I'm interpreting 5e PHB in that proficiency gives a bonus but that bonus is negated if using non-proficient weapons. I thought certain classes were banned from weapons for practical reasons; ex. wizards can't use flails or swords simply b/c they have to have their hands free to cast. (Does anyone recall the 1e rules about weapons? I remember that the cleric couldn't use edged weapons, only blunt ones. Am I recalling this right?)
Any class can use any weapon, yes. They eliminated the 1e style restrictions you’re talking about. Use doesn’t mean good at, but they can pick them up and use them. You need to be proficient in the weapon to add your proficiency bonus to hit. All classes are proficient in simple weapons, some in martial weapons. With the exception of a couple edge cases, those are the only two kinds anymore. You can also gain proficiency in a weapon through other means. Species is most common, and there’s some class features that allow adding a proficiency. And of course, feats.
You aren't entirely wrong about casting. A PC must have a hand free to cast spells with the S (Somatic) component of the spell. Even if they have a spellcasting focus/totum/holy symbol etc that only takes care of material components, so said PC must have at least one hand free to cast said spell. Realistically, this means a pure caster isn't going to be using a polearm, light, or heavy crossbow, or long/short bow. They might carry a weapon or a shield, but realistically it would be clumsy for a caster to not have at least one hand free. That said it's not a ban, and anyone can use any weapon it's just that it might not be optimal.
There's also a thing where technically Druids don't choose to wear armour that isn't leather/light armour. My interpretation is that is a druidic choice/tradition though and not an actual mechanical restriction.
So, in general, you have heard it correctly. There is no limitation. Technically, a Wizard can take all manner of proficiency in armor and weapons -- the baseline class doesn't "because they are spending time studying spells, not how to wear armor or use a sword."
Druids generally choose to not wear metal armor because it has been pulled from the bosom of the earth mother and changed by the hand of Men or some similar such device.
some clerical deities may choose to restrict certain clerics from using certain weapons or wearing certain armors (I know of one deity who says they have to wear no armor and use no weapons "forged or shaped by the hand of man").
The catch is that yes, indeed, if you do not have proficiency in that skill, you do not get to you your proficiency bonus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
So wizards can wear plate? Why not do that then? Wizards have low HP anyway.
My confusion is that people interpret the rules differently.
This is from Quora:
D&D 5th Edition: Is there any monk compatible light armor?
No, because monks do not begin play with proficiency in light armor, just like wizards.
And just like wizards, the only armor a monk can don are the bracers of defense, a rare magic item which requires attunement.
But there’s literally no reason for a monk to wear armor: that’s why they don’t get any.
------
After reading the PHB, I had a question about armor for the monk because the rule for Unarmored Defense saysBeginning at 1st level, while you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier.
I didn't understand "while you are wearing no armor" b/c I assumed monks don't wear it anyway.
So wizards can wear plate? Why not do that then? Wizards have low HP anyway.
Because if they aren't proficient in wearing it, then they can't cast any spells.
If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.
So wizards can wear plate? Why not do that then? Wizards have low HP anyway.
My confusion is that people interpret the rules differently.
This is from Quora:
D&D 5th Edition: Is there any monk compatible light armor?
No, because monks do not begin play with proficiency in light armor, just like wizards.
And just like wizards, the only armor a monk can don are the bracers of defense, a rare magic item which requires attunement.
But there’s literally no reason for a monk to wear armor: that’s why they don’t get any.
------
After reading the PHB, I had a question about armor for the monk because the rule for Unarmored Defense saysBeginning at 1st level, while you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier.
I didn't understand "while you are wearing no armor" b/c I assumed monks don't wear it anyway
Wizards can wear plate, and cast in it, if they are proficient. Either through feats, or starting as a fighter before switching to wizard, or any number of other ways.
Monks, barbarians and a few other things work a little differently. You can only use one armor calculation. So if they put armor on, they can’t use their unarmored defense.
The general rule from the PHB is: “If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.”
So, really anyone can choose to put on any suit of armor, there’s just consequences for doing so.
Anybody can technically put on or use anything- but if they don't have proficiency with it, they don't get to add their bonuses, and with armor, have disadvantage and can't cast spells. Why don't wizards wear plate? Armor that a character isn't proficient in will cause them to not be able to cast spells. Wizards can choose to have proficiency in armor, but it's not given to them, like with some other classes. Because of this, Wizards and other spell-casters don't generally wear armor because it basically takes away most of their abilities in combat: their main thing to do during combat is spellcasting, and being unable to do that is too much of a sacrifice. Most people would rather take a chance with low Hit Points and AC than be essentially useless in combat. With some classes, proficiency is given right from creation, and they are more likely to wear armor because they don't have to choose between other things to become proficient in it, or have to do anything to become proficient. To add, spellcasters don't use as many weapons (bows, swords, etc) because they aren't spellcasters to just not use their spells. They have bonuses for their spells, and they want to use them. It's their key ability: why would they trade it for swords?
