Why is it that armor and shield proficiency differs from all other proficiency use in 5e?

The standard rule is that having proficiency  with X (and X can be weapons, tools, skills, or saves) makes you better with it, but that there is no penalty for non-proficiency. Additionally, as you grow in experience and your proficiency bonus increases, you get better with X.

With armor and shields, neither of these are true. A Fighter 20 is far more skilled with a weapon than a Fighter 1, but both are exactly the same in their ability to use armor and shields. Is this just because of the way they use hit points to inflate staying power and that somehow translates to superior use of armor/shields (even though it isn't really tied to armor use)?

Is there a good house rule for rewriting armor and shield proficiency to use the proficiency bonus and have them work like weapons and the rest do?

I think there's a couple of feats you can take to make armor proficiency better but then you're having to spend a feat.

Right off the top of my head you could add a Block Reaction if you are proficient in Shields.  +AC equal to your Prof Bonus.

You could maybe do something similar with armor.  Deflect as a Reaction add +AC equal to Prof bonus.

These require you to decide whether and when to spend your Reaction so there's some gameplay involved.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 24, 2021, 05:52:38 PM
Why is it that armor and shield proficiency differs from all other proficiency use in 5e?

The standard rule is that having proficiency  with X (and X can be weapons, tools, skills, or saves) makes you better with it, but that there is no penalty for non-proficiency. Additionally, as you grow in experience and your proficiency bonus increases, you get better with X.

With armor and shields, neither of these are true. A Fighter 20 is far more skilled with a weapon than a Fighter 1, but both are exactly the same in their ability to use armor and shields. Is this just because of the way they use hit points to inflate staying power and that somehow translates to superior use of armor/shields (even though it isn't really tied to armor use)?

Well, you answered it; offensively, you get a bonus to your attacks, but defensively you get more HP.

Also, in old editions it was almost the same; armor would give you a hard time when casting spells, etc. You'd get an attack bonus but no defense bonus.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 24, 2021, 05:52:38 PM
Is there a good house rule for rewriting armor and shield proficiency to use the proficiency bonus and have them work like weapons and the rest do?

Well... you could, but considering the HP inflation, combined with some AC inflation, would make combat last forever.

Maybe you could do something similar using HALF proficiency. Off the top of my head, start with AC 11/13/15 armor (light/medium/heavy) and add half prof if you're proficient.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 24, 2021, 05:52:38 PM
Why is it that armor and shield proficiency differs from all other proficiency use in 5e?
....
Is there a good house rule for rewriting armor and shield proficiency to use the proficiency bonus and have them work like weapons and the rest do?

One of my peeves with 5e... What does the "proficiency" do?

Skills? Yup add proficiency bonus! But skills are not proficiencies...
Skill Specializations = not really. Some classes can get 'expertise' but only twice in 20 levels. No! Fighters cannot get expertise in a weapon!
Have to be proficient in the Armor you want to wear, but proficiency bonus does nothing.
With weapons you can add your proficiency bonus! But it is both weapons specific and two categories: simple and martial, so all fighters and barbarians are equally proficient! Yay equality!
Tools? Yup, add bonus. But it is tool specific - no categories. Suck it tool users!
Saves! Yes, add bonus. How are saves related to skills or weapons or "tools"? They're not! Who cares! Proficiency for everything!

And most of this is all locked in right at level 1.

My BIG gripe with 5e... You are basically on advancement lockdown by level 3.

And most of the cool class abilities that would have been great to have when fighting those orcs at level 5, you only get when you hit your teens.

Except now in your teen levels they are really not awesome, they are just necessary because you need them to deflate that big bag of HP CR threat that scaled up with you in levels...

Oh back on topic:

No Idea dude. I got nothing...

Other that if I was in charge of 6e I would rethink what proficiency's do entirely.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 24, 2021, 05:52:38 PM
Is there a good house rule for rewriting armor and shield proficiency to use the proficiency bonus and have them work like weapons and the rest do?

You're welcome to try whatever you like, but I feel that trying to make all skills / proficiencies work exactly the same way is necessarily a good idea. Armor isn't the same as weapons, and trying to make them work the same mechanically may result in mechanics that are flavorless. As you point out, increased skill in defending is already handled by increasing hit points.

I'd ask more - is there a way to make armor and shield proficiency more interesting and fun to play? I don't have any great ideas offhand. Perhaps higher-level fighters could have even lesser penalties due to armor, but realistically, heavy armor should always be a hindrance.

Even when hit points are considered, there should be room for armor class to improve too. It's not like Fighters only improve their attack bonus. They also increase their damage values and number of attacks as they level up (though neither are specifically tied to proficiency bonus).

