There's a very good reason for the specific armor proficiency rules: AC abuse.
I'd argue it has far more to do with expectations than abuse. It's a well-established trope that wizards are glass cannons that wear robes and pointy hats so players readily accept that the class doesn't have access to armor.
The baseline assumption for armor is that nobody can wear armor effectively. You can wear it, but man is it awkward... ever lugged around an overloaded backpack for too long? That's literally what it's like wearing armor you aren't proficient with.
Having 50 pounds directly on your back isn't the same as distributing 50 pounds of armor all over your body. Even if it were, the game's rules happily allow a wizard to overencumber themselves and cast spells as long as it's not through armor.
There's no real reason why a wizard shouldn't be able to walk around comfortably and cast spells in padded armor or a chain shirt other than the game designers not wanting them to.
There's no real reason why a wizard shouldn't be able to walk around comfortably and cast spells in padded armor or a chain shirt other than the game designers not wanting them to.
Yes, I think that's what annoys me : on one hand, the justification for having "only" a non-profiency penalty on weapons is that "everyone can swing a weapon, even badly", but on the other hand the justification for not being able to wear any armor is that "the game design doesn't allow it".
That's not logical, and I don't like things that are not logical ;-)
To me, it should be the same thing : you wanna use a weapon you're not proficient with ? Fine, but you don't get your Proficiency bonus and you get Disavantage on your attack rolls ... you wanna wear an armor you're not proficient with ? Fine, but you don't get your Proficiency bonus (hmm ... there's no Proficiency bonus on Armor actually, maybe there should be one ?), and you get Disavantage on about everything you're trying to do that involves moving any part of your body.
(oh, and please don't condescend me with "you're still a 5E noob don't try to do anything just use the rules as they are", I've been playing D&D since the early 80s so I think I'm allowed to have some thoughts of my own ^^)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
There's no real reason why a wizard shouldn't be able to walk around comfortably and cast spells in padded armor or a chain shirt other than the game designers not wanting them to.
Yes, I think that's what annoys me : on one hand, the justification for having "only" a non-profiency penalty on weapons is that "everyone can swing a weapon, even badly", but on the other hand the justification for not being able to wear any armor is that "the game design doesn't allow it".
That's not logical, and I don't like things that are not logical ;-)
To me, it should be the same thing : you wanna use a weapon you're not proficient with ? Fine, but you don't get your Proficiency bonus and you get Disavantage on your attack rolls ... you wanna wear an armor you're not proficient with ? Fine, but you don't get your Proficiency bonus (hmm ... there's no Proficiency bonus on Armor actually, maybe there should be one ?), and you get Disavantage on about everything you're trying to do that involves moving any part of your body.
(oh, and please don't condescend me with "you're still a 5E noob don't try to do anything just use the rules as they are", I've been playing D&D since the early 80s so I think I'm allowed to have some thoughts of my own ^^)
One other thing that does happen when you wear armor with which you aren't proficient is that you lose 10 ft off your movement speed, unless you're a dwarf.
One other thing that does happen when you wear armor with which you aren't proficient is that you lose 10 ft off your movement speed, unless you're a dwarf.
I'm pretty sure the 10 ft movement penalty is only if you don't have the required strength to wear Heavy Armour - not from the lack of proficiency.
Edit - I wasn't mistaken:
Heavy Armor. Heavier armor interferes with the wearer's ability to move quickly, stealthily, and freely. If the Armor table shows "Str 13" or "Str 15" in the Strength column for an armor type, the armor reduces the wearer's speed by 10 feet unless the wearer has a Strength score equal to or higher than the listed score. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/equipment#ArmorandShields
I think you're twisting what I said into a far more pedantic statement.
I'm not telling you to never homebrew anything, of course you can. I just mean if you're asking how proficiency works - which is a very baseline component of 5e - you should probably familiarize yourself with the rules some more before you start changing things, like what gives/doesn't give (dis)advantage. You change something on page A, it's going to mess things up on page B that you weren't expecting. Don't overexert yourself; become familiar with how all the aspects interact with one another, and then start messing with them.
