Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mstevenm76 Apr 16, 2010 8:09:52	Hello. I know I'm way behind the times but I'm just starting to play D&D 3.5. Most aspects of it seem really fleshed out and straight forward but some of us are practically at each others throats regarding encumbrance rules. For the most part the rules seem pretty straight forward as well except for attack penalties for medium and heavy loads. In second edition the penalties were crystal clear but 3.5 states that if the medium or heavy load check penalty of -3 and -6 respectively is less than the armor check penalty then the armor check is all that applies. Some of us are of the opinion that if the character is proficient with medium or heavy armor that they can also fight with medium and heavy loads loads normally without sustaining the -3 or -6 to attack rolls. Others of us say that certain characters are proficient with those armors because they train in them and get used to it but they don't train with 100+lbs strapped to their back, so, since they are hunched over trying to fight and keep this load stable that they should still be subject to the -3 and -6 attack penalty since no one is proficient with those types of loads. A feat can always be brewed to be able to fight so encumbered with no penalty. So, we're asked you, the gaming community. Should there be an attack penalty when fighting while under a medium or heavy load?
#2 salla Apr 16, 2010 10:02:21	No; you only suffer an attack roll while wearing armor with which you are not proficient.  Your load does not affect attack rolls.
#3 kuonji Apr 16, 2010 14:17:31	No; you only suffer an attack roll while wearing armor with which you are not proficient. Your load does not affect attack rolls.