By eliminate, I mean effectively all classes effectively have all armor proficiencies so the concept is ignored. Perhaps with some armour combinations giving some skills or magic use disadvantage.
Armor proficiency is generally nonsense- well-fitted armor is not generally restrictive so it shouldn't make using skills worse and and there is no real way to train to overcome it in the case where it is restrictive like crouching. It is just thing to discourage magic users and rogues from wearing armour. Wearing armor for a long time is fatiguing anyway. So how to balance the classes with this restriction removed?
I get what you're saying, but I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish. Like many others systems in the game, armor proficiency is there for game balance, not realism. You are asking how to remove a game balance feature and then replace it with something that accomplishes the same thing. You would end up with something very similar, but called by a different name.
To keep it balanced you need to have the classes ending up with basically the same AC they have now. You could eliminate armor entirely and give class based AC bonuses to mirror the armor they would be expected to be wearing. Or let them wear armor but give class based AC penalties, but then it gets more complicated as wearing light armor might end up worse than being unarmored unless you have a graduated system of penalties based on type of armor.
I guess the real question is would it imbalance the game. How about remove the other armor restrictions like for monk and barbarian? To discourage tanking of magic user couldn't you just remove simple weapon proficiency- too busy doing magic to learn to use weapons well. Also reduce healing effects. Would that be enough to not change the character of the D&D?
Armor proficiency is generally nonsense- well-fitted armor is not generally restrictive so it shouldn't make using skills worse and and there is no real way to train to overcome it in the case where it is restrictive like crouching.
You're basing your justification for a change on false assumptions. Training is absolutely important in wearing armour and it absolutely restricts you.
This is why most knights had squires to carry around their armour and help them get into it, instead of walking around in it all day long.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
Knight Errant says there is no training for doing skills in armor- you can't overcome its effects only develop your body to be stronger or have better constitution. The restrictive part of armour is wearing full body coverage and that it tires you not that it makes doing things much harder. Walking around in Dnd should give you ranks in exhaustion. I watch Skallagrim before and maybe briefly Knight Errant.
"This is why most knights had squires to carry around their armour and help them get into it, instead of walking around in it all day long." You totally undercut your argument- if any person had heavy armor proficiency (ie. if that existed) then knights would have it and still they didn't walk around it all day in armor. Knights had squires because they could- they were generally property owners or high prestige. Getting on armor is a pain but you could do it yourself. Carrying around armor is difficult because it is bulky and heavy but carrying lots of stuff and if I could have someone carry all the stuff around then I would.
Here is much better alternative which is limited by the D &D player handbook's primitive armor supplies and AC system e.g. full plate is full suit no choice about components and armor's AC stops you being hit.
All classes can wear all types of armor but leave the nominal statements of armor proficiency but it doesn't give disadvantage of skill checks and doesn't limited movement.
Instead wearing medium armor for 2 hours normal travel or 1 at high speed or 4 hours slow speed and halve those number for heavy armor, gives 10 tiring points.
For combat situations for medium armor, each round that you basically move or melee or range attack gives 1 tiring point per normal move 20-30 feet and 1 tiring point per attack. If you can move 30-40 feet (one more 10 feet increment) then 1 more tiring point. If you rage then one extra 1 tiring point. Double these numbers for heavy armor. For magic use (magic produces excessive heat that tires characters ), 1 tiring point for light armor, 2 tiring points for medium armor and 3 tiring points for heavy armor per round of casting/ concentration.
When you get to 10 tiring points then you have do a constitution check with DC 15 for no appropriate armor proficiency characters and DC15 for appropriate armor proficiency. On failure the character gains one rank of exhaustion.
Here is much better alternative which is limited by the D &D player handbook's primitive armor supplies and AC system e.g. full plate is full suit no choice about components and armor's AC stops you being hit.
All classes can wear all types of armor but leave the nominal statements of armor proficiency but it doesn't give disadvantage of skill checks and doesn't limited movement.
Instead wearing medium armor for 2 hours normal travel or 1 at high speed or 4 hours slow speed and halve those number for heavy armor, gives 10 tiring points.
