M is being fulfilled by a bag of bat poop, Ollivander's finest wand, or a massive Kite Shield emblazoned with 7 stars.

If a spell only has S though, your hand needs to be free - no shield, and not even a wand. (The poop bag is still fine, since you don't need to be holding it.)

In combination with this, I always figured Divine spells just had simpler Somatic components in general. After all, a Cleric is basically just going "Hey, Sarenrae? I really want to Searing Light that undead. Please?" and then pointing at the bad guy. As long as they have the ability to point, or make big sweeping arm gestures, they're gold. Because the deity bridges the gap between intention and reality that Wizards and such need to bridge the hard way.

Yes but keep in mind that "divine spells" aren't really a thing in 5e, or at least they weren't until the 1DD UA. They're making a comeback now but it's been almost 10 years. And druids don't get to wear their "holy symbol" on a shield either.

Note too that the "divine spells are simpler, all you have to do is point" rationale doesn't really hold up either. An arcane focus can be a crystal ball, it's hard to argue that your fingers are capable of complex wiggling while holding one. The simpler explanation, at least for me, is that whatever movements you have to make while your hand is free aren't necessarily the same ones you have to make while holding a restrictive object, so long as that object is the correct one.

[Talamare]

An arcane focus can be a crystal ball, it's hard to argue that your fingers are capable of complex wiggling while holding one.

It's an unobjectionable truth, that the most important part of holding the crystal balls is the complex finger wiggling.
Always do complex finger wiggling while holding the crystal balls.

[Unoriginal]

I mean, I know it's a game abstraction that exists to preserve class balance. But what is it supposed to represent?

It represents being trained in the useof the armor.

Or, more importantly, how do I roleplay not having armor proficiency?

Same way you roleplay anything else your character is not trained to use.

If my wizard is in danger and finds a suit of plate armor, why wouldn't they put it on?

Because they are not trained in what to do once they've put it on, and the benefits for doing so would likely be far outweighted by the hinderances.

Wearing plate armor is not like wearing a tunic. You're encased in *several* movement-affecting layers of protections. You have the rigid outer shell that has to cover as much of your body as possible while letting you move, the semi-rigid mail that messeswith weight distribution, and the bulky padding of the gambeson. And that's not getting into things like the helmet or the gauntlets, which definitively can be a pain to do routine tasks in even if you're used to them.


Yes, D&D is not a reality simulator. But the fiction it has choosen to portray is still one where it's hard to type on a computer with boxi g gloves on.

More importantly, thematically it has chosen to restrict who can wear different armors, to perpetuate the kind of fiction it wants to be.


And the kind of fiction it wants to be is that the peak-of-mortal-agility hero who's far more dextrous that a tiger is still easier to significantly hit than a level 1 Fighter who somehow got their hand on plate armor, unless they have some special anatomy, magic or training that let them add other bonuses to AC.

It is not a bad thing.

Also, do we really need four different armor proficiencies?

Yes.

[Greywander]

OP: I want to get rid of armor proficiencies so my wizard can just tack on full plate if he wanders across it.

I find it discouraging that some people think this is what I said. How are we supposed to have a productive discussion if you're not reading my posts and instead just assuming you know what I said?

What I actually said is that I don't understand what armor proficiency is supposed to represent, and I was wondering if there might be a more intuitive way to restrict what armor people can use effectively.

As it is, armor proficiency is almost a joke with how easy it is to get. The one proposed alternative, to lean more on encumbrance so that STR is required to wear armor without penalties, should actually be more restrictive (depending on what the exact numbers are) as investing in STR is a much bigger opportunity cost with few additional benefits than dipping a single level into cleric or fighter.

It represents being trained in the useof the armor.

Good to know. Does this also apply to yellow proficiency?

Same way you roleplay anything else your character is not trained to use.

Okay so if I'm wearing armor I'm not proficient with, then I will stammer when talking to people, make noise when trying to be quiet, be unaware of all but the most basic facts, be unaware of my surroundings...

The issue is twofold: First, a lack of training or skill manifests in different ways for each type of task. A lack of training in medical surgery is very different from a lack of training in extreme sports. Even then, though, we can still say that a lack of training generally takes the form of being worse at doing the thing, whatever "the thing" might be. Which leads us to the second issue, which is that you don't do armor. "Being armored" is not a task in and of itself. Even if we accept that a lack of proficiency makes worse at certain things while wearing armor, that still isn't "doing armor"; each of those tasks is their own thing that already has a proficiency associated with it.

