Ranger; Wisdom (Survival) -> “Don’t eat those berries.”
Wizard; Intelligence (Nature) -> “That plant is in the family Solanaceae. It’s related to tomatoes and eggplant. It’s called Atropa belladonna. Did you know belladonna means beautiful woman? I once found this ... (wizard continues with more useless information) ... WAIT! DON’T EAT IT! Didn’t I mention it’s common name is deadly nightshade? It’s poisonous!”
That's a fun recreation of what might happen in a specific situation, but consider this other one:
Barbarian; Wisdom (Survival) -> "I've been tracking my whole life, but this creature eludes me"
Cleric; Wisdom (Survival) -> "Really? I've never set foot outside Waterdeep, hardly ever leave my temple, actually, but obviously the creature went that way..."
Or:
Druid; Intelligence (Nature) -> "I don't think I've ever seen this type of tree before. I have no clue as to whether it houses Sprites or not."
Wizard; Intelligence (Nature) -> "Oh? This is a Quercus robur, commonly called an 'Oak', I believe. Quite common in your homeland. It does house Sprites, quite often."
Or:
Cleric; Intelligence (Religion) -> "Uh... wait, how do I bless someone in the name of Pelor again?"
Wizard; Intelligence (Religion) -> "*eyeroll* You do it every Sunday at mass, and three additional times a year, on religious holidays. Hold your holy symbol up high with your right hand, and say, '<insert blessing text>'. You really should study your profession better."
Now, those are somewhat contrived, of course... and you can make an argument that the DC for recognizing oaks and knowing the proper way to bless should be quite low, low enough that someone with a +0 ability bonus plus their proficiency bonus should pass most of the time, or you can argue that the DM shouldn't have Druids roll to recognize an oak, or Clerics roll to know who to bless someone in the name of their god, but you can substitute any properly high DC activity there and get a similar result. Regardless of how the DM chooses to handle specific cases, the fact is that most/all Wizards will be strictly better at Religion than most/all Clerics, most/all Clerics will be better at Tracking (Survival) than most/all Barbarians, etc., simply by virtue of having a maxed out relevant ability score. Granted, that score might not give a +0 to the other class, but how many Clerics invest in Intelligence, as opposed to Wisdom, Strength, Constitution? How many Barbarians invest in Wisdom, as opposed to Strength, Constitution, Dexterity? In all/most of those cases, we're comparing a primary stat to a 4th or worse priority stat, so the difference in bonuses it likely to be 4 or greater, meaning that until at least level 13, the "primary ability" class will have at least an equal skill check score than the "4th or worse priority stat, but with proficiency" class, and in many cases even at level 16 the latter will still not exceed the former. In some (maybe many?) cases, even at max (20th) level, the "primary ability" class character's total skill check bonus will still exceed the other one. And -- and this is what really bugs me -- this is considering that the "primary ability" class has no interest in developing the skill, and has invested no resources into developing it. A Cleric would have to make some significant sacrifices to match or exceed a Wizard's ability to handle Religion issues, even when the Wizard has not even considered Religion; a Barbarian would have to make some significant sacrifices to match or exceed a Cleric's "natural" Tracking ability, even when the Cleric has no interest in ever tracking anything.
IRL I’ve met pastors who are great at their job but didn’t know (or care, apparently) that the candles on and near the altar should be lit and extinguished in a certain order.
The whole Old Believers thing in Russian history happened because at some point the entire Russian church started doing things the “wrong way”. So when the Tsar tried to correct it, some of the believers got really upset.
I would only make a cleric make a Intelligence (Religion) check when it’s about another religion or some rare ceremony in their own religion. They know how to do their jobs but they might not know why they do things the way they do. I don’t expect every pastor or priest to be able to discuss the Gnostic Heresies with me.
DM’s have to know when to have a player roll for what their character knows and when to just tell them what they know. If you do make them roll and it results in something that is nonsensical, then you have a problem.
Tracking using Wisdom (Survival) is a tougher one to rationalize. Why would a cleric that rarely sets foot outside the temple be better at tracking than a barbarian who has spent his entire life outside? I’ll have to think about that one.
I'm not trying to be snide; just genuinely curious as some of the assumptions you make on the ease of motion while armored are completely untrue, and I do have first-hand experience on this subject.
Do you suddenly become incompetent and unable to focus?
