The mechanics can discourage wizards from ever doing that without adding stuff that doesn't make much sense and isn't awesome. It is better to have a rules to carries on to all classes but actually favours some more than others due to inherent good abilities than some special add-on rules for some classes. You can make it socially unacceptable for wizards to wear armour.
An important question is which more awesome for a warrior or some other martial fighter (paladin)- (a) you have training with armor setup and it allows you to do skills etc. without problems or (a) you are a badass and close to expert armour "wielder" so you extra good at taking the stress when your armor steams up with all the heat from fighting and other heat producing combat (melee and magic) stuff so you don't suffer exhaustion and you can make your armor more effective so the swords hit the hard parts rather than you? If you say option (b) then you kind of can't have (a) and then you have to say the armor steam up mechanic happens with everyone.
I am happy for wizards and cleric and other magic classes to be awesome.
"The mechanics can discourage wizards from ever doing that without adding stuff that doesn't make much sense and isn't awesome."
Why eliminate one houserule if you're just going to effectively try to reproduce it with a different one? That's just too much work, and possibly will annoy players a bit.What does removing the armor proficiencies ADD to the game? Is it something that will make the game more fun? Or just address a minor pet peeve? It might not make sense to you, but it does to many others. This honestly comes across as a kind of "kill your darlings" situation.
While DMs can do whatever they want, house rules do contribute to player and game fatigue, so reducing the amount of house rules is highly recommended usually. If you say that there are other reasons for barbarians not to cover themselves in medium armor instead of heavy, or wizards/sorcerers free from using mage armor.... then what does this houserule do other than add paperwork that's unneeded? We get that this rule seems to bother your perspective of the game, but is it necessary?
Also, given your last line, I have to wonder if you would add in such a rule or setting. It seems like you don't want such a thing, so I'm not sure why its brought up.
"An important question is which more awesome for a warrior or some other martial fighter (paladin)..."
The part of situation (b) that deals with armor stress and making it more effective is covered by a feat, Heavy Armor Master. The other part, exhaustion and heat, have no bearing on being proficient in the correct armor, only if you're wearing it, as per Extreme Heat environment, Food and Water and Resting rules in the DMG and PHB, respectively. Therefore, your proposed house rule will have no bearing on situation b, rendering it a false choice.
"I am happy for wizards and cleric and other magic classes to be awesome."
Clerics already have armor proficiencies. Irregardless, you seem certain that effectively giving wizards such proficiencies makes them awesome? How so? Doesn't that make the warriors feel less awesome, since their accomplishments in training are diminished?
I have the impression you are taking everything that could currently be expressed with and attributed to armor proficiency and trying to make it apparent and jam it into the system with a new mechanic. That for me is the definition of unnecessary complication.
"Armor fatigue" and "proper armor use" are very easily attributed to the armor proficiency: you do not have proficiency? you cannot properly withstand the use and get the full benefits of an armor, with consequent drawbacks. You want to be able to use armor efficiently? You can multiclass, you can choose the appropriate Domain for clerics, you can take a talent, you can make it a downtime activity should your DM agree... I mean, there are a lot of things one could do instead of implementing a frankly bulky and overcomplicated (IMHO) mechanic.
What you are describing is an extremely simulationist mechanic, and while D&D has been a somewhat simulationist system in the past, now they veered more on the simplification, grouping stuff more and making everything lighter. If you really want something more simulationist, I believe you can find other systems that would suit you better without the need for you to try and come up with houserules and additional mechanics. Please notice I am not saying this in a conflictual tone, far from it, it just really seems to me that you are not ok with what D&D offers, and while me and everyone else, including the creators of the game, agree that any additional rule that make the game more fun is more than welcome, I honestly fail to see (much like Mephista) how this houserule would make the game more fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
The mechanics can discourage wizards from ever doing that without adding stuff that doesn't make much sense and isn't awesome. It is better to have a rules to carries on to all classes but actually favours some more than others due to inherent good abilities than some special add-on rules for some classes. You can make it socially unacceptable for wizards to wear armour. ... .... ...
I am happy for wizards and cleric and other magic classes to be awesome.