The baseline assumption for armor is that nobody can wear armor effectively. You can wear it, but man is it awkward... ever lugged around an overloaded backpack for too long? That's literally what it's like wearing armor you aren't proficient with.
Having 50 pounds directly on your back isn't the same as distributing 50 pounds of armor all over your body. Even if it were, the game's rules happily allow a wizard to overencumber themselves and cast spells as long as it's not through armor.
There's no real reason why a wizard shouldn't be able to walk around comfortably and cast spells in padded armor or a chain shirt other than the game designers not wanting them to.
You're not wrong, but that's not the point either. It's weight that your musculoskeletal system is not conditioned to bear for extended periods of time, and it's particularly brutal on muscle groups that aren't used to bearing external weight at all. Proper distribution of weight is what makes a person wearing armor possible, not easy. Your body is under constant exertion, building more heat than usual, and has less avenues to disperse heat than while unarmored. You can enter heat exhaustion/stroke very quickly once you start activity more intense than standing still. Even leather armor isn't exactly light... you'll get musculoskeletal fatigue for awhile, but it's a hell of a lot easier getting used to than armor with more metal.
As for casting in armor, well, there's really no argument to be made of why a Wizard should be able walk & cast comfortably in armor they aren't proficient with. In 5e wearing armor explicitly interferes with the flow of magic via the Weave, and only those that are proficient with their armor have the experience needed to access it. Full stop. Is that a satisfying answer to me either? No, it's not, but we obviously don't have any conceivable frame of reference to argue against WoTC on that one. 🤷♂️
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
So, yes, as they level up, the difference between a proficient character and a non-proficient one increases, but at low levels the difference is just a +2 (the Proficiency Bonus) and the Ability modifier, which as you say should be different between a Fighter and a Wizard. That's a smaller difference than the one I was used to with my previous Editions, but I guess it's also more realistic, there's no real reason to forbid a Wizard from touching a sword ;-)
This can actually be more of a problem with Skills. It's happened at my table (we rolled for stats using a modified method that results in significantly higher than average stats), players who spent a proficiency into a skill have characters with significantly lower bonuses for those skills than others who didn't take proficiency, but had high stats for the skill. As an example, consider a rough, surly Fighter, who took proficiency with Intimidate, compared to an independent, self-reliant Sorcerer, who has no intention of Intimidating anyone. The Fighter probably has +0 from Charisma, so ends up with a total of +2 for Intimidate, while the Sorcerer probably has +3 from Charisma, for a total of +3 for Intimidate. Not until level 5 (the very end of Tier 1) do their scores become equal (+3 for both), and not until level 9 (nearing the end of Tier 2) does the Fighter actually become better at Intimidating than the Sorcerer (+4 vs +3). On the other hand, by level 9, the Sorcerer has had two ASIs, and quite probably spend one, or maybe both, to raise their Charisma, so even by level 9 they're either equally good at Intimidating, or the Sorcerer is still better. At level 13, they're guaranteed to be equal (proficiency +5, matching the Sorcerer's maximum +5 from Charisma), and only at level 17 is the Fighter actually better at Intimidating than the Sorcerer... unless the Sorcerer has found a way to exceed the natural maximum of 20 for Charisma, which is not unreasonable (Tome of Leadership and Influence, for example). Given that, unless the Fighter also invests into raising their Charisma (unlikely), they will never be better than the Sorcerer as Intimidation.
Whether that's a problem at your table or not will depend on several things... whether your players are bothered by other players having characters be better at something without trying/wanting to, whether your players would have their characters perform actions just because they happen to be effective (as opposed to because they fit their character), etc. (Continuing the example above... maybe the Sorcerer's player never has their Sorcerer Intimidate anybody, because it doesn't fit the character, so the issue never comes up.) But, mechanically, it is a problem.
I don't see the problem. Your skill bonus is a combination of your natural ability and your level of training. It's not unreasonable to say that training can't completely compensate for the lack of natural ability. That Fighter may have worked at being more intimidating, but there's only so much he can do to overcome his lack of charisma. And that Sorcerer, even if he's not actively trying to be intimidating, just has such a powerful presence that he has an effect on people for good or ill. Now, you can argue that just because someone is charismatic doesn't mean they're going to be naturally persuasive, intimidating, AND deceitful. But this is one of the tradeoffs Wizards made between granularity and simplicity for 5th Edition.