It's not easy, and going on extensive treks in their gear is exactly what people did...
There weren't always standing armies throughout history. Sometimes a lord would press regular citizens into service, and you bet they'd wear a chain shirt if they could afford it. The average king wasn't going on biweekly hikes in full plate either.
Any current/former military want to chime in on what it was like getting your body used to running around in full kit? Or even any hikers? :P
That's a matter of physical fitness, which your ability scores already account for. You're not literally developing some sort of gear-carrying skill or technique.
What does seem odd to me is that Wizards have no armor proficiencies at all in 5e.
That's what I'm getting at. The armor proficiency rules are silly. Light armor proficiency shouldn't even be a thing and heavier armors could be handled purely with strength requirements and travel/weather rules.
The game very clearly goes out of its way to give an instant, disproporpionate penalty (equivalent to 3 levels of exhaustion + 0 spellcasting of any kind) for "non-proficient" armor while assuming a wizard that would become useless in padded armor can trek for 8 hours and fight goblins while carrying 120+ pounds. A 15 strength wizard can't fight in padded armor even if they're carrying nothing else but an 8 strength bard can while also wearing an explorer's pack. It's not about realism, it's about enforcing class tropes.
IC, I have experience with wearing armor. I have witnessed others learning how to function while wearing armor. It truly does not matter how strong you are if you do not have experience; you are going to be slow, tired, and in a world of pain until your body gets used to the kit. You have to completely relearn how to carry yourself: posture, stride, flexibility, joint rotation, limb extension, etc. I have watched as people that can only be described as "mountains of meat" (far stronger than myself physically) pass out from the fatigue of just standing still in light plating.
The ability to properly wear armor is absolutely a learned skill, not purely dependent on your physical characteristics.
What does seem odd to me is that Wizards have no armor proficiencies at all in 5e.
That's what I'm getting at. The armor proficiency rules are silly. Light armor proficiency shouldn't even be a thing and heavier armors could be handled purely with strength requirements and travel/weather rules.
The game very clearly goes out of its way to give an instant, disproporpionate penalty (equivalent to 3 levels of exhaustion + 0 spellcasting of any kind) for "non-proficient" armor while assuming a wizard that would become useless in padded armor can trek for 8 hours and fight goblins while carrying 120+ pounds. A 15 strength wizard can't fight in padded armor even if they're carrying nothing else but an 8 strength bard can while also wearing an explorer's pack. It's not about realism, it's about enforcing class tropes.
Are the armor proficiency rules in 5e silly? They're not perfect, no. Disproportionate penalties? Yeah, if they're going for realism, the penalties should be harsher if the "non-proficient" armor you're attempting to wear is Heavy Armor.
Is class trope enforcement a factor? Absolutely. Why wouldn't it be? Class choices & distinctions matter. If I wanted to play a game system where every character has access to everything, I'd play a White Wolf game, not D&D.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
[EDIT: Whoops, didn't realize I necro'd this thread quite so much!!]
The Sword & Sorcery rulebooks explained it by adding a quirk to arcane magics in their world: arcane magic generates heat. Spellcasters are generally lightly clothed (or scantily) because just working their magic keeps them warm -- casting in armor is a quick way to cook themselves. (Divine magic is handled by the patron, and the result "passed" to the petitioner.)
I agree that proficiency and talent (stat) disparity is irritating. The cleric in a game I play (18 WIS) is actually better at perception than my rogue with Expertise (8 WIS, because backstory)! As a DM, I will sometimes call for "those PROFICIENT in (skill X) can make a roll". That's a bit of a hold over from 4e and earlier editions -- no matter how Perceptive you are due to instinct (WIS), you aren't going to find a hidden trap; no matter how agile you are (DEX), you aren't going to disarm one... unless you are TRAINED. Likewise, anyone can tumble, but only someone TRAINED in Acrobatics can use that skill to reduce falling damage.
Honestly, I like the Pathfinder 2 grades of training - I wish that were in D&D. Then that cleric's skill would be growing over time (which Proficiency bonus does in D&D), but also gaining access to more/better/hidden knowledge. The wizard can recite the names of all the gods, no problem (+4 from INT, basic level task), but knowing the obscure plant fertilization ritual Melora taught Pelor is something only the cleric (master level task) might know (even if his skill check might be awful to recall it). I think that system would work well in a "bounded accuracy" system like 5e, in particular... +0 on a master level DC 15 task is challenging, but achievable, while the untrained wizard kicks but at the basic tasks and can't attempt even a DC 5 master level task.
