Sorry, I wasn't going by AD&D rules; I was going by the flavor text provided in the game and the manual, which says:
To become so skilled with the bow, the archer has had to sacrifice some of his proficiency with melee weapons and armor.
Which is to say, an archer has never learned to become proficient with heavier armor because he spent most of his time learning to shoot arrows from a bow.
Don't confuse the Archer (a marksman) with the Stalker (a hunter). An Archer is a ranger who has sacrificed skill in melee weapons and heavy armor in order to gain mastery of a single weapon. Sure, he may have begun his career by deciding not to wear heavy armor because it's noisy, but in the end that refusal results in a lack of proficiency, which isn't suddenly erased when the armor is made of a different material.
That's different from a druid, whose refusal to wear metal armor doesn't stop him from training in heavy hides or other organic armors. The druid isn't worried about mobility; the druid is worried about maintaining a balance with nature. Which, I guess, means only wearing protective gear if it came from something's corpse (again, something I really don't understand).
Sorry, I wasn't going by AD&D rules; I was going by the flavor text provided in the game and the manual, which says:
To become so skilled with the bow, the archer has had to sacrifice some of his proficiency with melee weapons and armor.
Which is to say, an archer has never learned to become proficient with heavier armor because he spent most of his time learning to shoot arrows from a bow.
You just said it yourself right there, "heavier armor". The whole point of ankheg plate is that it's not heavy, relatively anyway.
I use the term "heavier armor" to mean armor in heavier categories, @Awong124, not heavier by weight.
Which is to say, Plate Mail is heavier armor because it offers more protection and affords less mobility. And that's the thing about the Ankheg Armor: it's essentially plate mail, just not as heavy (in terms of weight). But it's still cumbersome because of how it rests on your body, it's not as flexible as leather, and it creates more problems than leather when firing a bow.
@SharGuidesMyHand I believe the Ankheg Armor was usable by druids in BG1, but not BG2. I am pretty sure it was always unusable by Archers, in BG2 and TuTu.
I'd like to see it usable by druids (for thematic purposes--their reason for not wearing plate armor wouldn't apply to dragonscale, for instance), but making it usable by an Archer that has, as a specific disadvantage, a restricted proficiency with specific classes of armor, seems counter to the kit's design.
There are two aspects of it: First, that if you let an Archer wear Ankheg Plate, then you also have to let him wear Dragonscale Plate; and second, that this creates multiple armor types that are usable by the Archer kit when it is something that is otherwise specifically prohibited (and with good reason).
At any rate, this isn't a bug with the armor. The Archer is prohibited from wearing splint, chain, plate, and full plate armor types; since the Ankheg Plate is a member of the Plate armor type, the Archer can't wear it.
The kit's description can (and probably should) be updated to read "may not wear armor heavier than studded leather", which should be sufficiently similar to that of the Stalker to allay any further confusion. @Jalily?
I mostly knew what you meant by heavier armor of course, mostly due to the context of your earlier arguments arguing against the armor being available to Archers. I just wanted to make a point. Without that context, when you said heavier armor it can be interpreted either way. However, in this case we have the luxury to have you actually here to clarify yourself.
The description of the Archer kit doesn't really provide any context concerning this issue.
"To become so skilled with the bow, the archer has had to sacrifice some of his proficiency with melee weapons and armor."
Sacrifice some of his proficiency with armor... Now what does that actually mean? It can be interpreted in different ways. Of course we can interpret it in the way that it means they are not proficient with the actual class of plate armor. But we can also interpret it as not being proficient with armor that is heavy, that is Archers are only proficient in armor that leaves him lightly encumbered. Or we can also interpret it as not being proficient with armor made of metal because it's noisy. The most important piece of information that is missing is: what aspect of proficiency is that sentence referring to?
With the Archer kit description, we don't have the luxury of whomever designed the kit to clarify himself. In the end, whichever interpretation you choose is inconsequential, because as far as I can tell, they all have the same merit. It's basically all conjecture. It comes down to personal preference and opinion. From what I understand, people arguing against letting Archers use the armor are arguing from a point of their opinion on the issue of game balance and their own opinions on what the spirit of the restriction is. But whether or not it's balanced, and what is within the spirit of the restriction is just that, your opinions. While you can certainly make good compelling arguments to support your opinion, they will never be as compelling as what is written in black and white. Which set of evidence will be accepted in a court of law? I think that's obvious.