I don't see the problem. Your skill bonus is a combination of your natural ability and your level of training. It's not unreasonable to say that training can't completely compensate for the lack of natural ability. That Fighter may have worked at being more intimidating, but there's only so much he can do to overcome his lack of charisma. And that Sorcerer, even if he's not actively trying to be intimidating, just has such a powerful presence that he has an effect on people for good or ill. Now, you can argue that just because someone is charismatic doesn't mean they're going to be naturally persuasive, intimidating, AND deceitful. But this is one of the tradeoffs Wizards made between granularity and simplicity for 5th Edition.
*Shrug* Different strokes, I guess. I find a problem with a character being unable to be better than another at something completely unrelated to their professions, when spending resources while the other doesn't. The problem is that primary stats contribute too much to a skill roll. Why are all Clerics so naturally good at tracking? It must have something to do with why they're also so sharp-eyed. Oddly enough, Wizards are better than Clerics at Religion, and better than Druids and Rangers at Nature, too. Inexplicably, Warlocks are all awesome musicians, dancers, or storytellers, which they must have learned from their dealings with powerful denizens of the Lower Planes, weird disturbing Elder Gods, and powerful undead.
So, yes, as they level up, the difference between a proficient character and a non-proficient one increases, but at low levels the difference is just a +2 (the Proficiency Bonus) and the Ability modifier, which as you say should be different between a Fighter and a Wizard. That's a smaller difference than the one I was used to with my previous Editions, but I guess it's also more realistic, there's no real reason to forbid a Wizard from touching a sword ;-)
This can actually be more of a problem with Skills. It's happened at my table (we rolled for stats using a modified method that results in significantly higher than average stats), players who spent a proficiency into a skill have characters with significantly lower bonuses for those skills than others who didn't take proficiency, but had high stats for the skill. As an example, consider a rough, surly Fighter, who took proficiency with Intimidate, compared to an independent, self-reliant Sorcerer, who has no intention of Intimidating anyone. The Fighter probably has +0 from Charisma, so ends up with a total of +2 for Intimidate, while the Sorcerer probably has +3 from Charisma, for a total of +3 for Intimidate. Not until level 5 (the very end of Tier 1) do their scores become equal (+3 for both), and not until level 9 (nearing the end of Tier 2) does the Fighter actually become better at Intimidating than the Sorcerer (+4 vs +3). On the other hand, by level 9, the Sorcerer has had two ASIs, and quite probably spend one, or maybe both, to raise their Charisma, so even by level 9 they're either equally good at Intimidating, or the Sorcerer is still better. At level 13, they're guaranteed to be equal (proficiency +5, matching the Sorcerer's maximum +5 from Charisma), and only at level 17 is the Fighter actually better at Intimidating than the Sorcerer... unless the Sorcerer has found a way to exceed the natural maximum of 20 for Charisma, which is not unreasonable (Tome of Leadership and Influence, for example). Given that, unless the Fighter also invests into raising their Charisma (unlikely), they will never be better than the Sorcerer as Intimidation.
Whether that's a problem at your table or not will depend on several things... whether your players are bothered by other players having characters be better at something without trying/wanting to, whether your players would have their characters perform actions just because they happen to be effective (as opposed to because they fit their character), etc. (Continuing the example above... maybe the Sorcerer's player never has their Sorcerer Intimidate anybody, because it doesn't fit the character, so the issue never comes up.) But, mechanically, it is a problem.
This is where as a DM I would use a non-standard ability score for the fighters intimidate, which is likely to be a show of strength or dexterity rather than scary words (of course, it would depend on how the fighter tried to intimidate the target). A fighter could make a Strength (intimidation) check with proficiency by making a physical threat (crushing an object, punching a hole in a wall by a creatures head, etc) where his words wouldn’t work as well
You're not wrong, but that's not the point either. It's weight that your musculoskeletal system is not conditioned to bear for extended periods of time, and it's particularly brutal on muscle groups that aren't used to bearing external weight at all. (etc)
You're greatly overstating how difficult it is to wear armor. The idea of having "proficiency" in armor is pure nonsense. It's not like people routinely did extended treks through the countryside in full gear to prepare for war back in the day. That goes double for plate armor, which was mainly worn by nobles. At the end of the day everyone wore the heaviest armor they could afford that wouldn't get in the way of their role (e.g. digging trenches, shooting arrows.)