So, you want all classes to be the same? Did you know that wizards have spell slots and can cast powerful magic spells that do TONS of damage? Did you know that wizards have smaller HP pools and are more likely to be dropped in half the time of a melee class? I mean the HP system is unrealistic too. Better fix that. And spell slots... gonna need to replace that with some other mechanic. <have you considered playing warhammer 2e?>
I really do not understand what you are trying to do. I thought I did, and now I don't. I don't understand how a wizard wearing a bathrobe would be categorized as non-awesome. Stupid maybe, if there is literally zero drawback to wearing armor, but i'm pretty sure you aren't advocating a system that has ZERO drawbacks... So now you have a system where you need to balance the pros of being reliable in certain situations, with the drawback of well, you are wearing a bathrobe into combat. Do I have it right so far? But a wizard who can't RELIABLY cast his spells is decidedly LESS awesome than a wizard who has a couple of beefcake body-guards and who hides in the back slinging fireballs, assuming that your main problem is that wizards are cowards (because, bathrobes). So you make the wizard class more martial, less wizardy<seriously warhammer 2e?>... but not GOOD martial, just like okay, I'm harder to hit, and now my spells fizzle...
I could maintain this stream of consciousness ramble for a while... but since my point is that you need to define what an "awsome" wizard looks like relative to a normal 5e nuke in a bathrobe, and I don't have any idea what the GOAL of the change is, other than you heard a youtuber say "anyone can wear armor" and therefore you have a conceptual problem with the concept of AC, which, AC doesn't mean armor anyway... I mean it does... except when it means dex or stamina. Long story short, I recommend you change the acronym AC from "armor class" to HHC (hand to hand class.) There, now it doesn't represent the Armor that you are wearing, but your martial skill, problem solved.
How about make martial classes awesome without having silly special rules that aren't awesome for roleplaying. D&D should be about every class being awesome. Did you read my fix, it is strongly discouraging for magic users.
There are a great number of rules in D&D that aren't about enabling great role-playing but rather lazy balance attempts or just addon without any sense. Barbarians having unarmored defence based on dex and constitution and also having light and medium armour proficiency- just dropped in the class characteristics without justification is rubbish.
AC is so stupid and not about armour I know rather a bizarre hybrid of miss chance and some armor protection area. I don't intend to argue about AC itself.
How about make martial classes awesome without having silly special rules that aren't awesome for roleplaying. D&D should be about every class being awesome. Did you read my fix, it is strongly discouraging for magic users.
There are a great number of rules in D&D that aren't about enabling great role-playing but rather lazy balance attempts or just addon without any sense. Barbarians having unarmored defence based on dex and constitution and also having light and medium armour proficiency- just dropped in the class characteristics without justification is rubbish.
AC is so stupid and not about armour I know rather a bizarre hybrid of miss chance and some armor protection area. I don't intend to argue about AC itself.
Okay, so grappling, hand to hand, being neigh unhittable, battling 4 dudes at once isn't awesome? And a nuke in a bathrobe is apparently now too awsome? I think I'm the 5th person to more-or-less give you the same feedback, which is to define a clear goal. What are you trying to achieve?
Eliminate armor? No, that isn't it, because you are keeping armor and AC.
Effect game balance? You aren't arguing game balance, so... no?
Give players more options? Not that I can tell.
To arbitrarily punish all classes of players for doing what they want to do for the sake of "realism?" I want to say no, here. Really, I do. I'm not sure I can.
Every part of D&D mechanics should be focused on working as part of a roleplaying system by giving strong justification that sells it to players. My alternative will give players more roleplaying options if they think of themselves as an armored badass or some other concept.
"Okay, so grappling, hand to hand, being neigh unhittable, battling 4 dudes at once isn't awesome? " is only great for a specific instances- shouldn't the players being playing in character all the time and every mechanic that feedbacks to the some narrative fantasy does that whereas the armor proficiency as PHB is meh. If they had come up with some good explanation even it was nominally ridiculous would be better than one line.
Every part of D&D mechanics should be focused on working as part of a roleplaying system by giving strong justification that sells it to players. My alternative will give players more roleplaying options if they think of themselves as an armored badass or some other concept.
"Okay, so grappling, hand to hand, being neigh unhittable, battling 4 dudes at once isn't awesome? " is only great for a specific instances- shouldn't the players being playing in character all the time and every mechanic that feedbacks to the some narrative fantasy does that whereas the armor proficiency as PHB is meh. If they had come up with some good explanation even it was nominally ridiculous would be better than one line.
