Proficiencies in Armor?

Remove all ads!

I was Just reading one of the previous post about armor. And as far as I could decipher one of the key elements people noted was that it takes time learning to maneuver in an armor.
This made me ponder about the following


"could this mean that one has to spend proficiencies in armor as well as in weapons?? That wouldn't be difficult to implement in the game and would have a great sense or realism..."

Do you Guys/girls have any comments, before I throw the idea on my poor P&P players?

 

I am not so sure. The basic idea is grewat but think about it this way.
A man may never be good with a sword but he will always build up the strength to walk in a suit of armor. to wear armor does not really need you to be exellent at it. it is made so that one may wear it with comfort.
if there were proficiency points for wearing suits of armor made for different species then i would understand better.

i think it counts more on your characters strength and dexterity when you think about it. however i would not in any way object to this being implemented in the game.

 

I should have been more specific. I am sorry.
I took it as a natural conclusion that theese proficiency points should be gained and distributed on different types of armor.
An example:

A fighter who is the peak of battles may get 4 ponts to distribute in his armor-chart (just as with weapons) I choose to put the in chainmail which then reflects the PC as he has learned to maneuver in his Chainmail and knows it strenght/weaknesses against different weapon-types. He knows how to twist and turn to minimize the amounts of direct hits on him... Just a thought
It cold be made more expensive (cost 2 proficiency-slots) to advance in the heavier armors, As they may be more difficult to learn to maneuver in, next to a
leather/chain mail.

 

I think it could be interesting, particularly if heavier types had a dex. penalty. then instead of just saying thieves couldn't wear plate, it would be impractical. Seems like a good idea though. Only problem might be that fighters start off by having to specialise in leather armour as its all they can afford, and then when they can afford plate they clunk about and bump into things.

[This message has been edited by Ironbeard (edited May 21, 2001).]

 

If i wasn't so used to a DM in PnP who takes sadistic glee in killing off the players i would be pissed off at you and probably want to smack you for what you're gonna but your players through.

But since my DM takes pleasure in pitting us against the oddities of D&D(such as gargantuans and the tarasque) i can't complain.

 

Yes It is a though world out there Lots of hard decisions to make. Only the best of the of the few and the proud survive.
I like Your Idea with removing the limitations and applying dex-penalties.


Perhaps mages could get one proficiency each 10th level, starting at level ten.
Heavier armors still have strenght requirements. so a strong mage who has been adventuring with warriors for ages (level 10) could slip into a full-plate when he is in dire-straits. It a cruel world and if that meant my sorceror should slip into a tin-can to survive. He would do it.

 

I don't think you should make a slot for every kind of armour, but just one slot called armour! This is of course from a gaming point of view. Another rule could be, that the players get a penalty for using an armour they are not accustomed. This means everytime they change armour, not just type. Some warriors gets a personal relationship with their armour, (and weapon) and as such, even the slightest change in these would make the wearer (wielder) uncomfortable.

Regarding weapons, some people considered their weapons as a family heirloom. I don't think it goes like this: I have this old longsword, which I have been using the last 20 years. I know this weapon, but I just have to discard it, so that I can use this shiny new blade, I've just knicked of that dead thief.....

Hope you get the point.

 

i can now see your point Nobleman and have respect for as i understand it is indeed a good idea.

 

I get the point that Armor is actually spelled Armour. I must be loosing my touch. You think that there should be only one slot for armour. Personally I dont like the idea. It would resemble the idea that there was only one proficiency in weapons. No matter which one that is. A dagger or mace. It didn't matter. Come on it wouldn't be that much of a problem disributing those extra proficiency-points.would it It would also give a more unique PC from session to session.

Talking about Unique.Grovflab(still smile at that name) You mentioned that, getting new weapons should apply a penalty when you dropped You old heirloom.
This gave me a new idea which I'll make a new post about. Just feeling rather inventive tonight

 

What you are talking about has pretty much been done with the 3E rules. Armour proficiency is a feat and the heavier your armour the higher the penalty to certain skills.You have to start at light armour and work your way up to medium and heavy.

 

Ohhhhh Capt. Tripps
That makes me happy to hear. A new feature that put emphasis on something else than weapons. And straight from our Glorious makers at 3rd edition