How long do you need to wear armor to become "trained" in it

[IronWarrior]

i like where you went with that 13eowulf. a psycho-somatic insanity. it seems appropriate

[eliakon]

No. It's pointing out there's a third and more likely option. That it was missed in editing and a mistake. It's nothing to do with "head Canon" It has to do with BOOK Canon.

Acting like book canon doesn't holdsway, because of one obscure (Maybe) mistake doesn't make it so.

So what part of the armor is making book canon not hold sway?
Because unless there is something in a book I don't know about that says that TW modified magic items can't do strange stuff....
....there is nothing in the canon to say that these armor's can't work exactly like they do.
You know...because they are TW items and all.
Now if they were saying that regular versions of the armor could be worn sure, you might have a point.
But since they are explicitly TW modified items then claiming that some how they don't actually have oh, I dunno...magical powers seems pretty far fetched and into the realm of "but I don't like that idea, so it must be bad"

[Axelmania]

I like the idea of armor-wearing being a skill. I think they did this in 4th Ed D&D (actually I think it was a 'Trait' or whatever they called them, lets you ignor penalties) but I don't recall seeing this in GURPS or Palladium.

[Blue_Lion]

I like the idea of armor-wearing being a skill. I think they did this in 4th Ed D&D (actually I think it was a 'Trait' or whatever they called them, lets you ignor penalties) but I don't recall seeing this in GURPS or Palladium.

Actualy it has been a class skill since 1st ed D&D. It was a skill that is part of being a class.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I like the idea of armor-wearing being a skill. I think they did this in 4th Ed D&D (actually I think it was a 'Trait' or whatever they called them, lets you ignor penalties) but I don't recall seeing this in GURPS or Palladium.

Actualy it has been a class skill since 1st ed D&D. It was a skill that is part of being a class.

Not so much a skill, but correct. Armor that you could wear (In D&D and on through 2nd Ed AD&D) was determined by your class.

[Blue_Lion]

proficient in something is another way to say you are skilled in it.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Thats my point, though, they werent proficiencies either. Just a list of what armor you could wear.

It wasn't until 3rd/d20 that they became "Armor proficiences".

[Blue_Lion]

Thats my point, though, they werent proficiencies either. Just a list of what armor you could wear.

It wasn't until 3rd/d20 that they became "Armor proficiences".

If I recall right it was a list of weapons and armor you where proficient with. But the concept that class X is not trained can't use can be traced back to there.

[Axelmania]

4th ed is all I have, you're right the class determines but you could also buy Traits to use heavier armors than your class starts with.

[dragonfett]

4th ed is all I have, you're right the class determines but you could also buy Traits to use heavier armors than your class starts with.

In 3rd and 3.5 D&D, armor was grouped into light, medium, and heavy and you could take feats to be proficient with them, with medium armor proficiency requiring light armor proficiency and heavy armor proficiency requiring proficiency in both light and medium. Classes then gave you either one, two, all three, or none of the armor proficiency.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

From the 1st Ed rules rmb

Light M.D.C. body armor (seldom wear heavy armor, because it reduces one's speed and mobility by half)

But then again if you don't like the it, you don't have to use it, KevSim made that clear , palladium rules are not set in stone but just guidelines to use. Palladium books is more about the adventures then the nit picking of rules that seems to go on here