Wearing plate armor is not like wearing a tunic. You're encased in *several* movement-affecting layers of protections. You have the rigid outer shell that has to cover as much of your body as possible while letting you move, the semi-rigid mail that messeswith weight distribution, and the bulky padding of the gambeson. And that's not getting into things like the helmet or the gauntlets, which definitively can be a pain to do routine tasks in even if you're used to them.

I'm still not convinced that you couldn't quickly pick this up with very little formal training, just wearing the armor for like a week while doing various tasks. I'm also not convinced that this isn't something every adventurer would train for, given how extremely dangerous adventuring is. In other words, knowing how to move in armor might be more like knowing how to tie knots: technically it is a skill that must be learned, but it would be unusual for someone not to have learned that skill.

Yes, D&D is not a reality simulator. But the fiction it has choosen to portray is still one where it's hard to type on a computer with boxi g gloves on.

I understood that reference. Gosh, that was a long time ago.

More importantly, thematically it has chosen to restrict who can wear different armors, to perpetuate the kind of fiction it wants to be.

Proficiency isn't the only way to do that, though. That's kind of my main contention, that armor proficiency is not only bad at restricting who can wear armor, but that it doesn't really make sense and breaks immersion when you think about it too hard. I think there must be a better way, something that both makes intuitive sense in-universe, and still strongly encourages classes to stick to their archetypes.

Yes.

I think we could at minimum fuse medium and heavy armor proficiency together. I also think giving everyone light armor wouldn't change much; Mage Armor and Unarmored Defense are still stronger. Maybe you could fold a weaker version of Shield into Mage Armor, where it only gives +2 and requires a free hand (so like a shield that uses a reaction every round), but can be used at will while Mage Armor is active. That would probably be enough to make Mage Armor more appealing than studded leather to a lot of players. You can even require upcasting Mage Armor to get the shield effect, so that you're still paying for it with a higher spell slot instead of getting it for free. Plus, the Shield spell no longer exists.

My point is, four types of armor proficiency is arbitrary, and you could shuffle things around to get by with just three, or even two. Streamlining the game by getting rid of things it doesn't need should improve the game.

[Dr.Samurai]

I find it discouraging that some people think this is what I said. How are we supposed to have a productive discussion if you're not reading my posts and instead just assuming you know what I said?

What I actually said is that I don't understand what armor proficiency is supposed to represent, and I was wondering if there might be a more intuitive way to restrict what armor people can use effectively.

As it is, armor proficiency is almost a joke with how easy it is to get. The one proposed alternative, to lean more on encumbrance so that STR is required to wear armor without penalties, should actually be more restrictive (depending on what the exact numbers are) as investing in STR is a much bigger opportunity cost with few additional benefits than dipping a single level into cleric or fighter.

If it's so easy to get, just get it then. But you're saying it's so easy to get it might as well be free. That's a different thing.

And my post was mostly in jest at how people approach the game in different contexts.

Someone did point out to you that what you're proposing would it make very easy for casters to get armor, and you were okay with that, saying "that ship has sailed". So my comment seems relevant, given that we have people explaining how real armor works to justify your wizard picking it up and using it without training.

Good to know. Does this also apply to yellow proficiency?

Well, why can't I just pick up a spellbook or scroll and read the words and cast magic without having the actual class feature? How do I roleplay not being able to sound things out and wiggle my fingers the same way I see other people do it? Why can't I just pick up spellcasting? It's a game, that's why.

[Amnestic]

I'm still not convinced that you couldn't quickly pick this up with very little formal training, just wearing the armor for like a week while doing various tasks.

Why have weapon proficiencies? You can just swing a sword repeatedly and pick it up just fine.

Why have skill proficiencies? How hard is it to walk quietly?

Why have spell restrictions? Just practice for a week, simple as.

I'm also not convinced that this isn't something every adventurer would train for, given how extremely dangerous adventuring is.

Most adventurers don't go to adventurer school to learn how to adventure. Most backgrounds don't involve fighting at all (Soldier's a notable exception) so why would they know how to wear armour? Any training or skills they have after their background are covered by their class: If you're a wizard, you spent your time learning spells isn't of practicing with armour. Good for you.

Some armour is also very expensive, perhaps outside of the reach of 1st level characters, especially if they're spending their gold on spellbooks or arcane focuses or whatever. Their area of expertise isn't practicing with armour. It's with the other stuff they did instead.