And yeah, having some level of physical fitness helps when you're going to be marching for hours, but that's already accounted for with your ability scores and the game doesn't penalize wizards for encumbering themselves; only for wearing armor. Like I said, literally anyone can easily wear a chain shirt.
As for casting in armor, well, there's really no argument to be made of why a Wizard should be able walk & cast comfortably in armor they aren't proficient with.
Again, light armor is about as comfortable and easy to wear as any kind of armor is going to get. You don't need "proficiency" to wear a slightly thicker shirt.
In 5e wearing armor explicitly interferes with the flow of magic via the Weave
No, it doesn't. Clerics, Paladins, Eldritch Knights, Warlocks, Bards and Druids all cast spells in armor just fine.
The only rationales for armor proficiency the game gives are...
Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however.
Which is pure nonsense for light and some medium armors and still not completely true for heavier armors. Putting on plate might be tricky and the average person might not know how to do it, but once you're in it it doesn't make a difference.
And then there's this:
Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting.
Which again doesn't hold water. Any spellcaster can cast spells while being grappled and restrained inside a Wall of Fire and concentrating on Blur and a group of kobolds are trying to stab them to death. Wearing light armor is hardly going to interfere with your mental focus compared to the average combat round. The same goes for the bit about precise gestures, which only applies to spells with Somatic components anyways. Casting a spell from a magic item doesn't even require any effort or components on the part of the user but armor still interferes with that somehow.
Armor interfering with the Weave wasn't even true in 3e. Armor only interfered with somatic components, and 3e did have rules to account for being grappled, pinned, restrained, or being set on fire while you're trying to cast a spell.
You're not wrong, but that's not the point either. It's weight that your musculoskeletal system is not conditioned to bear for extended periods of time, and it's particularly brutal on muscle groups that aren't used to bearing external weight at all. (etc)
You're greatly overstating how difficult it is to wear armor. The idea of having "proficiency" in armor is pure nonsense. It's not like people routinely did extended treks through the countryside in full gear to prepare for war back in the day. That goes double for plate armor, which was mainly worn by nobles. At the end of the day everyone wore the heaviest armor they could afford that wouldn't get in the way of their role (e.g. digging trenches, shooting arrows.)
And yeah, having some level of physical fitness helps when you're going to be marching for hours, but that's already accounted for with your ability scores and the game doesn't penalize wizards for encumbering themselves; only for wearing armor. Like I said, literally anyone can easily wear a chain shirt.
As for casting in armor, well, there's really no argument to be made of why a Wizard should be able walk & cast comfortably in armor they aren't proficient with.
Again, light armor is about as comfortable and easy to wear as any kind of armor is going to get. You don't need "proficiency" to wear a slightly thicker shirt.
In 5e wearing armor explicitly interferes with the flow of magic via the Weave
No, it doesn't. Clerics, Paladins, Eldritch Knights, Warlocks, Bards and Druids all cast spells in armor just fine.
The only rationales for armor proficiency the game gives are...
Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however.
Which is pure nonsense for light and some medium armors and still not completely true for heavier armors. Putting on plate might be tricky and the average person might not know how to do it, but once you're in it it doesn't make a difference.
And then there's this:
Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting.
Which again doesn't hold water. Any spellcaster can cast spells while being grappled and restrained inside a Wall of Fire and concentrating on Blur and a group of kobolds are trying to stab them to death. Wearing light armor is hardly going to interfere with your mental focus compared to the average combat round. The same goes for the bit about precise gestures, which only applies to spells with Somatic components anyways. Casting a spell from a magic item doesn't even require any effort or components on the part of the user but armor still interferes with that somehow.