Therefore, the most responsible thing to do should be to satisfy the letter of the description, rather than to apply our own assumptions and conjecture.
The kit's description can (and probably should) be updated to read "may not wear armor heavier than studded leather", which should be sufficiently similar to that of the Stalker to allay any further confusion. @Jalily?
I can't respond to this any better than what CamDawg has already said:
No, it's a simple case of Occam's razor. I think that a kit that says it should be able to wear non-metal armor should, indeed, be able to wear non-metal armor. I think an item that says it's usable by druids should, indeed, be usable by druids.
Any premise that starts with undermining descriptions opens up a host of arbitrary changes. It's not that there aren't mistakes or silly inconsistencies in descriptions--of course there are--it's that it's unwise to disregard evidence unless you have better evidence to replace it. In this case, we don't.
I've had this fight many times over in the course of the Fixpack. Trying to outguess or balance kits/classes leads you to some very strange places. Sometimes the changes result in a better game, sometimes, worse, but rarely can you call them fixes.
I believe the Ankheg Armor was usable by druids in BG1, but not BG2. I am pretty sure it was always unusable by Archers, in BG2 and TuTu.
It's usable by druids in BG and BG2. Archers can't, but kit usability flags are notoriously bad--archers can use all of the drow adamantine chain/plate armor and half of the dragon armors, but are restricted from ankheg and the other half of dragon armor. Let's just say it was inconsistently handled.
The kit's description can (and probably should) be updated to read "may not wear armor heavier than studded leather", which should be sufficiently similar to that of the Stalker to allay any further confusion. @Jalily?
This whole argument is built upon the assumption that the kit description is wrong. If this was the desired restriction they had multiple other kits that used explicit phrasing--hell, the next kit two strings down has this exact restriction and states it as such--and this one does not. It's not a bug fix.
Archers can't, but kit usability flags are notoriously bad--archers can use all of the drow adamantine chain/plate armor and half of the dragon armors, but are restricted from ankheg and the other half of dragon armor. Let's just say it was inconsistently handled.
Actually, now that I look closer at it, it looks like they did this correctly except for one important point:
Stalkers can't use any chain/plate/splint, but are OK to use ankheg plate and all four dragon armors.
Archers can't use any chain/plate/splint, but are OK to use shadow dragon scale (treated as leather in the game) and white dragon chain; they are disallowed from ankheg plate and the red/blue dragon armors.
The stalker list is exactly what you'd expect from a kit not allowed to use non-metal armor. Outside of the white dragon chain (which is probably a bug) the archer list is what you'd expect from a kit not allowed to use anything heavier than studded leather. (Both kits can use the drow armors, but these armors were overlooked by just about everything for kit usabilities.) Given that the flags are right next to each other, it's likely they simply swapped them.
However, in this case we have the luxury to have you actually here to clarify yourself.
The description of the Archer kit doesn't really provide any context concerning this issue.
"To become so skilled with the bow, the archer has had to sacrifice some of his proficiency with melee weapons and armor."
Sacrifice some of his proficiency with armor... Now what does that actually mean? It can be interpreted in different ways. Of course we can interpret it in the way that it means they are not proficient with the actual class of plate armor. But we can also interpret it as not being proficient with armor that is heavy, that is Archers are only proficient in armor that leaves him lightly encumbered. Or we can also interpret it as not being proficient with armor made of metal because it's noisy. The most important piece of information that is missing is: what aspect of proficiency is that sentence referring to?
The word proficient means skill in this context, which means that the aspect it refers to is the one describing actual skill--that is, the archer sacrifices training in (apparently metal) armor in order to master the bow. So it has nothing to do with the noise of the armor. You don't suddenly become proficient with something when it's made of a different material.
As for the other two aspects, I see them as part of the same one. The archer chooses not to train with restrictive or cumbersome armor--which includes those specific armor classes I mentioned earlier. Again, the material of the armor doesn't make a difference, because what's important is mobility.
With the Archer kit description, we don't have the luxury of whomever designed the kit to clarify himself. In the end, whichever interpretation you choose is inconsequential, because as far as I can tell, they all have the same merit. It's basically all conjecture. It comes down to personal preference and opinion. From what I understand, people arguing against letting Archers use the armor are arguing from a point of their opinion on the issue of game balance and their own opinions on what the spirit of the restriction is. But whether or not it's balanced, and what is within the spirit of the restriction is just that, your opinions. While you can certainly make good compelling arguments to support your opinion, they will never be as compelling as what is written in black and white. Which set of evidence will be accepted in a court of law? I think that's obvious.