For combat situations for medium armor, each round that you basically move or melee or range attack gives 1 tiring point per normal move 20-30 feet and 1 tiring point per attack. If you can move 30-40 feet (one more 10 feet increment) then 1 more tiring point. If you rage then one extra 1 tiring point. Double these numbers for heavy armor. For magic use (magic produces excessive heat that tires characters ), 1 tiring point for light armor, 2 tiring points for medium armor and 3 tiring points for heavy armor per round of casting/ concentration.
When you get to 10 tiring points then you have do a constitution check with DC 15 for no appropriate armor proficiency characters and DC15 for appropriate armor proficiency. On failure the character gains one rank of exhaustion.
That sounds like quite the bookkeeping for something that, if I got it right, would be intended to make things simpler...
Restrictions are there for a reason, and I can assure you that any armor will restrict your movements in one way or another, at different degrees. If you are not trained at wearing one, these restrictions are increased because you are not used at the way your body is constrained by the armor.
You want to take away the need for proficiency? Fair enough, you can definitely do that, but you should think of some simple way to still make it a choice to use one or the other, and the simpler way I can see without adding bookkeeping and an additional mechanic to the game would be simply to make each armor needing a base STR score. Currently, only heavy armors have this kind of restriction, but I can tell you from personal experience that even a "simple" Chain Shirt needs a base level of strength to be worn effectively (aside from knowing how to properly don it and where to place the padding in order to make it more comfortable, but then we would be going back to proficiency, which is what you are trying to get rid of). The STR prerequisite makes perfect sense and does not introduce anything that is not already in the system, it just expands it. If a character does not have the needed STR score to use an armor, he can still use it, by all means, but then they will have some disadvantages similar to the ones already in the system and maybe changing the "no spells" bit and adding something else for casters, like the need for a concentration check when trying to cast a non-cantrip spell wearing an armor they do not have enough STR to wear comfortably (again, something that is already in the system, just used in a different situation).
Things do not need to be complicated, and if you want a more realistic experience you can do so in a way that still maintains balance (not many rogues or casters will have high STR, unless they really want to) but that is also taking advantage of what is already in the system itself.
I am not trying to make it simpler just more narratively sensible. They do a tally and sometimes do a roll. Is that a lot?
I am of the opinion that anything adding things to tally or additional rolls on new stuff makes the system heavier in the long run, but I see your goal.
Still, would you consider my proposed modifications as a possible alternative? I'd really like to see what you think of it.
"aside from knowing how to properly don it and where to place the padding"
Your armorsmith could give you that level of training and most would.
That does not automatically make the armor super-comfortable and unhindering, as it takes time to find the most comfortable positioning on your body, but again, that imho still goes into proficiency territory, which you are trying to get rid of.
Something I would like to drop in here - this is D&D, a fantasy game, and we already know that our laws of physics and reality don't work properly here.
Just think about the following:
A human being, who is stabbed and nearly dies due to it (reduced to zero hit points) fully recovers after an overnight rest.
There are characters who can run multiple times faster than our Olympic athletes and do so whilst wearing armor.
I don't think it would be a stretch of the imagination to say, "Hey, this is how armor works in this world."
I just find it odd that we're all playing a game that requires us to use our imagination to conjure up this fantasy world, full of amazing things, and of all the things that people might get stuck on, the "realism" of armor and weapons seems to come up time and time again. :)
I’m sorry, but what I am hearing from the OP is that he wants rogues to be able to sneaky-sneak, while climbing a wall, hidden, and wearing full plate.
Not exactly, rather everyone suffers disadvantage when climbing and being sneaky without special preparation or hiding in a crouched position. A strong vital (high con) rogue can climb in full plate because he can avoid the exhaustion.
A sensible idea of armor proficiency is you have resistance to the exhausting effects of wearing armor and that you can use armor to close to maximum effectiveness. Using a somewhat sensible idea of AC as being the combined chance that the attack will either miss or hit a hard part of the armour where it has no effect, the armor proficiency (training) enables you more often than not put the armor into the enemy's attack so you gain +2 AC for the correct proficiency.
I am in favour of the general idea of training for all sort of skills, abilities.... but if it seems like you could self-train or learn it in one afternoon then it seems a bit feeble for a real restriction. As per the players handbook and a good justification , it doesn't seem like something you would take months to learn as either your class "training" or racial background.