Armor interfering with the Weave wasn't even true in 3e. Armor only interfered with somatic components, and 3e did have rules to account for being grappled, pinned, restrained, or being set on fire while you're trying to cast a spell.
At the risk of sounding condescending, calm down dude...it’s a rule that casters cannot cast in armor they aren’t proficient in...it’s a game balance issue, and people are trying to plausibly explain it...but there’s also this, straight from the PHB...
“CASTING IN ARMOR
Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting.“
Thats the literal in world explanation from the creators of the game...you can argue all you want, but it’s their creation, not yours
You're not wrong, but that's not the point either. It's weight that your musculoskeletal system is not conditioned to bear for extended periods of time, and it's particularly brutal on muscle groups that aren't used to bearing external weight at all. (etc)
You're greatly overstating how difficult it is to wear armor. The idea of having "proficiency" in armor is pure nonsense. It's not like people routinely did extended treks through the countryside in full gear to prepare for war back in the day. That goes double for plate armor, which was mainly worn by nobles. At the end of the day everyone wore the heaviest armor they could afford that wouldn't get in the way of their role (e.g. digging trenches, shooting arrows.)
And yeah, having some level of physical fitness helps when you're going to be marching for hours, but that's already accounted for with your ability scores and the game doesn't penalize wizards for encumbering themselves; only for wearing armor. Like I said, literally anyone can easily wear a chain shirt
Have you ever worn armor? Doing more than standing/light movement for ceremony? 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. It's not easy, and going on extensive treks in their gear is exactly what people did... it's still what people do. 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
What does seem odd to me is that Wizards have no armor proficiencies at all in 5e. I wouldn't say anyone can easily wear a Chain Shirt--that's medium armor in 5e, not light (and 20 lbs)--but Padded armor? Sure.. it's light, purposely designed for ease of wear, and IIRC Wizards have historically been able to wear it by default. It's not like there isn't precedent (or existing code) for granting classes proficiency with a specific set of armor.
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.
You could argue that Wizards and Sorcerers are the only magic classes that don’t get their magic through something else (divines, patrons, nature, music), so they have to focus that much harder to access it...add to that the exhaustive or detailed nature of their class compared to other casters (massive spell list / metamagic) and that could explain why even light or padded armor messes them up
The problem is that primary stats contribute too much to a skill roll. Why are all Clerics so naturally good at tracking? It must have something to do with why they're also so sharp-eyed. Oddly enough, Wizards are better than Clerics at Religion, and better than Druids and Rangers at Nature, too.
Hmm ... you're right about that too actually, I didn't consider it so far but it is a litte weird indeed. Maybe there should be some sort of "non-proficency malus" that applies to things you're trying to do when you're not proficient in them ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
The problem is that primary stats contribute too much to a skill roll. Why are all Clerics so naturally good at tracking? It must have something to do with why they're also so sharp-eyed. Oddly enough, Wizards are better than Clerics at Religion, and better than Druids and Rangers at Nature, too.
Hmm ... you're right about that too actually, I didn't consider it so far but it is a litte weird indeed. Maybe there should be some sort of "non-proficency malus" that applies to things you're trying to do when you're not proficient in them ?
A more intelligent person being naturally better at tasks involving intelligence than a less intelligent person? Shocking! 😂
Look, there's no reason to add a "non-proficiency malus" to anything; it is already accounted for with the proficiency bonus (the lack of a bonus without proficiency). If doing a specific thing requires proficiency (like casting in armor), it is explicitly stated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
The problem is that primary stats contribute too much to a skill roll. Why are all Clerics so naturally good at tracking? It must have something to do with why they're also so sharp-eyed. Oddly enough, Wizards are better than Clerics at Religion, and better than Druids and Rangers at Nature, too.
Hmm ... you're right about that too actually, I didn't consider it so far but it is a litte weird indeed. Maybe there should be some sort of "non-proficency malus" that applies to things you're trying to do when you're not proficient in them ?
A more intelligent person being naturally better at tasks involving intelligence than a less intelligent person? Shocking! 😂
Look, there's no reason to add a "non-proficiency malus" to anything; it is already accounted for with the proficiency bonus (the lack of a bonus without proficiency). If doing a specific thing requires proficiency (like casting in armor), it is explicitly stated.