I am sorry, I keep failing to see how your proposed houserule would make things more fun or entertaining.
If someone wants to be even better than most other armor-users you have several feats to achieve that (namely Medium and Heavy Armor Master), which set the character apart from most other combatants. You say the current AC system does not have a "narrative" and doesn't improve the roleplaying experience, but let me ask you: why should it? While it is definitely true that being good at wearing armor is important, what kind of roleplaying options should it open up that the current system does not? I am genuinely asking, because you keep saying this, but I am obviously unable to see it the way you present it.
Also, how would your system relate to Mage Armor or alternative AC calculations like Unarmored Defense? Why would anyone in their right mind take up an armor if they only have drawbacks and additional bookkeeping when compared to using Unarmored Defense or taking up Mage Armor and be more DEX focused? It just wouldn't make much sense (to me at least), as your proposed houserule puts in place a mechanic that would make the system asymmetric, which is something that, while really interesting in a boardgame scenario, can be extremely frustrating in an RPG. An asymmetric system could work if it was a difference between PCs and NPCs, because there would be no direct confrontation on the rules governing PCs and the fact that the NPCs follow different rules is of no consequence to the internal balance of the party, since most often than not when this happens the NPCs "simply" have more streamlined rules.
I am really trying to offer a helping hand, but you seem hell-bent on taking any kind of comment or suggestion that is not what you propose (I am still waiting your comment on my proposition of making ALL armors need a minimum STR score to be used efficiently) and reply with the same thing over and over again, without really explaining, possibly with actual examples, how it would make things more interesting and fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Previous editions offered some sort of explanation why Wizards don't wear armor. From 2nd edition:
Wizards cannot wear any armor, for several reasons. Firstly, most spells require complicated gestures and odd posturings by the caster and armor restricts the wearer's ability to do these properly. Secondly, the wizard spent his youth (and will spend most of his life) learning arcane languages, poring through old books, and practicing his spells. This leaves no time for learning other things (like how to wear armor properly and use it effectively). There are even unfounded theories that claim the materials in most armors disrupt the delicate fabric of a spell as it gathers energy; the two cannot exist side by side in harmony.
I'm not saying that it's great - in fact, it's kinda horrible to read now, but does it make it better that there is an explanation and reason why, rather than just a rule that states wizards don't have proficiency with armor?
I think I actually prefer the 5th edition approach. :)
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)?
I think that is half the fun of having a very modifiable system like 5e. You don't have to stick with old ideas if you don't want to. Maybe someone is tired of the "old white wizard" approach and would prefer a War Mage that wears Heavy Armor and a Shield when they go into battle. I think they should be able to explore that without feeling like they are breaking something by not holding themselves to some perception of what a wizard is "suppose" to be. Its easy to work this in by giving a free feat to everyone at the beginning of the game. That way everyone feels a little more powerful and unique.
I think that is half the fun of having a very modifiable system like 5e. You don't have to stick with old ideas if you don't want to. Maybe someone is tired of the "old white wizard" approach and would prefer a War Mage that wears Heavy Armor and a Shield when they go into battle. I think they should be able to explore that without feeling like they are breaking something by not holding themselves to some perception of what a wizard is "suppose" to be. Its easy to work this in by giving a free feat to everyone at the beginning of the game. That way everyone feels a little more powerful and unique.
The default stereotypes exist because that's what's iconic, and 5e wanted to start off with the most iconic look, and surveys showed that was what was popular. If someone wants to create a single character that deviates from the norm, that's great. In fact, I'm 100% behind it. Hells, if a player came to me with the idea, I'd even be willing to sit down with them to make a unique subclass if they were really resistant to the idea of using feats or multiclassing.
But that's not what the discussion here, in this thread is about. Its about making a fundamental change to the setting for ALL characters, non-player and player alike, which has farther reaching ramifications. Even that would be fine, if the DM wanted to explore a setting where war mages march into war in full armor, and things like that. But the impression from cloa513chcomes across as less interested in exploring deviating from archetype as more as making a personal pet peeve into a house rule.