It is not realism that I am seeking but something with a full justification (a fantasy story derived logic) that makes sense- a lot of D&D has none of that or the justification runs counter to the mechanics. Those justifications make roleplaying easier.
Saying that's the way armor works is saying a wizard did it- why not just do that for everything. If they said armor structure is overcomplicated in D&D and nothing like you'd find in the real world and it is a magic spell that is cast on you to give you armor proficiency- both you and the armor fix all the ridiculous kinks then that would so much better. GMs and players can of course to have some other idea why things work but they shouldn't have to by default come up with all the ideas.
I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that I presented you with a sensible alternative to the current proficiency system, as well as a simpler houserule than the one you proposed.
I am still to see your opinion on it. I deeply respect your wish to have a more sensible AC system, I have been at odds with AC for the longest time back in the days, because I cannot really reconcile the fact that armor in D&D feels a lot like it makes you harder to hit, rather than giving you damage reduction (I know it is not exactly like that, but still felt that way to me).
Giving an abstract version of the armor/AC system is not a flaw of the game, it's a matter of suspension of disbelief, I think. Some people are ok with how it works, some are not, it is as simple as that, and neither is right or wrong.
...I have been at odds with AC for the longest time back in the days, because I cannot really reconcile the fact that armor in D&D feels a lot like it makes you harder to hit, rather than giving you damage reduction (I know it is not exactly like that, but still felt that way to me)....
At it's core, the original version of D&D was designed as small squad-based alternative to tabletop wargames - most wargames, even today, treat armor as a way of avoiding damage (c.f. armor saves).
...I have been at odds with AC for the longest time back in the days, because I cannot really reconcile the fact that armor in D&D feels a lot like it makes you harder to hit, rather than giving you damage reduction (I know it is not exactly like that, but still felt that way to me)....
At it's core, the original version of D&D was designed as small squad-based alternative to tabletop wargames - most wargames, even today, treat armor as a way of avoiding damage (c.f. armor saves).
Indeed, that is very much true. Wargaming is one of those hobbies I was interested into, but never really played (mostly due to the investment needed and my inability to paint decently). I am now at peace with the AC system of D&D, as I understood the reasons and history behind it, but there are still systems that, imho, can fit better the armor treatment I'd prefer (WHFRP 2ed, to name one). Still I very much enjoy D&D for its simplicity and approchability, and is currently the only TTRP I play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Its not really a mechanical concern, imho, its a story one. Do we really want wizards in full plate wandering around? No, the iconic wizard should be wearing a robe and wielding a staff like Gandalf. That's the crux of the issue. Its a mechanic to reflect story archetypes. Players generally want the mechanics to relfect, say, a Wu Xia warrior's aethetic, or a traveling priest, etc. At least, that's what I remember from when Mr Mearls was discussing the decision during the NEXT playtest.
OP, you want to be able to put everyone in heavy armor, for all intents and purposes. Fair enough. But make no mistake, that will have an effect on the aesthetics of the game, making it less evocative. Is this something that really matters? Is this something that's bothering your players? Will it make the game more fun (signs point to no, but ymmv)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
By eliminate, I mean effectively all classes effectively have all armor proficiencies so the concept is ignored. Perhaps with some armour combinations giving some skills or magic use disadvantage.
Armor proficiency is generally nonsense- well-fitted armor is not generally restrictive so it shouldn't make using skills worse and and there is no real way to train to overcome it in the case where it is restrictive like crouching. It is just thing to discourage magic users and rogues from wearing armour. Wearing armor for a long time is fatiguing anyway. So how to balance the classes with this restriction removed?
I get what you're saying, but I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish. Like many others systems in the game, armor proficiency is there for game balance, not realism. You are asking how to remove a game balance feature and then replace it with something that accomplishes the same thing. You would end up with something very similar, but called by a different name.
To keep it balanced you need to have the classes ending up with basically the same AC they have now. You could eliminate armor entirely and give class based AC bonuses to mirror the armor they would be expected to be wearing. Or let them wear armor but give class based AC penalties, but then it gets more complicated as wearing light armor might end up worse than being unarmored unless you have a graduated system of penalties based on type of armor.
