Eliminate weapon and armor proficiencies

It just feels like it is an outdated mechanic that does not really need to exist.
On WEAPONS !
*Fighters can and will pretty much use any weapon available to them. As is already.
*Clerics will be limited in their weapon selection by the particular diety they worship.
*Rogues will be limited by class abilities that require 1handed weapons for things like flanking strikes and/or backstabs. (eg. no uber greatsword backstabs)
*Wizards will be limited because many spells may require a rod, staff or wand in order to channel the spell for casting.

On ARMOR !
*Fighters will wear the armor that best suits their needs. Generally the heavier the better.
*Clerics would be limited by the diety the worship. Since MOST dieties want thier devoted to be save they would probably be ok with heavy armors.
*Rogues will want non metal armors so they can move silently and be stealthy (metal amor tends to be shiny, not a good feature if your trying to avoid being seen).
*Wizards will avoid armor since it prevents their ability to cast spells. It interfears with their ability to channel arcane energies.


Other thoughts:
The time it takes to train learning how to use a staff is the same time that could be spent training to use any other weapon. Why arbitrairly restrict certain classes to using certain weapons. Its more logical that the classes would have strong weapon preferences based around how their class functions.

Learning to fight with light armor is not necessairly a pre-requisite for being trained to fight in heavy armor. Fighting in leather is a very different combat style than fighting in plate armor.

Most heavy armors were custom tailored to the wearer. They would allow a very free range of movement with little restriction. If the armor was restrictive than it would limit the wearers mobility possibly leading to their death. The whole Wizards somantic component thing is kinda moot. There are better ways to limiting what class wears what armor (as described above)

Characters can still spend feats to specialize in one particular weapon (or weapon type, or class of weapons)

Gandalf kicks some pretty serious rear with a sword for being a wizard.

outta thoughs at the momment, more to come! 
Gandalf is not a wizard.  He's a Cleric.  Especially the way spells are cast in Lord or The Rings.

And your post seems to pretty much still say armour proficiencies exist.  So I'm a little confused as to what you're saying. 
Gandalf is not a cleric, where did you get that ? He is one of the Maiar (lesser divinities) who served the Valar and belongs to the Istari (circle of wizards). He is definitely a wizard, his main casting domain being fire (wielder of the secret fire of Anor) as proven several times both in the Hobbit against Orcs and Wargs, and in the LotR against the Nazgul at Weathertop and later against the Balrog. He wears Narya the ring of fire.
Druid. 1e druid. Throws pinecones that catch fire. Uses birds and moths to send messages. Changes the river into stampeding horses. He's a druid.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

The 'blaster' wizard doesn't really exist in literature - or at least not a 'good guy'.
It's only a D&D trope because Gary & Dave needed an artillery analogue for Chainmail.
The 'blaster' wizard doesn't really exist in literature - or at least not a 'good guy'.
It's only a D&D trope because Gary & Dave needed an artillery analogue for Chainmail.


Along with the Cleric, the generalist Wizard is also a D&D only trope.  Most 'Eizards' in traditional fantasy tends to have a focus, like enchantments or conjurings.

And Gadalf isn't a wizard, he's a divine being with magical powers. 
Responding to the OP... you just listed out proficiencies to state we don't need proficiencies. Saying fighters can wear any armor, the heavier the better, and rogues tend to wear lighter armor is the same as the proficiencies except you leave open rogue's wearing plate... which makes little sense in DnD.

Now where I can find something to agree with is saying that proficiency with light armor does not need to be a prerequisite for gaining proficiency with heavy armor. Some issues with that are that a) for now it is a moot point as the only class not proficient with light armor is the wizard, who can't wear armor at all b) I have yet to see armor proficiency or weapon proficiency feats, they may not have them in this edition and c) if you can't figure out how to wear leather armor, how the heck can you figure out all the buckles and craziness that is full plate. Gaining proficiency with heavy armor would seem to give you proficiency with light armors, which is probably why the mechanic still persists as a prerequisite.
I know that, if I'm playing a fighter, and my heavy armor is taken from me when I'm thrown into the dungeon, then I don't want to suffer whatever penalty for (or be completely incapable of) wearing the light armor that I manage to liberate from the dungeon guard.

The metagame is not the game.

fyi, not all rogues stick to sneaking, I have for example played a rather successful rogue in Full Plate armor (it was made of mithril but still plate) and it was enchanted to be dark deep green just above the shade of black if I wanted to go sneaking about (although much slower since I had to pad up the joints and other more noisy part)... I tend to favor classes that I can go out of my way to bring it outside the "box" and make it more interesting
And that is my point.

Any class can wear any armor however there are consequences for doing so.
In the case of thieves generally speaking they want the mobility (heavy armor move is 25 and not 30) and metal armor tends to make noise, not good if you are trying to sneak around.  If many of their class abilities are based on movement or stealth then heavy armor prevents them from using those types of abilities effectively. Maybe they are going to face off in a conbat scenario where stealth is not an option and the thief wants armor that will provide maximum protection.   
 
Essentially its the same approach as when the made changed to the races (think it was from 2e to 3e) where instead of having bonuses and penalties they only made it so there were bonuses. (only here the penalties are shifted away from the type or armor itself and applies to class specific abilities and feats).
   
More options for players is not a bad thing.
And that is my point.

Any class can wear any armor however there are consequences for doing so.
In the case of thieves generally speaking they want the mobility (heavy armor move is 25 and not 30) and metal armor tends to make noise, not good if you are trying to sneak around.  If many of their class abilities are based on movement or stealth then heavy armor prevents them from using those types of abilities effectively. Maybe they are going to face off in a conbat scenario where stealth is not an option and the thief wants armor that will provide maximum protection.   
 
Essentially its the same approach as when the made changed to the races (think it was from 2e to 3e) where instead of having bonuses and penalties they only made it so there were bonuses. (only here the penalties are shifted away from the type or armor itself and applies to class specific abilities and feats).
   
More options for players is not a bad thing.




Unless 'traps' in character creation are considered a bad thing.


Carl

Sign In to post comments