If you look at my signature below, you will see where I cut my roleplaying teeth (Hint, she was wearing a chainmail bikini and fighting an upright crocodile!) In that system, you had 7 different 'hit locations' with between 4 and 7 hps each (normal range). If you got hit by a weapon, the armour in that location would block a certain amount of damage (unless the attacker rolled a crit.)
The system was probably "more realistic" than D&D's AC variation, and it was certainly more random - if a peasant swung a 2 handed weapon at you, there was a chance you could be losing your head. As in chopped right off your shoulders!
Play that for a while and you begin to see the benefits of the D&D way. (And the drawbacks - I certainly agree that the AC system is far from perfect.)
Merp had a system where people in armour were easier to hit but took less damage. There was also a chance you would stumble over an imaginary, unseen, deceased turtle. Orcs were truly badass in Merp! Wizards were truly lame.
Play that for a while and you begin to see the benefits of the D&D way. (And the drawbacks - I certainly agree that the AC system is far from perfect.)
World of darkness.....you probably get the point, which is not that I have tried 'most every system ever (not true....but yeah, a lot!) Once I have feasted more heavily on D&D 5th, I am going to try a game that I bought on a humble bundle sale that has swords and guns and steampowered warmachines. Ah, I remember what it is called now! Why - because I love learning and trying out new systems.....but I always come back to D&D.
Yeah, I am a fanboy. Sue me!
If you want to tell great stories of heroism or brutal stories of true grit, D&D can drive them.
If you want to fight orcs and bears and zombies and dragons and .....D&D can do that too.
If you just want to change a rule because it annoys you - D&D encourages that. Just be sure that you have a clear goal for what you want to achieve, and a knowledge that people have been looking for that perfect game for 40+ years now.
It's like Stephen Stills wrote:
"Well, there's a rose in a fisted glove And the eagle flies with the dove And if you can't be with the one you love, honey Love the one you're with"
He also wrote:
"Do-do, do do, do do, do-do Do-do, do do, do do, do-do Do-do, do do, do do, do-do Do-do-do, do-do-do"
I think that is half the fun of having a very modifiable system like 5e. You don't have to stick with old ideas if you don't want to. Maybe someone is tired of the "old white wizard" approach and would prefer a War Mage that wears Heavy Armor and a Shield when they go into battle. I think they should be able to explore that without feeling like they are breaking something by not holding themselves to some perception of what a wizard is "suppose" to be. Its easy to work this in by giving a free feat to everyone at the beginning of the game. That way everyone feels a little more powerful and unique.
The default stereotypes exist because that's what's iconic, and 5e wanted to start off with the most iconic look, and surveys showed that was what was popular. If someone wants to create a single character that deviates from the norm, that's great. In fact, I'm 100% behind it. Hells, if a player came to me with the idea, I'd even be willing to sit down with them to make a unique subclass if they were really resistant to the idea of using feats or multiclassing.
But that's not what the discussion here, in this thread is about. Its about making a fundamental change to the setting for ALL characters, non-player and player alike, which has farther reaching ramifications. Even that would be fine, if the DM wanted to explore a setting where war mages march into war in full armor, and things like that. But the impression from cloa513ch comes across as less interested in exploring deviating from archetype as more as making a personal pet peeve into a house rule.
I was more responding to your comment that by adding Heavy Armor proficiency to all characters you are making the game less "evocative" which I thought was a bit of a stretch as you can create emotion with any character choice if you want. Granted that was not what the original thread was about but you specifically stated that the major problem with doing this was ruining the aesthetic of the game as you stated that Wizards are "suppose" to be one thing. You stated:
"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."
If playing DnD has taught me anything its that nothing is as its suppose to be. You begin to expect the unexpected and the sky becomes the limit. It's what makes the game great.
The point is to discuss the merits/demerits of the system OP presented in which you stated it is flawed because it does not hold to the way things are "suppose" to be. If you had argued that from a mechanical standpoint it was flawed because AC/HP are factored into the balance of the classes (which I agree with), I would understand. I do not agree with the idea that if you do not adhere to older standards that it is inherently flawed.
I was more responding to your comment that by adding Heavy Armor proficiency to all characters you are making the game less "evocative" which I thought was a bit of a stretch as you can create emotion with any character choice if you want. Granted that was not what the original thread was about but you specifically stated that the major problem with doing this was ruining the aesthetic of the game as you stated that Wizards are "suppose" to be one thing.
