New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 146
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Weird thought that's a little off tangent but I need to get it out of my head. I've been pondering over personal armor system that I use, which isn't perfect but it's there, and passive static bonuses like fighting styles.

    Something I've already considered with fighters is giving them more fighting styles as they level up. It's a pretty safe approach because they don't stack and we have enough time with them in game to understand their implications.
    Most tables have a AC range they are comfortable with for their style of play and this would be an easy way for the iconic bruiser classes that are meant to take some hits can have that thematic and mechanical edge in that category without any big overhauls.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Gotcha. Good luck with that.

    Note that multiple modern races get two (Changelings, Kenku, Astral Elves etc) and 1DD humans can get up to 4!
    Ah, the power creep. Don't see why they won't just shunt everything into point buy and class at that point. Race is stuck in that weird spot where it still provides meaningful bonuses when nobody on the dev team seems to want that.
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ignimortis View Post
    Ah, the power creep. Don't see why they won't just shunt everything into point buy and class at that point. Race is stuck in that weird spot where it still provides meaningful bonuses when nobody on the dev team seems to want that.
    "Race still provides meaningful bonuses even without dictating ASI placement" is a weird complaint to have.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Charlotte NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    If OPs question was actually legitimate and not just an excuse to get rid of armor proficiencies, the answer as to how you roleplay lack of armor proficiencies is incredibly simple.

    If you don't have an armor proficiency, you don't like wearing that kind of armor. Simple.

    Plenty of examples in real life. Soldiers in war removing their helmets because they don't like them. NFL players who removed protective padding unless forced to keep it by the league. Skateboarders who don't wear protection, even the most basic and important helmet. People who don't wear seat belts. People who work with tools who don't wear their safety glasses or hearing protection. Motorcyclists who don't dress for the slide. The examples go on and on of people not using protective equipment no matter how easy they are to use or how much sense they make to use. If you give that skateboarder who hates protective gear a free set of elbow pads, knee pads, gloves and helmet, they aren't going to put it on. They don't want it. If you force them to wear it (something I've never seen in a D&D game. "Wizard! Put on that plate mail or we will not let you adventure with us!") they are going to complain, focus on how it ruins things and might even lead them performing poorly even though there isn't a real reason it should. And as soon as they aren't forced, that gear is all getting tossed. Motorcyclists are a great example of that, as you can see people who stop wearing helmets the second they are someplace where they aren't forced to do so.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigmouth View Post
    If OPs question was actually legitimate and not just an excuse to get rid of armor proficiencies, the answer as to how you roleplay lack of armor proficiencies is incredibly simple.

    If you don't have an armor proficiency, you don't like wearing that kind of armor. Simple.

    Plenty of examples in real life. Soldiers in war removing their helmets because they don't like them. NFL players who removed protective padding unless forced to keep it by the league. Skateboarders who don't wear protection, even the most basic and important helmet. People who don't wear seat belts. People who work with tools who don't wear their safety glasses or hearing protection. Motorcyclists who don't dress for the slide. The examples go on and on of people not using protective equipment no matter how easy they are to use or how much sense they make to use. If you give that skateboarder who hates protective gear a free set of elbow pads, knee pads, gloves and helmet, they aren't going to put it on. They don't want it. If you force them to wear it (something I've never seen in a D&D game. "Wizard! Put on that plate mail or we will not let you adventure with us!") they are going to complain, focus on how it ruins things and might even lead them performing poorly even though there isn't a real reason it should. And as soon as they aren't forced, that gear is all getting tossed. Motorcyclists are a great example of that, as you can see people who stop wearing helmets the second they are someplace where they aren't forced to do so.
    You know what we call people that don't wear adequate protection such as a motorcycle helmet? Organ donors.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    You know what we call people that don't wear adequate protection such as a motorcycle helmet? Organ donors.
    Hm, that does suggest a rather novel use for adventurers...

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Greywander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigmouth View Post
    If OPs question was actually legitimate and not just an excuse to get rid of armor proficiencies,
    It's not, they legitimately don't make sense to me, and I think there must be a better way to handle armor restrictions than the proficiency system. That said, it's mechanically sound and gets the job done (sort of). I don't think there's a different implementation that will please everyone, so something that appeals to me might not appeal to you.