What's ironic, here, is that I helped to put together the kit descriptions, and I cobbled together the manual. So while I might not know what the original designer of the kit was thinking, I do know how to interpret the language. In a court of law, that would make me an "expert witness".
In PnP, when the text and the table don't match, the text takes precedent, because it describes intent. Here, the intent of the text is pretty clear; which means that what needs fixing is the "table" (or list of disadvantages, in this case).
In PnP, when the text and the table don't match, the text takes precedent, because it describes intent. Here, the intent of the text is pretty clear; which means that what needs fixing is the "table" (or list of disadvantages, in this case).
Right, the intent of 'can wear non-metal armor' is pretty clear.
@CamDawg Actually, the wording is "May not wear any metal armor". Which is what, I think, sparked the discussion in the first place. It's exclusionary, not inclusive.
My point is that the text of the kit's description says "sacrificed proficiency", which suggests that it has nothing to do with the armor's material.
If anyone's wondering, IN1 was banned due to some rather inappropriate messages he sent to me in private (as well as numerous other occasions of trolling on the site's public forums). Don't let that stop you from debating this issue, but don't expect the OP to chime in.
But in this case, the meat'n'potatoes doesn't match the suggested intent. Like you said, it seems more likely that the text between here and the Stalker should have been switched.
But in this case, the meat'n'potatoes doesn't match the suggested intent.
No, it doesn't match your interpretation of the intent, and I'm afraid we're going to need more than 'I think it should be different' to override clear usability restrictions.
I look forward to your take of how 'an ecstatic state of mind that will enable them to fight longer, harder and more savagely than any humanoid has a right to' justifies an immunity to level drain and imprisonment, how defensive spin really isn't flashy or entertaining, or how someone who has dedicated his life to fighting the forces of darkness loses the ability to turn undead.
Like you said, it seems more likely that the text between here and the Stalker should have been switched.
I suggested the usability values were swapped, not the descriptions, as it's the easier mistake to make. If that is the case, it would be another point to support both the stalker and archer descriptions as written.
Maybe I missed something (it's early in the morning for me, so that's entirely possible).
I thought the reason this point was being debated was because Archers couldn't use Ankheg plate, and people thought they should be able to?
If that's not the case, then I'd be willing to concede that I may have been mistaken. I've been trying to find a way that the mechanics could remain unchanged but to clarify the kit's description. I'm not about to argue that the description and the mechanics should be changed.
Well, there are two issues being conflated here. One is druid usability, but that seems a lot less contentious--it was usable by druids in BG and BG2, but not in BGEE for some reason. I don't think there's a really good reason why it shouldn't be usable in BGEE by druids and we should change that.
The more contentious issue is, yes, archers using it. Currently they can't, though their kit description says they should since it's non-metal. (I know you're getting a different impression from the kit description, but I think you're putting too much weight in the fluff instead of the actual substance--hence my snark about the other kit descriptions.) This, to me, suggests a pretty clear course of action: make it usable by archers. We shouldn't change the kit description to exclude it, as then we're merely propagating and justifying the original mistake.
The BG2 riff about stalkers and archers was to suggest that the archer's non-metal and stalker's nothing-heavier-than-studded-leather restrictions were implemented correctly, but swapped, in BG2. I suppose one interpretation of that is that the kit descriptions were wrong, but the easier mistake to make here is actually to swap the usability values.
Okay, I've been thinking about it, and - while I still disagree that it was the intent - I'm ready to concede that the premise of my argument is mostly based on how I would have designed it.
I still think I'm right, but that's kind of like how I think that familiars should scale with your level (and several other things that I've stated elsewhere). If it's just a matter of a misplaced flag, so be it.
(Now let's see if @CamDawg's brain explodes from my brilliantly wrong agreement with him. )
Nah, I totally feel where you're coming from, it's just that--when we're in the bug forum--I feel the highest standard is figuring out what the devs wanted and implementing it. It's my natural mode since I had to chair and participate in many of these discussions for BG2 Fixpack. The BG2FP discussions make the contentiousness here look like a pillow fight, and make me a bit of a dick in these ones.
There are a lot of great arguments for changes, including balance changes to kits, that probably could make the game better. What draws me into these threads in the constant framing of these changes as bug fixes--i.e. I happen to think @bigdogchris has a good idea here which as a mod I'd use, but there's no way it can be called a fix.