Ah, it appears my intent was not communicated properly, then; looking back, it seems that I used stronger words than appropriate, and typed from shifted perspectives without properly explaining what I was doing. Please allow me to clarify my statement. I was actually paraphrasing about what I remember from Mike Mearls said during the 5th edition playtest. In general, 5th edition was designed with such archetypes in mind because that's what the majority (via surveys) felt about the game. It was the most evocative to the greatest number of survey takers invovled with the playtest. So, when I said that "we want X," I was referring to the fan base's desires, though I failed to properly convey the context I spoke in. Of course, you're going to have individuals who vary from the norm, but I was speaking entirely about the reason behind the current rules, and why they exist. Its to create a certain aesthetic in the game, and changing the rules will change the aesthetic.
At no point was I intending on telling that someone was playing wrong, or they couldn't make a certain kind of character. I am a firm believer that, if you're going to change the rules, then a solid understanding of why rules are in place is good to have, as well as the effects of changing the rules. I was merely attempting to establish the reason for the baseline to exist, and the function it serves.
I was more responding to your comment that by adding Heavy Armor proficiency to all characters you are making the game less "evocative" which I thought was a bit of a stretch as you can create emotion with any character choice if you want. Granted that was not what the original thread was about but you specifically stated that the major problem with doing this was ruining the aesthetic of the game as you stated that Wizards are "suppose" to be one thing.
Ah, it appears my intent was not communicated properly, then; looking back, it seems that I used stronger words than appropriate, and typed from shifted perspectives without properly explaining what I was doing. Please allow me to clarify my statement. I was actually paraphrasing about what I remember from Mike Mearls said during the 5th edition playtest. In general, 5th edition was designed with such archetypes in mind because that's what the majority (via surveys) felt about the game. It was the most evocative to the greatest number of survey takers invovled with the playtest. So, when I said that "we want X," I was referring to the fan base's desires, though I failed to properly convey the context I spoke in. Of course, you're going to have individuals who vary from the norm, but I was speaking entirely about the reason behind the current rules, and why they exist. Its to create a certain aesthetic in the game, and changing the rules will change the aesthetic.
At no point was I intending on telling that someone was playing wrong, or they couldn't make a certain kind of character. I am a firm believer that, if you're going to change the rules, then a solid understanding of why rules are in place is good to have, as well as the effects of changing the rules. I was merely attempting to establish the reason for the baseline to exist, and the function it serves.
Fair enough. I can see your point when it comes to playtesting and how they wanted to be able to meet people's expectations. I sometimes forget they are a business too and need to sell a product to maintain themselves so they need to listen to their player base.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The mechanics can discourage wizards from ever doing that without adding stuff that doesn't make much sense and isn't awesome. It is better to have a rules to carries on to all classes but actually favours some more than others due to inherent good abilities than some special add-on rules for some classes. You can make it socially unacceptable for wizards to wear armour.
An important question is which more awesome for a warrior or some other martial fighter (paladin)- (a) you have training with armor setup and it allows you to do skills etc. without problems or (a) you are a badass and close to expert armour "wielder" so you extra good at taking the stress when your armor steams up with all the heat from fighting and other heat producing combat (melee and magic) stuff so you don't suffer exhaustion and you can make your armor more effective so the swords hit the hard parts rather than you? If you say option (b) then you kind of can't have (a) and then you have to say the armor steam up mechanic happens with everyone.
I am happy for wizards and cleric and other magic classes to be awesome.
"The mechanics can discourage wizards from ever doing that without adding stuff that doesn't make much sense and isn't awesome."
Why eliminate one houserule if you're just going to effectively try to reproduce it with a different one? That's just too much work, and possibly will annoy players a bit.What does removing the armor proficiencies ADD to the game? Is it something that will make the game more fun? Or just address a minor pet peeve? It might not make sense to you, but it does to many others. This honestly comes across as a kind of "kill your darlings" situation.
While DMs can do whatever they want, house rules do contribute to player and game fatigue, so reducing the amount of house rules is highly recommended usually. If you say that there are other reasons for barbarians not to cover themselves in medium armor instead of heavy, or wizards/sorcerers free from using mage armor.... then what does this houserule do other than add paperwork that's unneeded? We get that this rule seems to bother your perspective of the game, but is it necessary?