I think we could at minimum fuse medium and heavy armor proficiency together. I also think giving everyone light armor wouldn't change much; Mage Armor and Unarmored Defense are still stronger. Maybe you could fold a weaker version of Shield into Mage Armor, where it only gives +2 and requires a free hand (so like a shield that uses a reaction every round), but can be used at will while Mage Armor is active. That would probably be enough to make Mage Armor more appealing than studded leather to a lot of players. You can even require upcasting Mage Armor to get the shield effect, so that you're still paying for it with a higher spell slot instead of getting it for free. Plus, the Shield spell no longer exists.

My point is, four types of armor proficiency is arbitrary, and you could shuffle things around to get by with just three, or even two. Streamlining the game by getting rid of things it doesn't need should improve the game.

How is your version above any less arbitrary than what we have? What are you going to do to replace the (sub)class features that grant armour proficiency?

[stoutstien]

Personally I think armor and weapon Prof are better represented via ability score thresholds.
Be nice if having different stat arrays we're actually interesting rather than seen as a waste of resources.

[Talamare]

Personally I think armor and weapon Prof are better represented via ability score thresholds.
Be nice if having different stat arrays we're actually interesting rather than seen as a waste of resources.

The issue is that we have 3 mental stats that do nothing

Start by making them do something

[stoutstien]

The issue is that we have 3 mental stats that do nothing

Start by making them do something

Well two stats. Wisdom probably about where it should be other than the discrepancy of saves frequencies especially in the earlier levels. Then you have charisma which either does nothing for you or everything.

The problem we currently have with the abilities array is you either pump or dump and there's very little reason to do in between other than dex for medium armor .

[Kane0]

Something mildly interesting to note, the Elder Scrolls between Morrowind and Skyrim also dropped medium armor and unarmored, leaving only light, heavy and block (shield).

[RSP]

People: *commentary on grounded martials*
This Forum: The game is not a simulation you rube.

OP: I want to get rid of armor proficiencies so my wizard can just tack on full plate if he wanders across it.
Also This Forum: This is a great idea and here are various history lessons to explain why...

There’s so much more to martials than armor proficiency: I don’t see armor proficiency as a defining ability for them. If you do, I’d suggest that’s why you think martials aren’t getting their due.

It’s more than a ribbon, sure, but when I think of any class with med/heavy armor proficiency, it’s not high on the list of stuff I define the class by.

I will say the Defense fighting style should be just +1 AC, and not +1 AC while wearing armor.

[Psyren]

The issue is that we have 3 mental stats that do nothing

Start by making them do something

Well two stats. Wisdom probably about where it should be other than the discrepancy of saves frequencies especially in the earlier levels. Then you have charisma which either does nothing for you or everything.

The problem we currently have with the abilities array is you either pump or dump and there's very little reason to do in between other than dex for medium armor .

This is not a system issue. If you, as the DM, want "off-stats" to matter, you have the tools to do so - just come up with checks using those stats to enable or enhance things the characters want to do. For example, Acrobatics checks to "disengage" for free, Insight checks to measure a monster's relative CR or danger level, Int checks to identify/exploit their weaknesses, Deception checks to feint during combat etc. So long as you're building on the existing framework without taking anything away, and you don't make the consequences for failing those checks slapstick/punishing, players will be interested in trying them, and you may even get a few more average scores at character creation or a few ASIs going to off-scores. Be the change you want to see.

Something mildly interesting to note, the Elder Scrolls between Morrowind and Skyrim also dropped medium armor and unarmored, leaving only light, heavy and block (shield).

Skyrim dropped a lot of things in the name of streamlining that certainly made the game more accessible, but also eliminated some interesting archetypes from the game. One of my favorite builds in Morrowind was a "monk" with max unarmed and unarmored and Alteration buffs.

[Dr.Samurai]

There’s so much more to martials than armor proficiency: I don’t see armor proficiency as a defining ability for them. If you do, I’d suggest that’s why you think martials aren’t getting their due.

RSP uses Strawman, it's INEFFECTIVE!

Nowhere in my post did I say or even imply any of this so... enjoy your shadow-boxing session .

With regards to ability scores, I'm surprised to hear there's three mental scores that don't do anything, when I feel Wisdom and Charisma govern some very important social skills, and Wisdom governs Perception and Survival, and Intelligence governs Investigation and the Knowledge skills. Constitution to me seems to be the ability score tax, governing only HP, which everyone wants. Strength governs quite a bit but it seems (at least from the vocal people in this forum) that many people simply don't track the things that Strength governs.

I'd echo what Psyren suggests and simply implement the ability scores in different ways to get the feel you'd like.

With regards to the OP though, this just seems like a personal preference. To echo what Amnestic said, why not just do this with anything else? If you ignore the gamist reasons for doing what they do, you can throw your hands in the air and restructure any of it.