Armor Proficiency [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor Proficiency [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Mandarbgrim
04-01-05, 08:40 PM This is a really basic question..but I haven't ever read it anywhere. What happens when a character wears armor that he isn't actually proficient with.. It is rather hard to say he just "can't wear it at all", so..what is the effect of not being able to wear armor effectively, and where is this located? I just sifted through the equipment section of the PHB and got nothing.
Marros
04-01-05, 08:43 PM Its hard to find, but I remember it. When you wear armor you aren't rpoficient with, you take its check penalty to Attack Rolls and all skils that involve movement, including Ride. (As opposed to only penalizing certain skills).

IMO that seems like way too minor of a penalty, but I'm not hear to discuss rule changes. Just telling you what the book says.
Borris
04-01-05, 09:03 PM Marros is correct. Check the armor proficiency feats in the PHB, page 89.
Mandarbgrim
04-01-05, 09:56 PM Ah, I was wondering why the Psion starting package included leather armor. hmmm..I suppose it wouldn't matter much to him that he was taking that armor check penalty.
Inigo Carmine
04-01-05, 10:46 PM IMO that seems like way too minor of a penalty, but I'm not hear to discuss rule changes. Just telling you what the book says.

I think it's fine that way. in core rules, the only 3 classes without any sort of armor proficiency are wizards, sorcerers and monks. Wiz/sorc are further discouraged from wearing armor because of the arcane spell failure chance. Monks are discouraged from wearing armor because they lose almost every ability they have except for higher unarmed damage if they don armor.

Bards are discouraged from wearing medium+ armor because they start taking spell failure, and a hefty attack penalty (though I've never known many bards that made many attack rolls). Rangers lose their virtual feats, and don't really want that check penalty to attacks (they should be making attack rolls almost every round in combat). Rogues are attack roll heavy and the most skill heavy class in the game. They want the check penalty as small as possible, and don't want the attack penalty either.

Barbarians lose their increased speed in heavy armor, and also don't want that hefty attack penalty. Druids can't wear metallic armor anyways without getting big penalties.

There are other reasons not to wear armor you're non-proficient with in addition to attack penalties, though that is often enough of a deterrent imo for the weapon based (non spellcaster) classes.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mandarbgrim 04-01-05, 08:40 PM	This is a really basic question..but I haven't ever read it anywhere. What happens when a character wears armor that he isn't actually proficient with.. It is rather hard to say he just "can't wear it at all", so..what is the effect of not being able to wear armor effectively, and where is this located? I just sifted through the equipment section of the PHB and got nothing.
Marros 04-01-05, 08:43 PM	Its hard to find, but I remember it. When you wear armor you aren't rpoficient with, you take its check penalty to Attack Rolls and all skils that involve movement, including Ride. (As opposed to only penalizing certain skills). IMO that seems like way too minor of a penalty, but I'm not hear to discuss rule changes. Just telling you what the book says.
Borris 04-01-05, 09:03 PM	Marros is correct. Check the armor proficiency feats in the PHB, page 89.
Mandarbgrim 04-01-05, 09:56 PM	Ah, I was wondering why the Psion starting package included leather armor. hmmm..I suppose it wouldn't matter much to him that he was taking that armor check penalty.
Inigo Carmine 04-01-05, 10:46 PM	IMO that seems like way too minor of a penalty, but I'm not hear to discuss rule changes. Just telling you what the book says. I think it's fine that way. in core rules, the only 3 classes without any sort of armor proficiency are wizards, sorcerers and monks. Wiz/sorc are further discouraged from wearing armor because of the arcane spell failure chance. Monks are discouraged from wearing armor because they lose almost every ability they have except for higher unarmed damage if they don armor. Bards are discouraged from wearing medium+ armor because they start taking spell failure, and a hefty attack penalty (though I've never known many bards that made many attack rolls). Rangers lose their virtual feats, and don't really want that check penalty to attacks (they should be making attack rolls almost every round in combat). Rogues are attack roll heavy and the most skill heavy class in the game. They want the check penalty as small as possible, and don't want the attack penalty either. Barbarians lose their increased speed in heavy armor, and also don't want that hefty attack penalty. Druids can't wear metallic armor anyways without getting big penalties. There are other reasons not to wear armor you're non-proficient with in addition to attack penalties, though that is often enough of a deterrent imo for the weapon based (non spellcaster) classes.