Well, if you want proficiency involved, the first thing to do is look at how proficiency interacts with the other static values it applies to; i.e. spell save DC's.

That formula is 8 + stat + proficiency, which means you start with 10+stat and slowly get to 14+stat... so a maximum of 19 without magic.

I'd suggest a reasonable place to start is that AC equals 8 + dex (limited by armor) + armor (its current value -10) + proficiency bonus. This could also be simplified to reducing the armor values by 2 across the board, but then adding the proficiency bonus.

This basically gives you the same sort of curve that saving throws have in terms of hitting and being hit, but it will skew higher level fights towards the longer side as a result. My suggestion there would be an across-the-board hit point reduction for anyone you're applying this system to.

Left unchanged it would result in higher level players being hit 20% less often (so from about 50% to 30%... or basically a 40% increase in survivability) so if you wanted to keep the risks about the same you'd need a fairly drastic reduction; say Con mod to hp is only half the bonus (+0/HD for 10-13, +1/HD for 14-17 and +2/HD for 18-20).

But frankly, it's way more trouble than it's worth. By the time you fix that and all the other things you think need to be tweaked you may as well have just started writing your own system from the ground up that does exactly what you want it to.

Crazy idea that no one will like (including me ) but will make such proficiency scale in usefulness and fit into the rest of the system:

1. Wearing armor gives you bonus "temporary" hit points equal to the AC of the armor, which resets after every fight.  As with all temporary hit points, it always comes off first, and can't be restored with the typical healing magic.

2. If you are proficient in armor, you get +1 hit point per character level for wearing armor.  Or if you really don't mind the inflation, +1/+2/+3 per level for light/medium/heavy, respectively.

3. Shields do more or less the same thing, which allows the sword and board character to double-dip.   

4. Optionally, you can narrow the things to which these temporary hit points apply--perhaps only weapon attacks or other attacks that might as well be (e.g. spells that have a physical component), but be prepared to make a lot of rulings and deal with edge cases.  Or you could just let the GM rule on the obvious, "no way in hell that helps you in this situation" and see what happens. 

5. Optionally, if you want to apply a cost to restoring the temporary hit points, make it contingent on regular maintenance with a cost.  Given that in 5E the economy is borked beyond usefulness, I don't see the point without a lot of other adjustments to said economy but whatever.  Might be easier to merely say that if you get hit with a critical hit that the armor protects against, it doesn't have temporary hit points anymore until you get it repaired by a skilled smith.

Note that whether your reaction to this is "No" or "Hell No!" probably correlates very strongly to your vision of simulating process or producing reasonable outcomes.   The process described doubles down on the "Armor as AC" aspect which is so counter-intuitive to so many players but within certain constraints does quickly produce reasonable outcomes.

   Armor proficiency should allow for an increase in movement speed while wearing armor.   Maybe add +1 to armored movement along with the proficiency.  Historically Armor did not really slow down a very experienced and strong wearer, it tired them out due to lack of a means to lose heat while wearing it.   If its weight is not enough to encumber the wearer, allow them to move faster at higher levels while wearing it.   

      For a shield, I think dungeons and dragons does some screwy stuff with shields.  Historically we did not see people duel wielding with two swords typically because the Shield was the other weapon to duel wield with.  I much prefer how Gurps handles shields.  It makes  a shield bearer not just a bit better at defending themselves, but a GREAT deal better at defending themselves.  Maybe a proficiency bonus worked in when shield bashing or attempting to knock someone down, since that mechanic is already impractical and ahistorical.  The Romans Bashed FIRST then stabbed the belly, not as in D&D where you MUST attack first then attack with the shield because of muh balance.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 24, 2021, 05:52:38 PM
Why is it that armor and shield proficiency differs from all other proficiency use in 5e?

While there is skills in using a shield there is no skill in using Armor for it's protective value. The skill in Armor is about maintaining and properly wearing it. Once mastered there no "levels" of improvement to be had. Hence an all or nothing proficiency makes sense for Armor as it reflects how it works in life.

As for Shields, you could factor in skill as it is not passive like armor is. I recommend 1+half your proficiency bonus in lieu of the automatic +2 bonus. Keep in mind bounded accuracy due to a fighter's armor class starts climbing past 20.

If you are proficient in the shield. Furthermore I recommend allowing one to attack with the shield as a bonus action similar to off hand weapons. And as an attack action allow an attempt to knock down one's opponent which is a part of the historical fighting techniques.

Quote from: estar on June 25, 2021, 09:04:13 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 24, 2021, 05:52:38 PM
Why is it that armor and shield proficiency differs from all other proficiency use in 5e?

While there is skills in using a shield there is no skill in using Armor for it's protective value. The skill in Armor is about maintaining and properly wearing it. Once mastered there no "levels" of improvement to be had. Hence an all or nothing proficiency makes sense for Armor as it reflects how it works in life.