However, in this case we have the luxury to have you actually here to clarify yourself.
The description of the Archer kit doesn't really provide any context concerning this issue.
"To become so skilled with the bow, the archer has had to sacrifice some of his proficiency with melee weapons and armor."
Sacrifice some of his proficiency with armor... Now what does that actually mean? It can be interpreted in different ways. Of course we can interpret it in the way that it means they are not proficient with the actual class of plate armor. But we can also interpret it as not being proficient with armor that is heavy, that is Archers are only proficient in armor that leaves him lightly encumbered. Or we can also interpret it as not being proficient with armor made of metal because it's noisy. The most important piece of information that is missing is: what aspect of proficiency is that sentence referring to?
The word proficient means skill in this context, which means that the aspect it refers to is the one describing actual skill--that is, the archer sacrifices training in (apparently metal) armor in order to master the bow. So it has nothing to do with the noise of the armor. You don't suddenly become proficient with something when it's made of a different material.
As for the other two aspects, I see them as part of the same one. The archer chooses not to train with restrictive or cumbersome armor--which includes those specific armor classes I mentioned earlier. Again, the material of the armor doesn't make a difference, because what's important is mobility.
But in what way is the Archer not proficient with regular plate mail? What aspect of the regular plate mail makes the Archer not proficient in it? The description doesn't even specifically state that Archers are not proficient in plate mail. It simply states that they are not as proficient with armor, doesn't say what armor. The only other bit of evidence that provides context is the restriction that specifically states they can't use metal armor. That suggests they are not proficient with the material. It can be interpreted as because an Archer probably relies on stealth and mobility, so they are not as proficient with metal armor to make themselves stealthy and mobile. Reason being that metal is often shiny, makes noise, and heavy. Ankheg armor alleviates all of those concerns.
It doesn't take any proficiency to simply put on armor and stand there. It obviously refers to how proficient they are in their actions when they have the armor on. So Archers just aren't proficient in plate mail for the sake of it being plate mail? Even if an armor that is classified as plate mail doesn't have most of the disadvantages associated with plate mail? Does that make sense to you?
With the Archer kit description, we don't have the luxury of whomever designed the kit to clarify himself. In the end, whichever interpretation you choose is inconsequential, because as far as I can tell, they all have the same merit. It's basically all conjecture. It comes down to personal preference and opinion. From what I understand, people arguing against letting Archers use the armor are arguing from a point of their opinion on the issue of game balance and their own opinions on what the spirit of the restriction is. But whether or not it's balanced, and what is within the spirit of the restriction is just that, your opinions. While you can certainly make good compelling arguments to support your opinion, they will never be as compelling as what is written in black and white. Which set of evidence will be accepted in a court of law? I think that's obvious.
What's ironic, here, is that I helped to put together the kit descriptions, and I cobbled together the manual. So while I might not know what the original designer of the kit was thinking, I do know how to interpret the language. In a court of law, that would make me an "expert witness".
That's just your interpretation of the intent. An expert witness' testimony is nowhere near as compelling as hard evidence. The testimony of an expert witness is only valuable if there is no hard evidence, or if the evidence is ambiguous. In this case, I don't think there is any ambiguity in the original wording. It's only ambiguous if you go out of your way to make it ambiguous. I think the wording is extremely clear and concise. How can you get any clearer than, "cannot wear metal armor"?
Comments
Don't confuse the Archer (a marksman) with the Stalker (a hunter). An Archer is a ranger who has sacrificed skill in melee weapons and heavy armor in order to gain mastery of a single weapon. Sure, he may have begun his career by deciding not to wear heavy armor because it's noisy, but in the end that refusal results in a lack of proficiency, which isn't suddenly erased when the armor is made of a different material.
That's different from a druid, whose refusal to wear metal armor doesn't stop him from training in heavy hides or other organic armors. The druid isn't worried about mobility; the druid is worried about maintaining a balance with nature. Which, I guess, means only wearing protective gear if it came from something's corpse (again, something I really don't understand).
You just said it yourself right there, "heavier armor". The whole point of ankheg plate is that it's not heavy, relatively anyway.
Which is to say, Plate Mail is heavier armor because it offers more protection and affords less mobility. And that's the thing about the Ankheg Armor: it's essentially plate mail, just not as heavy (in terms of weight). But it's still cumbersome because of how it rests on your body, it's not as flexible as leather, and it creates more problems than leather when firing a bow.