Regarding the actual RL wearing of armor: I have worn and fought in fiberglass+padding armor for karate (with a padded full helmet+grill). Despite training and practicing and improving my strength and core through karate - and despite the armor having an open back! - I overheat tremendously! It's not even a question of weight... not much heavier than winter clothes (except the helmet - I need more neck muscles!). It's a question of getting used to bearing the armor - it restricts certain movements, for starters, but also you need to learn how to take advantage of your armor - a direct hit straight on still can break bones! We have to learn to angle our bodies in ways to help the armor making blows "glancing" - where, unarmored, we would instead block or dodge. And even all that training would be useless if I put on a 40-pound chainmail hauberk - it isn't constructed the same way, it braces against my body differently, and the techniques for correctly using a flexible weave of metal are different than the (padded) plates of stiff fiberglass I'm used to. [Plus there's the whole easy example of a beginning hiking backpack, which sits all the weight on your shoulders, versus an actual hiking pack frame that balances weight on your hips as well.] Training and familiarity are required to correctly and efficiently wear armor.
Something that always catches my attention in the Lord of the Rings movies is how Aragorn "adventures" in nothing thicker than "travelling leathers", while Boromir is in a heavy gambeson or possibly even ringmail. Gimil I think also is in a gambeson; Legolas is in clothes. Then they get to Helm's Deep (well, not Boromir), and they put on suits of chainmail! Like "Whoa, this is *war*, not simple skirmishes! I need real armor!" And in the final scene, Aragorn (who has clearly picked up some Fighter levels in the meantime) is outfitted in full plate! Good thing he had training in those different kinds of armor, eh? He seems really comfortable in all of them...
Gandalf and Legolas, on the other hand, never wear armor. Ever. One hobbit gets some kid's leather, another gets a suit of kid's chainmail. Curiously, both seem fine with it.
Wait, what was my point? ;-)
Anyway - I think the best solution for weapons is to treat them as skills, kinda like the CRPG Baldur's Gate did in 2e long ago. If you get "All Martial", you get like 5 points, and can have up to tier 3 to start, but it takes 2 stars to pick an exotic weapon; if you get all Simple, you get 4 points, but are limited to tier 2 "simple" weapons, or tier 1 anything else (and it takes 2 points to get a martial). If you get a specific list, then you get 3 points, max tier 1, and anything not on the list takes 2 points. Something like that. So you specialize or generalize, your choice, but you don't know what you aren't trained in. Then maybe (coming back to 5e) every time you gain a proficiency bonus, get a new point to spend.
Tier 1 = no penalties to use the weapon. Tier 2 = proficiency bonus. Tier 3 = (some extra bonus; or maybe gate-lock some class abilities unless you are using a tier 3 weapon, like "-1 Extra Attack / Sneak Attack die / Fighting Style unless using a Tier 3 weapon"). Dunno, brainstorming while writing this. By 18th level, the wizard will be Tier 1 will all his "class weapons", or maybe Tier 2 with a couple that he spent more time with (at the cost of learning the others), *or* Tier 2 with a weapon not on the list.
Armor profs could be handled the same way, or maybe something similiar. OR not, as Sigred pointed out, maybe I'm traying too much toward WOIN, HERO, or White Wolf....
That's a fun recreation of what might happen in a specific situation, but consider this other one:
Barbarian; Wisdom (Survival) -> "I've been tracking my whole life, but this creature eludes me"
Cleric; Wisdom (Survival) -> "Really? I've never set foot outside Waterdeep, hardly ever leave my temple, actually, but obviously the creature went that way..."
Or:
Druid; Intelligence (Nature) -> "I don't think I've ever seen this type of tree before. I have no clue as to whether it houses Sprites or not."
Wizard; Intelligence (Nature) -> "Oh? This is a Quercus robur, commonly called an 'Oak', I believe. Quite common in your homeland. It does house Sprites, quite often."
Or:
Cleric; Intelligence (Religion) -> "Uh... wait, how do I bless someone in the name of Pelor again?"