    Plenty of examples in real life. Soldiers in war removing their helmets because they don't like them. NFL players who removed protective padding unless forced to keep it by the league. Skateboarders who don't wear protection, even the most basic and important helmet. People who don't wear seat belts. People who work with tools who don't wear their safety glasses or hearing protection. Motorcyclists who don't dress for the slide. The examples go on and on of people not using protective equipment no matter how easy they are to use or how much sense they make to use.
    Also, combat makes up a very small portion of adventuring, in terms of time. I would like to at some point make an "Adventure Simulator" video game that is like 95% hiking and camping simulator, 4% treasure hunting, and 1% extremely lethal combat. You should be more excited about getting a new backpack than a new weapon. Adventurers aren't soldiers, so it's not realistic to expect them to carry a full kit. Honestly, I'd actually expect very few adventurers to wear full plate, something like a brigandine + gambeson would likely be far more common, striking a good balance between comfort and protection. The problem is that D&D does not represent this in the mechanics of the game at all; there's not really any reason not to wear plate if you're proficient and have the requisite STR. And that's because D&D is hyperfocused on combat, that vanishingly small portion of adventuring where armor is the most important.

    I can't stress enough that the point of this thread has never been to find a way to put every character in armor. Quite the opposite. Armor has very few downsides, and proficiency is only a dip away. And I like my multiclassing, so banning that isn't an appealing option to me. If you just got rid of proficiency, I don't think very much would actually change. That's why I think some other method of restricting armor would work better.

    they are going to complain, focus on how it ruins things and might even lead them performing poorly even though there isn't a real reason it should.
    Probably while the player endlessly repeats, "It's what my character would do."

    A lesson I wish more players understood is that not every character is a fit for every party. If your character has no reason to stick with the party, or if they're making a nuisance of themselves, or if they're outright working against the party (backstabbing, stealing, etc.), then you should retire that character and roll up a new one who actually meshes well with the rest of the party.

    Like, imagine asking your wizard for a Fireball to stem the endless horde of goblins, and you find your wizard cowering behind a rock complaining about how goblins are "icky" and they don't want to fight them. At that point, they're just dead weight, dragging the rest of the party down. If you don't leave them in a ditch somewhere, then you'll most likely politely ask them to leave once you're back in town, because at that point they're just a liability.

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    You know what we call people that don't wear adequate protection such as a motorcycle helmet? Organ donors.
    Exactly, it's not supposed to be comfortable, it's supposed to keep you from dying. I covered above why comfort would be a factor, but at the end of the day that's not the purpose of armor. If someone doesn't want to wear armor because it's uncomfortable, then that person should not become an adventurer.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigmouth View Post
    focus on how it ruins things and might even lead them performing poorly even though there isn't a real reason it should.
    Protective gear absolutely ruins performance in many sports, including fighting.

    It's just that in many (but not all) sports and definitely in fighting, the benefits of not being badly wounded when things inevitably go wrong heavily outweigh the loss of performance.

    But that can break down quickly if it starts to make things far more likely to go wrong in the first place, without significantly offsetting the problems when things go wrong.

    Spoiler: it's a cost benefit thing
    Show
    I rock climb. Wearing a helmet is stupid and more dangerous than not wearing one. It makes climbing much hard and makes you very likely to get pulled off the rock and provides almost no benefit ... right up until you're climbing in a place with lots of loose rock. Really, the solution isn't don't climb in those places, not wear a helmet. But if you do, wear a damn helmet. Despite it being MORE dangerous to do so, outdoor instruction places inevitably have their students wear a helmet in places with no loose rock. Because some people think protective gear is automatically safer.
    Last edited by Tanarii; 2022-09-24 at 12:50 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    Also, combat makes up a very small portion of adventuring, in terms of time. I would like to at some point make an "Adventure Simulator" video game that is like 95% hiking and camping simulator, 4% treasure hunting, and 1% extremely lethal combat. You should be more excited about getting a new backpack than a new weapon. Adventurers aren't soldiers, so it's not realistic to expect them to carry a full kit. Honestly, I'd actually expect very few adventurers to wear full plate, something like a brigandine + gambeson would likely be far more common, striking a good balance between comfort and protection. The problem is that D&D does not represent this in the mechanics of the game at all; there's not really any reason not to wear plate if you're proficient and have the requisite STR. And that's because D&D is hyperfocused on combat, that vanishingly small portion of adventuring where armor is the most important.