Also, given your last line, I have to wonder if you would add in such a rule or setting. It seems like you don't want such a thing, so I'm not sure why its brought up.
"An important question is which more awesome for a warrior or some other martial fighter (paladin)..."
The part of situation (b) that deals with armor stress and making it more effective is covered by a feat, Heavy Armor Master. The other part, exhaustion and heat, have no bearing on being proficient in the correct armor, only if you're wearing it, as per Extreme Heat environment, Food and Water and Resting rules in the DMG and PHB, respectively. Therefore, your proposed house rule will have no bearing on situation b, rendering it a false choice.
"I am happy for wizards and cleric and other magic classes to be awesome."
Clerics already have armor proficiencies. Irregardless, you seem certain that effectively giving wizards such proficiencies makes them awesome? How so? Doesn't that make the warriors feel less awesome, since their accomplishments in training are diminished?
I have the impression you are taking everything that could currently be expressed with and attributed to armor proficiency and trying to make it apparent and jam it into the system with a new mechanic. That for me is the definition of unnecessary complication.
"Armor fatigue" and "proper armor use" are very easily attributed to the armor proficiency: you do not have proficiency? you cannot properly withstand the use and get the full benefits of an armor, with consequent drawbacks. You want to be able to use armor efficiently? You can multiclass, you can choose the appropriate Domain for clerics, you can take a talent, you can make it a downtime activity should your DM agree... I mean, there are a lot of things one could do instead of implementing a frankly bulky and overcomplicated (IMHO) mechanic.
What you are describing is an extremely simulationist mechanic, and while D&D has been a somewhat simulationist system in the past, now they veered more on the simplification, grouping stuff more and making everything lighter.
If you really want something more simulationist, I believe you can find other systems that would suit you better without the need for you to try and come up with houserules and additional mechanics.
Please notice I am not saying this in a conflictual tone, far from it, it just really seems to me that you are not ok with what D&D offers, and while me and everyone else, including the creators of the game, agree that any additional rule that make the game more fun is more than welcome, I honestly fail to see (much like Mephista) how this houserule would make the game more fun.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
So, you want all classes to be the same? Did you know that wizards have spell slots and can cast powerful magic spells that do TONS of damage? Did you know that wizards have smaller HP pools and are more likely to be dropped in half the time of a melee class? I mean the HP system is unrealistic too. Better fix that. And spell slots... gonna need to replace that with some other mechanic. <have you considered playing warhammer 2e?>
I really do not understand what you are trying to do. I thought I did, and now I don't. I don't understand how a wizard wearing a bathrobe would be categorized as non-awesome. Stupid maybe, if there is literally zero drawback to wearing armor, but i'm pretty sure you aren't advocating a system that has ZERO drawbacks... So now you have a system where you need to balance the pros of being reliable in certain situations, with the drawback of well, you are wearing a bathrobe into combat. Do I have it right so far? But a wizard who can't RELIABLY cast his spells is decidedly LESS awesome than a wizard who has a couple of beefcake body-guards and who hides in the back slinging fireballs, assuming that your main problem is that wizards are cowards (because, bathrobes). So you make the wizard class more martial, less wizardy<seriously warhammer 2e?>... but not GOOD martial, just like okay, I'm harder to hit, and now my spells fizzle...
I could maintain this stream of consciousness ramble for a while... but since my point is that you need to define what an "awsome" wizard looks like relative to a normal 5e nuke in a bathrobe, and I don't have any idea what the GOAL of the change is, other than you heard a youtuber say "anyone can wear armor" and therefore you have a conceptual problem with the concept of AC, which, AC doesn't mean armor anyway... I mean it does... except when it means dex or stamina. Long story short, I recommend you change the acronym AC from "armor class" to HHC (hand to hand class.) There, now it doesn't represent the Armor that you are wearing, but your martial skill, problem solved.
How about make martial classes awesome without having silly special rules that aren't awesome for roleplaying. D&D should be about every class being awesome. Did you read my fix, it is strongly discouraging for magic users.
There are a great number of rules in D&D that aren't about enabling great role-playing but rather lazy balance attempts or just addon without any sense. Barbarians having unarmored defence based on dex and constitution and also having light and medium armour proficiency- just dropped in the class characteristics without justification is rubbish.