Wizard; Intelligence (Religion) -> "*eyeroll* You do it every Sunday at mass, and three additional times a year, on religious holidays. Hold your holy symbol up high with your right hand, and say, '<insert blessing text>'. You really should study your profession better."
Now, those are somewhat contrived, of course... and you can make an argument that the DC for recognizing oaks and knowing the proper way to bless should be quite low, low enough that someone with a +0 ability bonus plus their proficiency bonus should pass most of the time, or you can argue that the DM shouldn't have Druids roll to recognize an oak, or Clerics roll to know who to bless someone in the name of their god, but you can substitute any properly high DC activity there and get a similar result. Regardless of how the DM chooses to handle specific cases, the fact is that most/all Wizards will be strictly better at Religion than most/all Clerics, most/all Clerics will be better at Tracking (Survival) than most/all Barbarians, etc., simply by virtue of having a maxed out relevant ability score. Granted, that score might not give a +0 to the other class, but how many Clerics invest in Intelligence, as opposed to Wisdom, Strength, Constitution? How many Barbarians invest in Wisdom, as opposed to Strength, Constitution, Dexterity? In all/most of those cases, we're comparing a primary stat to a 4th or worse priority stat, so the difference in bonuses it likely to be 4 or greater, meaning that until at least level 13, the "primary ability" class will have at least an equal skill check score than the "4th or worse priority stat, but with proficiency" class, and in many cases even at level 16 the latter will still not exceed the former. In some (maybe many?) cases, even at max (20th) level, the "primary ability" class character's total skill check bonus will still exceed the other one. And -- and this is what really bugs me -- this is considering that the "primary ability" class has no interest in developing the skill, and has invested no resources into developing it. A Cleric would have to make some significant sacrifices to match or exceed a Wizard's ability to handle Religion issues, even when the Wizard has not even considered Religion; a Barbarian would have to make some significant sacrifices to match or exceed a Cleric's "natural" Tracking ability, even when the Cleric has no interest in ever tracking anything.
IRL I’ve met pastors who are great at their job but didn’t know (or care, apparently) that the candles on and near the altar should be lit and extinguished in a certain order.
The whole Old Believers thing in Russian history happened because at some point the entire Russian church started doing things the “wrong way”. So when the Tsar tried to correct it, some of the believers got really upset.
I would only make a cleric make a Intelligence (Religion) check when it’s about another religion or some rare ceremony in their own religion. They know how to do their jobs but they might not know why they do things the way they do. I don’t expect every pastor or priest to be able to discuss the Gnostic Heresies with me.
DM’s have to know when to have a player roll for what their character knows and when to just tell them what they know. If you do make them roll and it results in something that is nonsensical, then you have a problem.
Tracking using Wisdom (Survival) is a tougher one to rationalize. Why would a cleric that rarely sets foot outside the temple be better at tracking than a barbarian who has spent his entire life outside? I’ll have to think about that one.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
IC, I have experience with wearing armor. I have witnessed others learning how to function while wearing armor. It truly does not matter how strong you are if you do not have experience; you are going to be slow, tired, and in a world of pain until your body gets used to the kit. You have to completely relearn how to carry yourself: posture, stride, flexibility, joint rotation, limb extension, etc. I have watched as people that can only be described as "mountains of meat" (far stronger than myself physically) pass out from the fatigue of just standing still in light plating.
The ability to properly wear armor is absolutely a learned skill, not purely dependent on your physical characteristics.
Are the armor proficiency rules in 5e silly? They're not perfect, no. Disproportionate penalties? Yeah, if they're going for realism, the penalties should be harsher if the "non-proficient" armor you're attempting to wear is Heavy Armor.
Is class trope enforcement a factor? Absolutely. Why wouldn't it be? Class choices & distinctions matter. If I wanted to play a game system where every character has access to everything, I'd play a White Wolf game, not D&D.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
[EDIT: Whoops, didn't realize I necro'd this thread quite so much!!]
The Sword & Sorcery rulebooks explained it by adding a quirk to arcane magics in their world: arcane magic generates heat. Spellcasters are generally lightly clothed (or scantily) because just working their magic keeps them warm -- casting in armor is a quick way to cook themselves. (Divine magic is handled by the patron, and the result "passed" to the petitioner.)