As for Shields, you could factor in skill as it is not passive like armor is. I recommend 1+half your proficiency bonus in lieu of the automatic +2 bonus. Keep in mind bounded accuracy due to a fighter's armor class starts climbing past 20.

If you are proficient in the shield. Furthermore I recommend allowing one to attack with the shield as a bonus action similar to off hand weapons. And as an attack action allow an attempt to knock down one's opponent which is a part of the historical fighting techniques.

   I agree, I think you have to take a feat to do that though (with the shield) and it must be done as a bonus action, meaning you can knock down an opponent (current D&D this is only a problem until the target has their turn and they are back on their feet like a cat) after you take your normal attack action, thus the shield bearer gets no attack at advantage against the down opponent, he can only set up team mates.   That IMO is just arbitrary.

Quote from: jhkim on June 24, 2021, 07:33:58 PM
I'd ask more - is there a way to make armor and shield proficiency more interesting and fun to play? I don't have any great ideas offhand. Perhaps higher-level fighters could have even lesser penalties due to armor, but realistically, heavy armor should always be a hindrance.

Armor is armor, the tradeoff for D&D is protection versus mobility and stealth. But where it gets interesting is different weapons work better against certain armor. By introducing that then armor gets more interesting. To be clear I don't mean adding a mind numbing Weapons versus AC chart. I will show example below.

Adding this allows the core rules  to adapt some of the historical background of the different armor types. Not all cultures use all types of armor even if they were equivalent in technological levels. Armor types went in and out of fashion as a result of the weapons being used.

Mace,13d/ea, 5.0/lbs.
Damage: 1d6
This weapon is between 24 to 36 inches long and has a ball of metal affixed to one end. It gets +1 to hit versus opponents wearing chainmail or gelatinous creatures like ochre jellies or black puddings.

Hammer, war; 8d/ea; 3.5/lbs.
Damage: 1d4+1
The spread of plate armor in the last few centuries has seen the adoption of the war hammer as a weapon. This version is designed to be used by one hand. It is 18 to 24 inches long, with a hammer shaped lump of metal affixed to one end. It gets +1 to hit when used against plate armor and creatures with natural plate like armor. It is usable in the off-hand when dual wielding.

As for Shields sure this is what I do with my Majestic Fantasy RPG


SHIELDS
Shield Slam: After making a successful attack, the target needs to make a saving throw at an advantage or be knocked prone to the ground. The target has to spend a full round getting up. Anybody hitting a prone character has advantage for their attack roll. Fighting from a prone position result in a disadvantaged attack roll for all weapons except a crossbow.

Shield Parry: A shield may be sacrificed to negate one hit. The shield is destroyed but no damage is suffered by the user. A magical shield will lose one +1 bonus per sacrifice. (a +1 shield can negate two hits before being destroyed).

Opponents: The shield bonus is only usable against this number of attackers. For example a defender using a buckler will only gain it's +1 AC bonus against one attacker.

In 5e, I would make the shield slam a bonus action as getting up from a prone position is a trivial consequence. The tactic would be to make the Shield Slam first if successful the target is now prone and you can make a regular attack at advantage.

For those interested I have a free PDF here.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Equipment%20Rev%202.pdf

In D&D you just wear armour and get a benefit from it. Same for weapons really in 5e. You get no benefit from proficiency itself. In this case it means more or less "Can use this stuff without penalty".

Feats are where skills come into play and you can get all sorts of them in 5e. IF the DM allows.

One thing that irked us though was that the playtesting version of shield master was alot more fun as you could actually attack with the shield. Easy enough to add back in. Also there was slightly more variety of shields, a Buckler for example was dropped in transition from playtest to production.

Quote from: Omega on June 25, 2021, 06:19:12 PM
In D&D you just wear armour and get a benefit from it. Same for weapons really in 5e. You get no benefit from proficiency itself. In this case it means more or less "Can use this stuff without penalty".

Feats are where skills come into play and you can get all sorts of them in 5e. IF the DM allows.

One thing that irked us though was that the playtesting version of shield master was alot more fun as you could actually attack with the shield. Easy enough to add back in. Also there was slightly more variety of shields, a Buckler for example was dropped in transition from playtest to production.

   As OP said, you do get an increasing chance to hit from your proficiency bonus with weapons though.

Right. But that is from levelling up. Not an actual effect of proficiency.

As with skills once you have them they do not change on their own and only improve if your stats or prof bonus does. Pretty much how it worked in AD&D. Skills were just... there.

Think it was Oriental Adventures that introduced proficiencies. I'd have to break it out and see if that system was static as well. Eventually that changed and became a part of 2e.