AC is so stupid and not about armour I know rather a bizarre hybrid of miss chance and some armor protection area. I don't intend to argue about AC itself.
Okay, so grappling, hand to hand, being neigh unhittable, battling 4 dudes at once isn't awesome? And a nuke in a bathrobe is apparently now too awsome? I think I'm the 5th person to more-or-less give you the same feedback, which is to define a clear goal. What are you trying to achieve?
Eliminate armor? No, that isn't it, because you are keeping armor and AC.
Effect game balance? You aren't arguing game balance, so... no?
Give players more options? Not that I can tell.
To arbitrarily punish all classes of players for doing what they want to do for the sake of "realism?" I want to say no, here. Really, I do. I'm not sure I can.
Every part of D&D mechanics should be focused on working as part of a roleplaying system by giving strong justification that sells it to players. My alternative will give players more roleplaying options if they think of themselves as an armored badass or some other concept.
"Okay, so grappling, hand to hand, being neigh unhittable, battling 4 dudes at once isn't awesome? " is only great for a specific instances- shouldn't the players being playing in character all the time and every mechanic that feedbacks to the some narrative fantasy does that whereas the armor proficiency as PHB is meh. If they had come up with some good explanation even it was nominally ridiculous would be better than one line.
I am sorry, I keep failing to see how your proposed houserule would make things more fun or entertaining.
If someone wants to be even better than most other armor-users you have several feats to achieve that (namely Medium and Heavy Armor Master), which set the character apart from most other combatants.
You say the current AC system does not have a "narrative" and doesn't improve the roleplaying experience, but let me ask you: why should it?
While it is definitely true that being good at wearing armor is important, what kind of roleplaying options should it open up that the current system does not?
I am genuinely asking, because you keep saying this, but I am obviously unable to see it the way you present it.
Also, how would your system relate to Mage Armor or alternative AC calculations like Unarmored Defense? Why would anyone in their right mind take up an armor if they only have drawbacks and additional bookkeeping when compared to using Unarmored Defense or taking up Mage Armor and be more DEX focused? It just wouldn't make much sense (to me at least), as your proposed houserule puts in place a mechanic that would make the system asymmetric, which is something that, while really interesting in a boardgame scenario, can be extremely frustrating in an RPG.
An asymmetric system could work if it was a difference between PCs and NPCs, because there would be no direct confrontation on the rules governing PCs and the fact that the NPCs follow different rules is of no consequence to the internal balance of the party, since most often than not when this happens the NPCs "simply" have more streamlined rules.
I am really trying to offer a helping hand, but you seem hell-bent on taking any kind of comment or suggestion that is not what you propose (I am still waiting your comment on my proposition of making ALL armors need a minimum STR score to be used efficiently) and reply with the same thing over and over again, without really explaining, possibly with actual examples, how it would make things more interesting and fun.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Previous editions offered some sort of explanation why Wizards don't wear armor. From 2nd edition:
I'm not saying that it's great - in fact, it's kinda horrible to read now, but does it make it better that there is an explanation and reason why, rather than just a rule that states wizards don't have proficiency with armor?
I think I actually prefer the 5th edition approach. :)
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 think that is half the fun of having a very modifiable system like 5e. You don't have to stick with old ideas if you don't want to. Maybe someone is tired of the "old white wizard" approach and would prefer a War Mage that wears Heavy Armor and a Shield when they go into battle. I think they should be able to explore that without feeling like they are breaking something by not holding themselves to some perception of what a wizard is "suppose" to be. Its easy to work this in by giving a free feat to everyone at the beginning of the game. That way everyone feels a little more powerful and unique.
The default stereotypes exist because that's what's iconic, and 5e wanted to start off with the most iconic look, and surveys showed that was what was popular. If someone wants to create a single character that deviates from the norm, that's great. In fact, I'm 100% behind it. Hells, if a player came to me with the idea, I'd even be willing to sit down with them to make a unique subclass if they were really resistant to the idea of using feats or multiclassing.
But that's not what the discussion here, in this thread is about. Its about making a fundamental change to the setting for ALL characters, non-player and player alike, which has farther reaching ramifications. Even that would be fine, if the DM wanted to explore a setting where war mages march into war in full armor, and things like that. But the impression from cloa513ch comes across as less interested in exploring deviating from archetype as more as making a personal pet peeve into a house rule.