I guess the real question is would it imbalance the game. How about remove the other armor restrictions like for monk and barbarian? To discourage tanking of magic user couldn't you just remove simple weapon proficiency- too busy doing magic to learn to use weapons well. Also reduce healing effects. Would that be enough to not change the character of the D&D?
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
Knight Errant says there is no training for doing skills in armor- you can't overcome its effects only develop your body to be stronger or have better constitution. The restrictive part of armour is wearing full body coverage and that it tires you not that it makes doing things much harder. Walking around in Dnd should give you ranks in exhaustion. I watch Skallagrim before and maybe briefly Knight Errant.
"This is why most knights had squires to carry around their armour and help them get into it, instead of walking around in it all day long." You totally undercut your argument- if any person had heavy armor proficiency (ie. if that existed) then knights would have it and still they didn't walk around it all day in armor. Knights had squires because they could- they were generally property owners or high prestige. Getting on armor is a pain but you could do it yourself. Carrying around armor is difficult because it is bulky and heavy but carrying lots of stuff and if I could have someone carry all the stuff around then I would.
Here is much better alternative which is limited by the D &D player handbook's primitive armor supplies and AC system e.g. full plate is full suit no choice about components and armor's AC stops you being hit.
All classes can wear all types of armor but leave the nominal statements of armor proficiency but it doesn't give disadvantage of skill checks and doesn't limited movement.
Instead wearing medium armor for 2 hours normal travel or 1 at high speed or 4 hours slow speed and halve those number for heavy armor, gives 10 tiring points.
For combat situations for medium armor, each round that you basically move or melee or range attack gives 1 tiring point per normal move 20-30 feet and 1 tiring point per attack. If you can move 30-40 feet (one more 10 feet increment) then 1 more tiring point. If you rage then one extra 1 tiring point. Double these numbers for heavy armor. For magic use (magic produces excessive heat that tires characters ), 1 tiring point for light armor, 2 tiring points for medium armor and 3 tiring points for heavy armor per round of casting/ concentration.
When you get to 10 tiring points then you have do a constitution check with DC 15 for no appropriate armor proficiency characters and DC15 for appropriate armor proficiency. On failure the character gains one rank of exhaustion.
That sounds like quite the bookkeeping for something that, if I got it right, would be intended to make things simpler...
Restrictions are there for a reason, and I can assure you that any armor will restrict your movements in one way or another, at different degrees. If you are not trained at wearing one, these restrictions are increased because you are not used at the way your body is constrained by the armor.
You want to take away the need for proficiency? Fair enough, you can definitely do that, but you should think of some simple way to still make it a choice to use one or the other, and the simpler way I can see without adding bookkeeping and an additional mechanic to the game would be simply to make each armor needing a base STR score.
Currently, only heavy armors have this kind of restriction, but I can tell you from personal experience that even a "simple" Chain Shirt needs a base level of strength to be worn effectively (aside from knowing how to properly don it and where to place the padding in order to make it more comfortable, but then we would be going back to proficiency, which is what you are trying to get rid of).
The STR prerequisite makes perfect sense and does not introduce anything that is not already in the system, it just expands it.
If a character does not have the needed STR score to use an armor, he can still use it, by all means, but then they will have some disadvantages similar to the ones already in the system and maybe changing the "no spells" bit and adding something else for casters, like the need for a concentration check when trying to cast a non-cantrip spell wearing an armor they do not have enough STR to wear comfortably (again, something that is already in the system, just used in a different situation).
Things do not need to be complicated, and if you want a more realistic experience you can do so in a way that still maintains balance (not many rogues or casters will have high STR, unless they really want to) but that is also taking advantage of what is already in the system itself.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I am not trying to make it simpler just more narratively sensible. They do a tally and sometimes do a roll. Is that a lot?
"aside from knowing how to properly don it and where to place the padding"
Your armorsmith could give you that level of training and most would.
I am of the opinion that anything adding things to tally or additional rolls on new stuff makes the system heavier in the long run, but I see your goal.
Still, would you consider my proposed modifications as a possible alternative? I'd really like to see what you think of it.
That does not automatically make the armor super-comfortable and unhindering, as it takes time to find the most comfortable positioning on your body, but again, that imho still goes into proficiency territory, which you are trying to get rid of.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Something I would like to drop in here - this is D&D, a fantasy game, and we already know that our laws of physics and reality don't work properly here.