In short: Anybody can technically use/wear anything, but with consequences if they're not proficient. Because spellcasters aren't given proficiency, using the armor doesn't make sense.
Can any class use any weapon?
I'm interpreting 5e PHB in that proficiency gives a bonus but that bonus is negated if using non-proficient weapons. I thought certain classes were banned from weapons for practical reasons; ex. wizards can't use flails or swords simply b/c they have to have their hands free to cast. (Does anyone recall the 1e rules about weapons? I remember that the cleric couldn't use edged weapons, only blunt ones. Am I recalling this right?)
Thanks for help!
Any class can use any weapon, yes. They eliminated the 1e style restrictions you’re talking about. Use doesn’t mean good at, but they can pick them up and use them. You need to be proficient in the weapon to add your proficiency bonus to hit. All classes are proficient in simple weapons, some in martial weapons. With the exception of a couple edge cases, those are the only two kinds anymore. You can also gain proficiency in a weapon through other means. Species is most common, and there’s some class features that allow adding a proficiency. And of course, feats.
You aren't entirely wrong about casting. A PC must have a hand free to cast spells with the S (Somatic) component of the spell. Even if they have a spellcasting focus/totum/holy symbol etc that only takes care of material components, so said PC must have at least one hand free to cast said spell. Realistically, this means a pure caster isn't going to be using a polearm, light, or heavy crossbow, or long/short bow. They might carry a weapon or a shield, but realistically it would be clumsy for a caster to not have at least one hand free. That said it's not a ban, and anyone can use any weapon it's just that it might not be optimal.
There's also a thing where technically Druids don't choose to wear armour that isn't leather/light armour. My interpretation is that is a druidic choice/tradition though and not an actual mechanical restriction.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Anyone can use any weapon, some are just going to be better at it than others.
So, in general, you have heard it correctly. There is no limitation. Technically, a Wizard can take all manner of proficiency in armor and weapons -- the baseline class doesn't "because they are spending time studying spells, not how to wear armor or use a sword."
Druids generally choose to not wear metal armor because it has been pulled from the bosom of the earth mother and changed by the hand of Men or some similar such device.
some clerical deities may choose to restrict certain clerics from using certain weapons or wearing certain armors (I know of one deity who says they have to wear no armor and use no weapons "forged or shaped by the hand of man").
The catch is that yes, indeed, if you do not have proficiency in that skill, you do not get to you your proficiency bonus.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
So wizards can wear plate? Why not do that then? Wizards have low HP anyway.
My confusion is that people interpret the rules differently.
This is from Quora:
D&D 5th Edition: Is there any monk compatible light armor?
No, because monks do not begin play with proficiency in light armor, just like wizards.
And just like wizards, the only armor a monk can don are the bracers of defense, a rare magic item which requires attunement.
But there’s literally no reason for a monk to wear armor: that’s why they don’t get any.
------
After reading the PHB, I had a question about armor for the monk because the rule for Unarmored Defense says Beginning at 1st level, while you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier.
I didn't understand "while you are wearing no armor" b/c I assumed monks don't wear it anyway.
Because if they aren't proficient in wearing it, then they can't cast any spells.
Wizards can wear plate, and cast in it, if they are proficient. Either through feats, or starting as a fighter before switching to wizard, or any number of other ways.
Monks, barbarians and a few other things work a little differently. You can only use one armor calculation. So if they put armor on, they can’t use their unarmored defense.
The general rule from the PHB is: “If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.”
So, really anyone can choose to put on any suit of armor, there’s just consequences for doing so.
Anybody can technically put on or use anything- but if they don't have proficiency with it, they don't get to add their bonuses, and with armor, have disadvantage and can't cast spells. Why don't wizards wear plate? Armor that a character isn't proficient in will cause them to not be able to cast spells. Wizards can choose to have proficiency in armor, but it's not given to them, like with some other classes. Because of this, Wizards and other spell-casters don't generally wear armor because it basically takes away most of their abilities in combat: their main thing to do during combat is spellcasting, and being unable to do that is too much of a sacrifice. Most people would rather take a chance with low Hit Points and AC than be essentially useless in combat. With some classes, proficiency is given right from creation, and they are more likely to wear armor because they don't have to choose between other things to become proficient in it, or have to do anything to become proficient. To add, spellcasters don't use as many weapons (bows, swords, etc) because they aren't spellcasters to just not use their spells. They have bonuses for their spells, and they want to use them. It's their key ability: why would they trade it for swords?
In short: Anybody can technically use/wear anything, but with consequences if they're not proficient. Because spellcasters aren't given proficiency, using the armor doesn't make sense.
I appreciate the comments. Corrected a lot of misconceptions I had about the game.