    I can't stress enough that the point of this thread has never been to find a way to put every character in armor. Quite the opposite. Armor has very few downsides, and proficiency is only a dip away. And I like my multiclassing, so banning that isn't an appealing option to me. If you just got rid of proficiency, I don't think very much would actually change. That's why I think some other method of restricting armor would work better.
    I try to reason with it as proficiency being "combat training with the armour" even if that's not quiiiite right. It sounds like itemising more consequences (varying by type of armour) with at least some of them being negatable/reduceable (e.g. swimming penalties with a minimum strength score + maybe athletics proficiency to overcome) could be a more satisfying solution. (If so, I agree even if I'm not sure on specifics!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    Probably while the player endlessly repeats, "It's what my character would do."
    twitches

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    A lesson I wish more players understood is that not every character is a fit for every party. If your character has no reason to stick with the party, or if they're making a nuisance of themselves, or if they're outright working against the party (backstabbing, stealing, etc.), then you should retire that character and roll up a new one who actually meshes well with the rest of the party.
    THIS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    Exactly, it's not supposed to be comfortable, it's supposed to keep you from dying. I covered above why comfort would be a factor, but at the end of the day that's not the purpose of armor. If someone doesn't want to wear armor because it's uncomfortable, then that person should not become an adventurer.
    Or would really only wear armour for combat / anticipated combat... which (as you mention) makes sense! If hiking in full plate is cumbersome or more difficult, maybe they wear something else for that task even if a planned major combat deserves (and receives) full plate.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    Armor has very few downsides, and proficiency is only a dip away.
    I'm not fully understanding the problem you're having. Can you provide some specifics as to exactly who is multiclassing into what to gain armor proficiencies?

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Greywander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomSoul View Post
    Or would really only wear armour for combat / anticipated combat... which (as you mention) makes sense! If hiking in full plate is cumbersome or more difficult, maybe they wear something else for that task even if a planned major combat deserves (and receives) full plate.
    Yeah, like I said, a brigandine + gambeson would probably be one of the more common armor loadouts for adventuring, since it provides pretty decent protection without being too uncomfortable. If you're anticipating combat, then you might upgrade to full plate, but you'll probably strip down to something lighter if you're not expecting to fight. Though if you have full plate, you'll probably just wear the breastplate instead of a brigandine when dressed down, that way you don't have to carry around an extra brigandine.

    Quote Originally Posted by theNater View Post
    I'm not fully understanding the problem you're having. Can you provide some specifics as to exactly who is multiclassing into what to gain armor proficiencies?
    The problem isn't so much that you can dip, I just brought them up to show how proficiency isn't really effective at limiting who can use armor. A few common such dips are wizards dipping into cleric, sorcerers and bards dipping into Hexblade, any CHA caster dipping into paladin, and anyone dipping into fighter.

    My problem has always been that proficiency feels too much like a game abstraction. Like, imagine you have a perfectly normal gun, and you have extra ammo, but the (hypothetical) rules of the game only allow you to reload on a short rest. So how do you roleplay running out of ammo in the gun? The game might be balanced around it, but it would still feel super weird. Armor proficiency feels the same to me. The rules themselves are abstractions, but they still represent a fictional reality. The abstractions work on a high level to determine outcomes and such, but that has to translate back into fictional reality. When I attack, deal damage, and reduce a target to 0 HP, those are all abstractions, but they pretty easily translate back into the fantasy simulation; I hit it with my sword and it died. The abstractions themselves aren't the issue, the problem is when those abstractions dictate an outcome that doesn't translate in a way that makes sense.