If you look at my signature below, you will see where I cut my roleplaying teeth (Hint, she was wearing a chainmail bikini and fighting an upright crocodile!) In that system, you had 7 different 'hit locations' with between 4 and 7 hps each (normal range). If you got hit by a weapon, the armour in that location would block a certain amount of damage (unless the attacker rolled a crit.)
The system was probably "more realistic" than D&D's AC variation, and it was certainly more random - if a peasant swung a 2 handed weapon at you, there was a chance you could be losing your head. As in chopped right off your shoulders!
Play that for a while and you begin to see the benefits of the D&D way. (And the drawbacks - I certainly agree that the AC system is far from perfect.)
Merp had a system where people in armour were easier to hit but took less damage. There was also a chance you would stumble over an imaginary, unseen, deceased turtle. Orcs were truly badass in Merp! Wizards were truly lame.
Play that for a while and you begin to see the benefits of the D&D way. (And the drawbacks - I certainly agree that the AC system is far from perfect.)
World of darkness.....you probably get the point, which is not that I have tried 'most every system ever (not true....but yeah, a lot!)
Once I have feasted more heavily on D&D 5th, I am going to try a game that I bought on a humble bundle sale that has swords and guns and steampowered warmachines. Ah, I remember what it is called now! Why - because I love learning and trying out new systems.....but I always come back to D&D.
Yeah, I am a fanboy.
Sue me!
If you want to tell great stories of heroism or brutal stories of true grit, D&D can drive them.
If you want to fight orcs and bears and zombies and dragons and .....D&D can do that too.
If you just want to change a rule because it annoys you - D&D encourages that.
Just be sure that you have a clear goal for what you want to achieve, and a knowledge that people have been looking for that perfect game for 40+ years now.
It's like Stephen Stills wrote:
"Well, there's a rose in a fisted glove
And the eagle flies with the dove
And if you can't be with the one you love, honey
Love the one you're with"
He also wrote:
"Do-do, do do, do do, do-do
Do-do, do do, do do, do-do
Do-do, do do, do do, do-do
Do-do-do, do-do-do"
Which I think is equally sensible advice.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I was more responding to your comment that by adding Heavy Armor proficiency to all characters you are making the game less "evocative" which I thought was a bit of a stretch as you can create emotion with any character choice if you want. Granted that was not what the original thread was about but you specifically stated that the major problem with doing this was ruining the aesthetic of the game as you stated that Wizards are "suppose" to be one thing. You stated:
"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."
If playing DnD has taught me anything its that nothing is as its suppose to be. You begin to expect the unexpected and the sky becomes the limit. It's what makes the game great.
The point is to discuss the merits/demerits of the system OP presented in which you stated it is flawed because it does not hold to the way things are "suppose" to be. If you had argued that from a mechanical standpoint it was flawed because AC/HP are factored into the balance of the classes (which I agree with), I would understand. I do not agree with the idea that if you do not adhere to older standards that it is inherently flawed.
Ah, it appears my intent was not communicated properly, then; looking back, it seems that I used stronger words than appropriate, and typed from shifted perspectives without properly explaining what I was doing. Please allow me to clarify my statement. I was actually paraphrasing about what I remember from Mike Mearls said during the 5th edition playtest. In general, 5th edition was designed with such archetypes in mind because that's what the majority (via surveys) felt about the game. It was the most evocative to the greatest number of survey takers invovled with the playtest. So, when I said that "we want X," I was referring to the fan base's desires, though I failed to properly convey the context I spoke in. Of course, you're going to have individuals who vary from the norm, but I was speaking entirely about the reason behind the current rules, and why they exist. Its to create a certain aesthetic in the game, and changing the rules will change the aesthetic.
At no point was I intending on telling that someone was playing wrong, or they couldn't make a certain kind of character. I am a firm believer that, if you're going to change the rules, then a solid understanding of why rules are in place is good to have, as well as the effects of changing the rules. I was merely attempting to establish the reason for the baseline to exist, and the function it serves.
Fair enough. I can see your point when it comes to playtesting and how they wanted to be able to meet people's expectations. I sometimes forget they are a business too and need to sell a product to maintain themselves so they need to listen to their player base.