What's shocking is not that a more intelligent person is naturally better at tasks involving intelligence than a less intelligent person, it's that a more intelligent person is unqualifiedly better (not "naturally") at tasks involving intelligence than a less intelligent person who has trained all their life at those tasks. Rangers life in and for nature, all their lives; Clerics live for their god and religion, deal with it constantly; a Wizard that has never been interested in, or dealt with, nature or religion is still better than most/all Rangers and Clerics at Nature and Religion, respectively.
But I agree, I wouldn't implement a non-proficiency penalty. I'd like to make the proficiency bonus higher, but that would screw with the rest of the system, of course. Or make the ability bonus smaller, which would nerf all "core class" abilities, especially for Rogues. Maybe a hybrid, where if you're not proficient, you can only add half your ability bonus? I haven't thought enough about how I'd fix it.
The game needs to be more generous with expertise, honestly. Even if it’s more situational, i.e. rangers can double their proficiency bonus when tracking.
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!”
*slow clap*
I'd argue it has far more to do with expectations than abuse. It's a well-established trope that wizards are glass cannons that wear robes and pointy hats so players readily accept that the class doesn't have access to armor.
Having 50 pounds directly on your back isn't the same as distributing 50 pounds of armor all over your body. Even if it were, the game's rules happily allow a wizard to overencumber themselves and cast spells as long as it's not through armor.
There's no real reason why a wizard shouldn't be able to walk around comfortably and cast spells in padded armor or a chain shirt other than the game designers not wanting them to.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Well, that's an interesting discussion indeed !
Yes, I think that's what annoys me : on one hand, the justification for having "only" a non-profiency penalty on weapons is that "everyone can swing a weapon, even badly", but on the other hand the justification for not being able to wear any armor is that "the game design doesn't allow it".
That's not logical, and I don't like things that are not logical ;-)
To me, it should be the same thing : you wanna use a weapon you're not proficient with ? Fine, but you don't get your Proficiency bonus and you get Disavantage on your attack rolls ... you wanna wear an armor you're not proficient with ? Fine, but you don't get your Proficiency bonus (hmm ... there's no Proficiency bonus on Armor actually, maybe there should be one ?), and you get Disavantage on about everything you're trying to do that involves moving any part of your body.
(oh, and please don't condescend me with "you're still a 5E noob don't try to do anything just use the rules as they are", I've been playing D&D since the early 80s so I think I'm allowed to have some thoughts of my own ^^)
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
One other thing that does happen when you wear armor with which you aren't proficient is that you lose 10 ft off your movement speed, unless you're a dwarf.
Edit: corrected by Emmber
I'm pretty sure the 10 ft movement penalty is only if you don't have the required strength to wear Heavy Armour - not from the lack of proficiency.
Edit - I wasn't mistaken:
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I think you're twisting what I said into a far more pedantic statement.
I'm not telling you to never homebrew anything, of course you can. I just mean if you're asking how proficiency works - which is a very baseline component of 5e - you should probably familiarize yourself with the rules some more before you start changing things, like what gives/doesn't give (dis)advantage. You change something on page A, it's going to mess things up on page B that you weren't expecting. Don't overexert yourself; become familiar with how all the aspects interact with one another, and then start messing with them.
But you do you; I'm not your boss.
You're not wrong, but that's not the point either. It's weight that your musculoskeletal system is not conditioned to bear for extended periods of time, and it's particularly brutal on muscle groups that aren't used to bearing external weight at all. Proper distribution of weight is what makes a person wearing armor possible, not easy. Your body is under constant exertion, building more heat than usual, and has less avenues to disperse heat than while unarmored. You can enter heat exhaustion/stroke very quickly once you start activity more intense than standing still. Even leather armor isn't exactly light... you'll get musculoskeletal fatigue for awhile, but it's a hell of a lot easier getting used to than armor with more metal.