    People say D&D isn't a fantasy world simulator, and that's both right and wrong. It's not a simulation type of game; it's not interested in using complex rules to determine in detail what happens in the fantasy world. It just tells you whether something succeeds or not, and then you come up with a justification for why it did or didn't work. However, D&D isn't a videogame-esque world. NPCs don't talk about stats or hit points. Characters aren't actually having idle chats while standing perfectly still waiting for the wizard to decide what spell to cast and finish their turn. The settings in which D&D take place are meant to be more realistic settings, where HP, turn-based combat, and so on don't exist. You'll never hear Drizzle Durden talking about which feats he took, or Elfminister talking about class levels. When someone suggests you put on some armor before a big battle, "Oh I'm not trained to fight in armor," is not a response that makes logical sense, not for a career adventurer.

    So if armor proficiency doesn't really make sense, and it isn't even that good at stopping people from wearing armor, is there a better way to handle armor restrictions? That's what I'm asking.

    Maybe what would work best would be some kind of penalty for wearing armor over a long period of time. For example, every hour you spend in armor you make a CON save against exhaustion with a DC equal to the armor's base AC (e.g. 12 for studded leather, 18 for plate), and you can recover all levels of this exhaustion after a short rest. Those with high CON, and especially CON save proficiency, won't have as much of an issue with these. Those with low CON will be less likely to travel in armor, though they can still put it on if they expect a fight. This at least allows you to armor up when it would make logical sense to do so, but gives you a very good reason not to just wear armor all the time. Might want to move concentration to using WIS instead of CON, though, since otherwise casters will tend to have decent CON.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    There's a direct link between the in world, the abstraction, and roleplaying. If your character is not trained* (in world) you take a penalty to certain things that are harder to do while wearing the armor (in world represented by abstraction). If you don't want your character to take that penalty, you decide they don't wear the armor (roleplaying).


    *or possibly divine granted the knowledge for clerics.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Sounds to me like
    A) you should incorporate some mechanic(s) to counterbalance the massive weighting towards combat when it comes to armor and the time spent in it.
    B) medium armor is best left in as a category if its supposed to be that midpoint between comfort and protection
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    People say D&D isn't a fantasy world simulator, and that's both right and wrong. It's not a simulation type of game; it's not interested in using complex rules to determine in detail what happens in the fantasy world. It just tells you whether something succeeds or not, and then you come up with a justification for why it did or didn't work. However, D&D isn't a videogame-esque world. NPCs don't talk about stats or hit points. Characters aren't actually having idle chats while standing perfectly still waiting for the wizard to decide what spell to cast and finish their turn. The settings in which D&D take place are meant to be more realistic settings, where HP, turn-based combat, and so on don't exist. You'll never hear Drizzle Durden talking about which feats he took, or Elfminister talking about class levels. When someone suggests you put on some armor before a big battle, "Oh I'm not trained to fight in armor," is not a response that makes logical sense, not for a career adventurer.
    Since we're emulating heroic fantasy, a logical response to that suggestion is "No thank you, I need to stay nimble", because nimbleness is a heroic trait. And indeed, under the right circumstances, nimbleness can provide better protection from blades and bows than full plate.

    From that, we can inform our understanding of armor proficiency: it is a commitment to the regular practice necessary to be nimble while wearing the armor. (Note that weapon proficiencies also indicate regular practice, such that a character with the weapon proficiency can use that weapon skillfully at a moment's notice.)

    This in turn suggests to me that the way to discourage dipping for proficiency is to encourage nimbleness within the character's main class. Since you're mostly seeing armor-seeking behavior in arcane casters, could you make Mage Armor easier to use? Perhaps treating it as known and prepared for everybody(without counting against total spells known/prepared), so the only cost is the spell slot to cast it, would help.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    I play a system where armor proficiency doesn't exist, and yet only combat classes use the heaviest armor.