@SharGuidesMyHand
I believe the Ankheg Armor was usable by druids in BG1, but not BG2. I am pretty sure it was always unusable by Archers, in BG2 and TuTu.
I'd like to see it usable by druids (for thematic purposes--their reason for not wearing plate armor wouldn't apply to dragonscale, for instance), but making it usable by an Archer that has, as a specific disadvantage, a restricted proficiency with specific classes of armor, seems counter to the kit's design.
There are two aspects of it: First, that if you let an Archer wear Ankheg Plate, then you also have to let him wear Dragonscale Plate; and second, that this creates multiple armor types that are usable by the Archer kit when it is something that is otherwise specifically prohibited (and with good reason).
At any rate, this isn't a bug with the armor. The Archer is prohibited from wearing splint, chain, plate, and full plate armor types; since the Ankheg Plate is a member of the Plate armor type, the Archer can't wear it.
The kit's description can (and probably should) be updated to read "may not wear armor heavier than studded leather", which should be sufficiently similar to that of the Stalker to allay any further confusion. @Jalily?
I mostly knew what you meant by heavier armor of course, mostly due to the context of your earlier arguments arguing against the armor being available to Archers. I just wanted to make a point. Without that context, when you said heavier armor it can be interpreted either way. However, in this case we have the luxury to have you actually here to clarify yourself.
The description of the Archer kit doesn't really provide any context concerning this issue.
"To become so skilled with the bow, the archer has had to sacrifice some of his proficiency with melee weapons and armor."
Sacrifice some of his proficiency with armor... Now what does that actually mean? It can be interpreted in different ways. Of course we can interpret it in the way that it means they are not proficient with the actual class of plate armor. But we can also interpret it as not being proficient with armor that is heavy, that is Archers are only proficient in armor that leaves him lightly encumbered. Or we can also interpret it as not being proficient with armor made of metal because it's noisy. The most important piece of information that is missing is: what aspect of proficiency is that sentence referring to?
With the Archer kit description, we don't have the luxury of whomever designed the kit to clarify himself. In the end, whichever interpretation you choose is inconsequential, because as far as I can tell, they all have the same merit. It's basically all conjecture. It comes down to personal preference and opinion. From what I understand, people arguing against letting Archers use the armor are arguing from a point of their opinion on the issue of game balance and their own opinions on what the spirit of the restriction is. But whether or not it's balanced, and what is within the spirit of the restriction is just that, your opinions. While you can certainly make good compelling arguments to support your opinion, they will never be as compelling as what is written in black and white. Which set of evidence will be accepted in a court of law? I think that's obvious.
Therefore, the most responsible thing to do should be to satisfy the letter of the description, rather than to apply our own assumptions and conjecture.
I can't respond to this any better than what CamDawg has already said:
- Stalkers can't use any chain/plate/splint, but are OK to use ankheg plate and all four dragon armors.
- Archers can't use any chain/plate/splint, but are OK to use shadow dragon scale (treated as leather in the game) and white dragon chain; they are disallowed from ankheg plate and the red/blue dragon armors.
The stalker list is exactly what you'd expect from a kit not allowed to use non-metal armor. Outside of the white dragon chain (which is probably a bug) the archer list is what you'd expect from a kit not allowed to use anything heavier than studded leather. (Both kits can use the drow armors, but these armors were overlooked by just about everything for kit usabilities.) Given that the flags are right next to each other, it's likely they simply swapped them.Definition of Proficient
The word proficient means skill in this context, which means that the aspect it refers to is the one describing actual skill--that is, the archer sacrifices training in (apparently metal) armor in order to master the bow. So it has nothing to do with the noise of the armor. You don't suddenly become proficient with something when it's made of a different material.
As for the other two aspects, I see them as part of the same one. The archer chooses not to train with restrictive or cumbersome armor--which includes those specific armor classes I mentioned earlier. Again, the material of the armor doesn't make a difference, because what's important is mobility. What's ironic, here, is that I helped to put together the kit descriptions, and I cobbled together the manual. So while I might not know what the original designer of the kit was thinking, I do know how to interpret the language. In a court of law, that would make me an "expert witness".
In PnP, when the text and the table don't match, the text takes precedent, because it describes intent. Here, the intent of the text is pretty clear; which means that what needs fixing is the "table" (or list of disadvantages, in this case).
edit: sigh, originally said can't wear non-metal
Actually, the wording is "May not wear any metal armor". Which is what, I think, sparked the discussion in the first place. It's exclusionary, not inclusive.