As for casting in armor, well, there's really no argument to be made of why a Wizard should be able walk & cast comfortably in armor they aren't proficient with. In 5e wearing armor explicitly interferes with the flow of magic via the Weave, and only those that are proficient with their armor have the experience needed to access it. Full stop. Is that a satisfying answer to me either? No, it's not, but we obviously don't have any conceivable frame of reference to argue against WoTC on that one. 🤷♂️
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.
This can actually be more of a problem with Skills. It's happened at my table (we rolled for stats using a modified method that results in significantly higher than average stats), players who spent a proficiency into a skill have characters with significantly lower bonuses for those skills than others who didn't take proficiency, but had high stats for the skill. As an example, consider a rough, surly Fighter, who took proficiency with Intimidate, compared to an independent, self-reliant Sorcerer, who has no intention of Intimidating anyone. The Fighter probably has +0 from Charisma, so ends up with a total of +2 for Intimidate, while the Sorcerer probably has +3 from Charisma, for a total of +3 for Intimidate. Not until level 5 (the very end of Tier 1) do their scores become equal (+3 for both), and not until level 9 (nearing the end of Tier 2) does the Fighter actually become better at Intimidating than the Sorcerer (+4 vs +3). On the other hand, by level 9, the Sorcerer has had two ASIs, and quite probably spend one, or maybe both, to raise their Charisma, so even by level 9 they're either equally good at Intimidating, or the Sorcerer is still better. At level 13, they're guaranteed to be equal (proficiency +5, matching the Sorcerer's maximum +5 from Charisma), and only at level 17 is the Fighter actually better at Intimidating than the Sorcerer... unless the Sorcerer has found a way to exceed the natural maximum of 20 for Charisma, which is not unreasonable (Tome of Leadership and Influence, for example). Given that, unless the Fighter also invests into raising their Charisma (unlikely), they will never be better than the Sorcerer as Intimidation.
Whether that's a problem at your table or not will depend on several things... whether your players are bothered by other players having characters be better at something without trying/wanting to, whether your players would have their characters perform actions just because they happen to be effective (as opposed to because they fit their character), etc. (Continuing the example above... maybe the Sorcerer's player never has their Sorcerer Intimidate anybody, because it doesn't fit the character, so the issue never comes up.) But, mechanically, it is a problem.
I don't see the problem. Your skill bonus is a combination of your natural ability and your level of training. It's not unreasonable to say that training can't completely compensate for the lack of natural ability. That Fighter may have worked at being more intimidating, but there's only so much he can do to overcome his lack of charisma. And that Sorcerer, even if he's not actively trying to be intimidating, just has such a powerful presence that he has an effect on people for good or ill. Now, you can argue that just because someone is charismatic doesn't mean they're going to be naturally persuasive, intimidating, AND deceitful. But this is one of the tradeoffs Wizards made between granularity and simplicity for 5th Edition.
*Shrug* Different strokes, I guess. I find a problem with a character being unable to be better than another at something completely unrelated to their professions, when spending resources while the other doesn't. The problem is that primary stats contribute too much to a skill roll. Why are all Clerics so naturally good at tracking? It must have something to do with why they're also so sharp-eyed. Oddly enough, Wizards are better than Clerics at Religion, and better than Druids and Rangers at Nature, too. Inexplicably, Warlocks are all awesome musicians, dancers, or storytellers, which they must have learned from their dealings with powerful denizens of the Lower Planes, weird disturbing Elder Gods, and powerful undead.
This is where as a DM I would use a non-standard ability score for the fighters intimidate, which is likely to be a show of strength or dexterity rather than scary words (of course, it would depend on how the fighter tried to intimidate the target). A fighter could make a Strength (intimidation) check with proficiency by making a physical threat (crushing an object, punching a hole in a wall by a creatures head, etc) where his words wouldn’t work as well
You're greatly overstating how difficult it is to wear armor. The idea of having "proficiency" in armor is pure nonsense. It's not like people routinely did extended treks through the countryside in full gear to prepare for war back in the day. That goes double for plate armor, which was mainly worn by nobles. At the end of the day everyone wore the heaviest armor they could afford that wouldn't get in the way of their role (e.g. digging trenches, shooting arrows.)