    The reason why, is weight. The heaviest armors are heavy, and character with combat classes have 14+ Str typically. I'm used to seeing Skill Monkey characters with 8 or 10 Str, and thus they can barely carry that much equipment.
    Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-09-25 at 05:09 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by theNater View Post
    Since you're mostly seeing armor-seeking behavior in arcane casters, could you make Mage Armor easier to use? Perhaps treating it as known and prepared for everybody(without counting against total spells known/prepared), so the only cost is the spell slot to cast it, would help.
    Or make it a Ritual that lasts until you lose consciousness?
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Advent's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2022

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Try throwing some armor on right now and tell us how well you could move around. Certain clothing even can be more or less difficult to move around however with experience you would learn how to work around that. I think armor proficiency is similar!

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    My problem has always been that proficiency feels too much like a game abstraction. Like, imagine you have a perfectly normal gun, and you have extra ammo, but the (hypothetical) rules of the game only allow you to reload on a short rest. So how do you roleplay running out of ammo in the gun? The game might be balanced around it, but it would still feel super weird.
    It's a magic gun, as are the vast majority of "recover on a short rest" abilities. Yes, that includes things like a Fighter's Second Wind or a Dragonborn's breath. How it works in the fiction can therefore be as arbitrary as it needs to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    *snip*

    When someone suggests you put on some armor before a big battle, "Oh I'm not trained to fight in armor," is not a response that makes logical sense, not for a career adventurer.
    It is if you have alternate means of getting decent AC, which every adventuring archetype does. If I'm a wizard and I'm not trained in armor, but I know the mage armor spell... why wouldn't I just use that? Sure there are probably other wizards who would delay their magical training to learn how to use armor properly, but not everyone would go that route.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Brookshw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Spoiler: it's a cost benefit thing
    Show
    I rock climb. Wearing a helmet is stupid and more dangerous than not wearing one. It makes climbing much hard and makes you very likely to get pulled off the rock and provides almost no benefit ... right up until you're climbing in a place with lots of loose rock. Really, the solution isn't don't climb in those places, not wear a helmet. But if you do, wear a damn helmet. Despite it being MORE dangerous to do so, outdoor instruction places inevitably have their students wear a helmet in places with no loose rock. Because some people think protective gear is automatically safer.
    Spoiler
    Show
    We'll, now I'm curious. How does wearing the helmet make it more dangerous?
    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    Logic just does not fit in with the real world. And only the guilty throw fallacy's around.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vendin, probably
    As always, the planes prove to be awesomer than I expected.
    Avatar courtesy of Linklele

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Oct 2017

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    I'm just going to say say go put on some blue jeans a shirt and jacket and work boots. Go run or walk up stairs and do some exercises. Then quickly change into basketball shorts a tee shirt and sneakers and to everything again. You can tell the difference in weight and how more flexibility your are. This is why the rules on the armor is what it is. Yes any1 can put on plate but if your not uses to it you won't be able to move around as easily as if someone trained in wearing it is.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Throne12 View Post
    I'm just going to say say go put on some blue jeans a shirt and jacket and work boots. Go run or walk up stairs and do some exercises. Then quickly change into basketball shorts a tee shirt and sneakers and to everything again. You can tell the difference in weight and how more flexibility your are. This is why the rules on the armor is what it is. Yes any1 can put on plate but if your not uses to it you won't be able to move around as easily as if someone trained in wearing it is.
    Yeah, but I've read the descriptions of military training for multiple nations...and nowhere is training to be used to armor mentioned.

    There is training and getting used to carrying heavy loads, marching long distances, sprinting while carrying like 30-50 pounds on you, ect ect.

    Granted, plate armor is different, but that's plate armor. I don't think the training to carry a mail shirt is that much different than training to hike while carrying approximately the same weight.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    Yeah, but I've read the descriptions of military training for multiple nations...and nowhere is training to be used to armor mentioned.

    There is training and getting used to carrying heavy loads, marching long distances, sprinting while carrying like 30-50 pounds on you, ect ect.

    Granted, plate armor is different, but that's plate armor. I don't think the training to carry a mail shirt is that much different than training to hike while carrying approximately the same weight.
    This.