I agree that proficiency and talent (stat) disparity is irritating. The cleric in a game I play (18 WIS) is actually better at perception than my rogue with Expertise (8 WIS, because backstory)! As a DM, I will sometimes call for "those PROFICIENT in (skill X) can make a roll". That's a bit of a hold over from 4e and earlier editions -- no matter how Perceptive you are due to instinct (WIS), you aren't going to find a hidden trap; no matter how agile you are (DEX), you aren't going to disarm one... unless you are TRAINED. Likewise, anyone can tumble, but only someone TRAINED in Acrobatics can use that skill to reduce falling damage.
Honestly, I like the Pathfinder 2 grades of training - I wish that were in D&D. Then that cleric's skill would be growing over time (which Proficiency bonus does in D&D), but also gaining access to more/better/hidden knowledge. The wizard can recite the names of all the gods, no problem (+4 from INT, basic level task), but knowing the obscure plant fertilization ritual Melora taught Pelor is something only the cleric (master level task) might know (even if his skill check might be awful to recall it). I think that system would work well in a "bounded accuracy" system like 5e, in particular... +0 on a master level DC 15 task is challenging, but achievable, while the untrained wizard kicks but at the basic tasks and can't attempt even a DC 5 master level task.
Regarding the actual RL wearing of armor: I have worn and fought in fiberglass+padding armor for karate (with a padded full helmet+grill). Despite training and practicing and improving my strength and core through karate - and despite the armor having an open back! - I overheat tremendously! It's not even a question of weight... not much heavier than winter clothes (except the helmet - I need more neck muscles!). It's a question of getting used to bearing the armor - it restricts certain movements, for starters, but also you need to learn how to take advantage of your armor - a direct hit straight on still can break bones! We have to learn to angle our bodies in ways to help the armor making blows "glancing" - where, unarmored, we would instead block or dodge. And even all that training would be useless if I put on a 40-pound chainmail hauberk - it isn't constructed the same way, it braces against my body differently, and the techniques for correctly using a flexible weave of metal are different than the (padded) plates of stiff fiberglass I'm used to. [Plus there's the whole easy example of a beginning hiking backpack, which sits all the weight on your shoulders, versus an actual hiking pack frame that balances weight on your hips as well.] Training and familiarity are required to correctly and efficiently wear armor.
Something that always catches my attention in the Lord of the Rings movies is how Aragorn "adventures" in nothing thicker than "travelling leathers", while Boromir is in a heavy gambeson or possibly even ringmail. Gimil I think also is in a gambeson; Legolas is in clothes. Then they get to Helm's Deep (well, not Boromir), and they put on suits of chainmail! Like "Whoa, this is *war*, not simple skirmishes! I need real armor!" And in the final scene, Aragorn (who has clearly picked up some Fighter levels in the meantime) is outfitted in full plate! Good thing he had training in those different kinds of armor, eh? He seems really comfortable in all of them...
Gandalf and Legolas, on the other hand, never wear armor. Ever. One hobbit gets some kid's leather, another gets a suit of kid's chainmail. Curiously, both seem fine with it.
Wait, what was my point? ;-)
Anyway - I think the best solution for weapons is to treat them as skills, kinda like the CRPG Baldur's Gate did in 2e long ago. If you get "All Martial", you get like 5 points, and can have up to tier 3 to start, but it takes 2 stars to pick an exotic weapon; if you get all Simple, you get 4 points, but are limited to tier 2 "simple" weapons, or tier 1 anything else (and it takes 2 points to get a martial). If you get a specific list, then you get 3 points, max tier 1, and anything not on the list takes 2 points. Something like that. So you specialize or generalize, your choice, but you don't know what you aren't trained in. Then maybe (coming back to 5e) every time you gain a proficiency bonus, get a new point to spend.
Tier 1 = no penalties to use the weapon. Tier 2 = proficiency bonus. Tier 3 = (some extra bonus; or maybe gate-lock some class abilities unless you are using a tier 3 weapon, like "-1 Extra Attack / Sneak Attack die / Fighting Style unless using a Tier 3 weapon"). Dunno, brainstorming while writing this. By 18th level, the wizard will be Tier 1 will all his "class weapons", or maybe Tier 2 with a couple that he spent more time with (at the cost of learning the others), *or* Tier 2 with a weapon not on the list.
Armor profs could be handled the same way, or maybe something similiar. OR not, as Sigred pointed out, maybe I'm traying too much toward WOIN, HERO, or White Wolf....