And yeah, having some level of physical fitness helps when you're going to be marching for hours, but that's already accounted for with your ability scores and the game doesn't penalize wizards for encumbering themselves; only for wearing armor. Like I said, literally anyone can easily wear a chain shirt.
Again, light armor is about as comfortable and easy to wear as any kind of armor is going to get. You don't need "proficiency" to wear a slightly thicker shirt.
No, it doesn't. Clerics, Paladins, Eldritch Knights, Warlocks, Bards and Druids all cast spells in armor just fine.
The only rationales for armor proficiency the game gives are...
Which is pure nonsense for light and some medium armors and still not completely true for heavier armors. Putting on plate might be tricky and the average person might not know how to do it, but once you're in it it doesn't make a difference.
And then there's this:
Which again doesn't hold water. Any spellcaster can cast spells while being grappled and restrained inside a Wall of Fire and concentrating on Blur and a group of kobolds are trying to stab them to death. Wearing light armor is hardly going to interfere with your mental focus compared to the average combat round. The same goes for the bit about precise gestures, which only applies to spells with Somatic components anyways. Casting a spell from a magic item doesn't even require any effort or components on the part of the user but armor still interferes with that somehow.
Armor interfering with the Weave wasn't even true in 3e. Armor only interfered with somatic components, and 3e did have rules to account for being grappled, pinned, restrained, or being set on fire while you're trying to cast a spell.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
At the risk of sounding condescending, calm down dude...it’s a rule that casters cannot cast in armor they aren’t proficient in...it’s a game balance issue, and people are trying to plausibly explain it...but there’s also this, straight from the PHB...
“CASTING IN ARMOR
Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting.“
Thats the literal in world explanation from the creators of the game...you can argue all you want, but it’s their creation, not yours
Have you ever worn armor? Doing more than standing/light movement for ceremony? 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. It's not easy, and going on extensive treks in their gear is exactly what people did... it's still what people do. 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
What does seem odd to me is that Wizards have no armor proficiencies at all in 5e. I wouldn't say anyone can easily wear a Chain Shirt--that's medium armor in 5e, not light (and 20 lbs)--but Padded armor? Sure.. it's light, purposely designed for ease of wear, and IIRC Wizards have historically been able to wear it by default. It's not like there isn't precedent (or existing code) for granting classes proficiency with a specific set of armor.
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.
You could argue that Wizards and Sorcerers are the only magic classes that don’t get their magic through something else (divines, patrons, nature, music), so they have to focus that much harder to access it...add to that the exhaustive or detailed nature of their class compared to other casters (massive spell list / metamagic) and that could explain why even light or padded armor messes them up
Hmm ... you're right about that too actually, I didn't consider it so far but it is a litte weird indeed.
Maybe there should be some sort of "non-proficency malus" that applies to things you're trying to do when you're not proficient in them ?
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
A more intelligent person being naturally better at tasks involving intelligence than a less intelligent person? Shocking! 😂
Look, there's no reason to add a "non-proficiency malus" to anything; it is already accounted for with the proficiency bonus (the lack of a bonus without proficiency). If doing a specific thing requires proficiency (like casting in armor), it is explicitly stated.
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.
What's shocking is not that a more intelligent person is naturally better at tasks involving intelligence than a less intelligent person, it's that a more intelligent person is unqualifiedly better (not "naturally") at tasks involving intelligence than a less intelligent person who has trained all their life at those tasks. Rangers life in and for nature, all their lives; Clerics live for their god and religion, deal with it constantly; a Wizard that has never been interested in, or dealt with, nature or religion is still better than most/all Rangers and Clerics at Nature and Religion, respectively.
But I agree, I wouldn't implement a non-proficiency penalty. I'd like to make the proficiency bonus higher, but that would screw with the rest of the system, of course. Or make the ability bonus smaller, which would nerf all "core class" abilities, especially for Rogues. Maybe a hybrid, where if you're not proficient, you can only add half your ability bonus? I haven't thought enough about how I'd fix it.
The game needs to be more generous with expertise, honestly. Even if it’s more situational, i.e. rangers can double their proficiency bonus when tracking.
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!”