    Training to use armour... it using armour for a day or two until you adjust. Armour proficiency should mostly be tied to stats rather than class. 'Training' in armour is really a bit of a misnomer.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobahfish View Post
    This.

    Training to use armour... it using armour for a day or two until you adjust. Armour proficiency should mostly be tied to stats rather than class. 'Training' in armour is really a bit of a misnomer.
    I think I said this earlier, but the physical weaker classes are going to be so burdened by the extra weight, they can't carry the armor anyways. The other possibility is the armor will make them really slow.

    Also it might interfere with their magic.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    I think I said this earlier, but the physical weaker classes are going to be so burdened by the extra weight, they can't carry the armor anyways. The other possibility is the armor will make them really slow.

    Also it might interfere with their magic.
    This is where I am a bit confused. What do you mean? There are no physically weaker classes are there? I mean... is a Strength 20 Wizard... weaker than a Strength 20 Fighter? Like, I get that Fighters are more commonly Strength 20, but... if I have a Strength 20 Wizard and he can't wear full plate, I am really scratching my head. Interfering with spellcasting makes sense unless you MC one level of fighter...

    I'm not sure any argument other than 'balance' and 'another D&D conceit' is going to convince me.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    Granted, plate armor is different, but that's plate armor. I don't think the training to carry a mail shirt is that much different than training to hike while carrying approximately the same weight.
    In real life, a mail shirt wouldn't affect how you move significantly more than a backpack of the same weight.

    In real life, a mail shirt would also be near useless as armor.

    The only thing mail does is stop cutting, or slashing if you want a D&D term, but due to still being just one layer of supple clothes it only diminishes the power of blows a little, meaning the slashing blows get turned into blunt ones, and blunt and piercing impacts are not really affected.

    Furthermore, the shirt only protect the torso efficiently, which is not as good as one may think since all your other important fleshy parts like the neck are basically a death sentence if hurt in a combat situation, and if you're likely to survive your less-important fleshy parts like the limbs getting struck initially you'll be enormously hindered.

    Historically, mail armor isn't a shirt most of the time, it's a mail long dress with long flowing sleeves (to protect legs and arms), worm above a padded gambeson (to absorb impact), with various pieces of metal or leather to protect the head, neck, hands and feat, plus a thick midsection belt to avoid having allof this weight resting solely on your back. It is actually harder to move in that outfit than in battlefield-ready plate armor, as the weight moves around much more freely.

    D&D characters don't have to worry about most of those concerns, but still it means that the fiction it represents consider that significant mail armor = issues for the non-trained.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    I think I said this earlier, but the physical weaker classes are going to be so burdened by the extra weight, they can't carry the armor anyways. The other possibility is the armor will make them really slow.

    Also it might interfere with their magic.
    I only just spotted your signature, and I laughed.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    In real life, a mail shirt wouldn't affect how you move significantly more than a backpack of the same weight.

    In real life, a mail shirt would also be near useless as armor.

    The only thing mail does is stop cutting, or slashing if you want a D&D term, but due to still being just one layer of supple clothes it only diminishes the power of blows a little, meaning the slashing blows get turned into blunt ones, and blunt and piercing impacts are not really affected.

    Furthermore, the shirt only protect the torso efficiently, which is not as good as one may think since all your other important fleshy parts like the neck are basically a death sentence if hurt in a combat situation, and if you're likely to survive your less-important fleshy parts like the limbs getting struck initially you'll be enormously hindered.

    Historically, mail armor isn't a shirt most of the time, it's a mail long dress with long flowing sleeves (to protect legs and arms), worm above a padded gambeson (to absorb impact), with various pieces of metal or leather to protect the head, neck, hands and feat, plus a thick midsection belt to avoid having allof this weight resting solely on your back. It is actually harder to move in that outfit than in battlefield-ready plate armor, as the weight moves around much more freely.