Just think about the following:
I don't think it would be a stretch of the imagination to say, "Hey, this is how armor works in this world."
I just find it odd that we're all playing a game that requires us to use our imagination to conjure up this fantasy world, full of amazing things, and of all the things that people might get stuck on, the "realism" of armor and weapons seems to come up time and time again. :)
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I’m sorry, but what I am hearing from the OP is that he wants rogues to be able to sneaky-sneak, while climbing a wall, hidden, and wearing full plate.
Is that correct?
Not exactly, rather everyone suffers disadvantage when climbing and being sneaky without special preparation or hiding in a crouched position. A strong vital (high con) rogue can climb in full plate because he can avoid the exhaustion.
A sensible idea of armor proficiency is you have resistance to the exhausting effects of wearing armor and that you can use armor to close to maximum effectiveness. Using a somewhat sensible idea of AC as being the combined chance that the attack will either miss or hit a hard part of the armour where it has no effect, the armor proficiency (training) enables you more often than not put the armor into the enemy's attack so you gain +2 AC for the correct proficiency.
I am in favour of the general idea of training for all sort of skills, abilities.... but if it seems like you could self-train or learn it in one afternoon then it seems a bit feeble for a real restriction. As per the players handbook and a good justification , it doesn't seem like something you would take months to learn as either your class "training" or racial background.
It is not realism that I am seeking but something with a full justification (a fantasy story derived logic) that makes sense- a lot of D&D has none of that or the justification runs counter to the mechanics. Those justifications make roleplaying easier.
Saying that's the way armor works is saying a wizard did it- why not just do that for everything. If they said armor structure is overcomplicated in D&D and nothing like you'd find in the real world and it is a magic spell that is cast on you to give you armor proficiency- both you and the armor fix all the ridiculous kinks then that would so much better. GMs and players can of course to have some other idea why things work but they shouldn't have to by default come up with all the ideas.
One of the nice things about D&D is you can run your table with the homebrew rules you want. ,
That kind of says what is the point of having D&D when it fails to offer sensible stuff.
You think it fails to offer “sensible stuff”. I am perfectly fine with how it is.
I then would suggest you go and create your own RPG that will please everyone.
You don't like sensible. You don't like immersive. If they sell it to you, then you buy in to it.
I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that I presented you with a sensible alternative to the current proficiency system, as well as a simpler houserule than the one you proposed.
I am still to see your opinion on it. I deeply respect your wish to have a more sensible AC system, I have been at odds with AC for the longest time back in the days, because I cannot really reconcile the fact that armor in D&D feels a lot like it makes you harder to hit, rather than giving you damage reduction (I know it is not exactly like that, but still felt that way to me).
Giving an abstract version of the armor/AC system is not a flaw of the game, it's a matter of suspension of disbelief, I think. Some people are ok with how it works, some are not, it is as simple as that, and neither is right or wrong.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
At it's core, the original version of D&D was designed as small squad-based alternative to tabletop wargames - most wargames, even today, treat armor as a way of avoiding damage (c.f. armor saves).
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Indeed, that is very much true. Wargaming is one of those hobbies I was interested into, but never really played (mostly due to the investment needed and my inability to paint decently).
I am now at peace with the AC system of D&D, as I understood the reasons and history behind it, but there are still systems that, imho, can fit better the armor treatment I'd prefer (WHFRP 2ed, to name one).
Still I very much enjoy D&D for its simplicity and approchability, and is currently the only TTRP I play.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Its not really a mechanical concern, imho, its a story one. Do we really want wizards in full plate wandering around? No, the iconic wizard should be wearing a robe and wielding a staff like Gandalf. That's the crux of the issue. Its a mechanic to reflect story archetypes. Players generally want the mechanics to relfect, say, a Wu Xia warrior's aethetic, or a traveling priest, etc. At least, that's what I remember from when Mr Mearls was discussing the decision during the NEXT playtest.
OP, you want to be able to put everyone in heavy armor, for all intents and purposes. Fair enough. But make no mistake, that will have an effect on the aesthetics of the game, making it less evocative. Is this something that really matters? Is this something that's bothering your players? Will it make the game more fun (signs point to no, but ymmv)?