My point is that the text of the kit's description says "sacrificed proficiency", which suggests that it has nothing to do with the armor's material.
It's the same way that other kits clarify the fuzzy kit descriptions with hard data in their bullet points.
But in this case, the meat'n'potatoes doesn't match the suggested intent. Like you said, it seems more likely that the text between here and the Stalker should have been switched.
I look forward to your take of how 'an ecstatic state of mind that will enable them to fight longer, harder and more savagely than any humanoid has a right to' justifies an immunity to level drain and imprisonment, how defensive spin really isn't flashy or entertaining, or how someone who has dedicated his life to fighting the forces of darkness loses the ability to turn undead.
I thought the reason this point was being debated was because Archers couldn't use Ankheg plate, and people thought they should be able to?
If that's not the case, then I'd be willing to concede that I may have been mistaken. I've been trying to find a way that the mechanics could remain unchanged but to clarify the kit's description. I'm not about to argue that the description and the mechanics should be changed.
The more contentious issue is, yes, archers using it. Currently they can't, though their kit description says they should since it's non-metal. (I know you're getting a different impression from the kit description, but I think you're putting too much weight in the fluff instead of the actual substance--hence my snark about the other kit descriptions.) This, to me, suggests a pretty clear course of action: make it usable by archers. We shouldn't change the kit description to exclude it, as then we're merely propagating and justifying the original mistake.
The BG2 riff about stalkers and archers was to suggest that the archer's non-metal and stalker's nothing-heavier-than-studded-leather restrictions were implemented correctly, but swapped, in BG2. I suppose one interpretation of that is that the kit descriptions were wrong, but the easier mistake to make here is actually to swap the usability values.
(I'm at work right now so I can't rebut more thoroughly just yet, but suffice to say it will be brilliant.
I still think I'm right, but that's kind of like how I think that familiars should scale with your level (and several other things that I've stated elsewhere). If it's just a matter of a misplaced flag, so be it.
(Now let's see if @CamDawg's brain explodes from my brilliantly wrong agreement with him.
There are a lot of great arguments for changes, including balance changes to kits, that probably could make the game better. What draws me into these threads in the constant framing of these changes as bug fixes--i.e. I happen to think @bigdogchris has a good idea here which as a mod I'd use, but there's no way it can be called a fix.
edit: link fixed, thanks @Shandyr
Just so we're absolutely clear: Does the armor need to be altered, based on this discussion?
It should be flagged as magical, too, but I already lost that argument in the beta test.
Definition of Proficient
The word proficient means skill in this context, which means that the aspect it refers to is the one describing actual skill--that is, the archer sacrifices training in (apparently metal) armor in order to master the bow. So it has nothing to do with the noise of the armor. You don't suddenly become proficient with something when it's made of a different material.
As for the other two aspects, I see them as part of the same one. The archer chooses not to train with restrictive or cumbersome armor--which includes those specific armor classes I mentioned earlier. Again, the material of the armor doesn't make a difference, because what's important is mobility.
But in what way is the Archer not proficient with regular plate mail? What aspect of the regular plate mail makes the Archer not proficient in it? The description doesn't even specifically state that Archers are not proficient in plate mail. It simply states that they are not as proficient with armor, doesn't say what armor. The only other bit of evidence that provides context is the restriction that specifically states they can't use metal armor. That suggests they are not proficient with the material. It can be interpreted as because an Archer probably relies on stealth and mobility, so they are not as proficient with metal armor to make themselves stealthy and mobile. Reason being that metal is often shiny, makes noise, and heavy. Ankheg armor alleviates all of those concerns.
It doesn't take any proficiency to simply put on armor and stand there. It obviously refers to how proficient they are in their actions when they have the armor on. So Archers just aren't proficient in plate mail for the sake of it being plate mail? Even if an armor that is classified as plate mail doesn't have most of the disadvantages associated with plate mail? Does that make sense to you?
That's just your interpretation of the intent. An expert witness' testimony is nowhere near as compelling as hard evidence. The testimony of an expert witness is only valuable if there is no hard evidence, or if the evidence is ambiguous. In this case, I don't think there is any ambiguity in the original wording. It's only ambiguous if you go out of your way to make it ambiguous. I think the wording is extremely clear and concise. How can you get any clearer than, "cannot wear metal armor"?
I think you missed the series of posts after that one, wherein I conceded the point.