    D&D characters don't have to worry about most of those concerns, but still it means that the fiction it represents consider that significant mail armor = issues for the non-trained.
    "Mail shirt would be near useless as armor."
    >Looks at all the Vikings that had just mail shirts, helmets, and shields
    >Looks at all the Frankish warriors who till 950 AD had just mail shirts
    >Looks at all the infantry who couldn't afford mail sleeves and mail going to their knees till around the 1200s
    >Remembers how a shirt of mail could cost as much as a house or several horses, according to Anglo-Saxon documents

    1200 to whenever mail got replaced with full plate armor or a breast-plate (Somewhere around 1400-1500s, is like 300 years.

    500-1200 is like 700 years.

    >Memories of Late Romans having mail shirt as well
    >Google Late Romans
    >Lots of Mail Shirts


    Correction, 250-1200 years

    The only problem a mail tunic provides is the weight, it's a flexible and decently comfortable armor. This is literally why in Pathfinder 2e, its noisy but "Flexible" to be very easy to move in.

    Linothorax Armor literally would be harder to move in, despite being far cheaper and almost as protective.

    "The only thing mail does is stop cutting, or slashing if you want a D&D term, but due to still being just one layer of supple clothes it only diminishes the power of blows a little, meaning the slashing blows get turned into blunt ones, and blunt and piercing impacts are not really affected."

    >Swords were literally the most expensive weapon after the Axe
    >Most of the peoples who wore mail shirts or could afford them...fought militias that used almost entirely spears
    >Lots of memories of people testing arrows on mail and it stopping them just fine
    >Memories of documentaries about how mail works
    >No mention of these weaknesses or weaknesses in general


    I am very skeptical of this information that goes against basically everything I know about armor and like five books I've read.

    >Linothorax Armor was replaced by mail
    >Why would armor that could easily stop cutting, stabbing, arrows, ect ect.... be replaced by armor that only was good against slashing?
    >Mail was more expensive and harder to make


    I'm pressing X so hard.

    - Knowing this stuff is literally my living.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobahfish View Post
    This is where I am a bit confused. What do you mean? There are no physically weaker classes are there? I mean... is a Strength 20 Wizard... weaker than a Strength 20 Fighter? Like, I get that Fighters are more commonly Strength 20, but... if I have a Strength 20 Wizard and he can't wear full plate, I am really scratching my head. Interfering with spellcasting makes sense unless you MC one level of fighter...

    I'm not sure any argument other than 'balance' and 'another D&D conceit' is going to convince me.
    Why would you make a 20 Strength Wizard, when in some editions of D&D the Wizard had like 1-4 hit points and in most editions has like 1d6 or 1d8 to start? That's literally the lowest HP can go for the edition.

    There are four or five stats you would be better off having a 20 in.

    I mean, I guess a Rogue could also have a 20 Str..... and just like be blind, clumsy, unable to lie to people... (Wisdom, Dex, Cha are all better things to have a 20 in as a Rogue)

    Also, IRL anyone who can fit any definition of a wizard either needs glasses and is out of shape, or they're unqualified for their position. There is a reason why bodybuilders and scholars rarely have overlap.

    Time constraints.

    I knew a guy in high school who was top of the school gov, played basketball, had great grades...and he didn't sleep and was a massive overachiever. I knew other friends as successful as he was and they all had mental breakdowns.
    Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-09-29 at 06:36 AM.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    "Mail shirt would be near useless as armor."
    >Looks at all the Vikings that had just mail shirts, helmets, and shields
    >Looks at all the Frankish warriors who till 950 AD had just mail shirts
    >Looks at all the infantry who couldn't afford mail sleeves and mail going to their knees till around the 1200s
    >Remembers how a shirt of mail could cost as much as a house or several horses, according to Anglo-Saxon documents

    1200 to whenever mail got replaced with full plate armor or a breast-plate (Somewhere around 1400-1500s, is like 300 years.

    500-1200 is like 700 years.

    >Memories of Late Romans having mail shirt as well
    >Google Late Romans
    >Lots of Mail Shirts


    Correction, 250-1200 years

    The only problem a mail tunic provides is the weight, it's a flexible and decently comfortable armor. This is literally why in Pathfinder 2e, its noisy but "Flexible" to be very easy to move in.

    Linothorax Armor literally would be harder to move in, despite being far cheaper and almost as protective.

    "The only thing mail does is stop cutting, or slashing if you want a D&D term, but due to still being just one layer of supple clothes it only diminishes the power of blows a little, meaning the slashing blows get turned into blunt ones, and blunt and piercing impacts are not really affected."

    >Swords were literally the most expensive weapon after the Axe
    >Most of the peoples who wore mail shirts or could afford them...fought militias that used almost entirely spears
    >Lots of memories of people testing arrows on mail and it stopping them just fine
    >Memories of documentaries about how mail works
    >No mention of these weaknesses or weaknesses in general


    I am very skeptical of this information that goes against basically everything I know about armor and like five books I've read.

    >Linothorax Armor was replaced by mail
    >Why would armor that could easily stop cutting, stabbing, arrows, ect ect.... be replaced by armor that only was good against slashing?
    >Mail was more expensive and harder to make


    I'm pressing X so hard.

    - Knowing this stuff is literally my living.
    I realise I was unclear, and apologises for that. Allow me to ammend:

    A mail shirt without padding underneath, limb protection, and an helmet would be near useless.

    Yes, the Gauls, Romans, Franks, Vikings, etc. had mail shirts/tunics, generaly due to lacking the monetary means to invest more in expensive metal, but not *just* the mail, which is what I was trying to say.

    Mail is useful because it is next to impossible to cut through, that is a fact. Wearing mail without impact-absorbing padding underneath is foolishness. Wearing mail without head and neck protection is foolishness. And it's not the mail itself that was the common-actions-hindering stuff, a lot of the time.

    (In fact, the most famous mail shirt in fiction, Bilbo's mithril one, fails to protect its wearers against a stone to the head and a stinger in the neck, respectively, not to mention how Frodo was still hurt/put out of action for a bit when a blow landed square on where the shirt was protecting, due to still enduring the blunt force of the blow even without getting cut/pierced)

    The Viking you mention was already decently protected with an helmet, shield, padded armor and usually some sort of arm/handicap
    and leg/foot coverings. The mail was on top of that, for those who could afford it in this particular historical exemple.

    As for your point about swords being expensive and mail-wearers almost exclusively fighting people using only spears... almost every fighting group on this planet has used some sort of slashing implement as a secondary weapon, since the invention of slashing implements. The poor in a militia weren't going to leave their knives at home just because the lord had an expensive sword, even if ideally their spears would take care of the issues before knives became needed.

    I personally have seen documentaries on how mail does not stop arrows and bolts, but I would be more than happy to watch those you have watched that demonstrate the contrary.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Dr.Samurai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    ICU, under a cherry tree.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    The "you just have to wear it, it's easy" crowd doesn't seem to appreciate the type of movements and precision you would need, presumably, to fight supernatural monsters and dodge magic. It seems like a failure to even try imagining that wearing armor properly and efficiently in D&D might mean something a little different than just comparing it to the real world.

    In the same way I couldn't realistically kill a D&D dragon with a longsword if it lied on its back and let me coup de grace it in the chest over where its heart would be, the game still allows me to hack at a dragon with a longsword enough times that it would die.

    Similarly, it may seem like "oh armor is just like clothing, why wouldn't someone be able to just wear it?", but the game is telling us that only people trained specifically in its use can wear it well enough that it doesn't interfere with their actions.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What even is armor proficiency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    In real life, a mail shirt wouldn't affect how you move significantly more than a backpack of the same weight.
    Not so sure.

    A backpack is usually going to put the weight on the inside of your shoulders, whereas a mail coat because the weight is all hanging down your sides will put more weight on the outside of the shoulders where it will feel heavier.

    Backpacks designed for long term use also tend to have belly and/or chest straps built in which help to distribute the weight more, you can do some of that with a cinch at the waist on a mail coat but because it's not attached to the mail it isn't as effective.

    In terms of distribution of weight and how it affects mobility and ability to wear the armour long term, mail is about the worst.

    (And yes, you wouldn't wear mail on its own, not just because you need other forms of protection but because it would be unwearable long term. Any serious impact on mail without anything under it would drive it into your flesh.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •