I'm coming back to D&D after a long hiatus, I'm actually an old player who started with the Basic red box in the early 80s !
The 5th Edition is probably my favorite of them all, but I do have a question about the Proficiency Bonus. This question might be stupid and silly, sorry in advance, but here it is :
When a character is proficient with a weapon, he adds his Proficiency Bonus to the Attack roll, I got that. But does that mean that a character who is not proficient with a weapon (for exemple, a Wizard trying to use a 2-handed sword) can still use it, and the only penalty he gets is that he doesn't apply his Proficiency Bonus ?
Coming from my previous Editions background, it seems a little light, as I seem to remember that there actually was a malus for the Classes who were trying to use weapons they were not proficient with (or they simply couldn't use them at all in the very 1st Edition).
So, what would prevent a low-level Wizard to use a martial weapon and maybe be more powerful than a same-level Fighter (as the Proficiency Bonus is not that high) ?
Thanks !
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
Yes, a character can use weapons they're not proficient in, and the main effect is that they wouldn't get their proficiency bonus.
Armor has extra penalties for being used when not proficient, but that's just armor.
A wizard using a longsword would not be more powerful than a same-level fighter, for a variety of reasons. First, they wouldn't get the proficiency bonus. Second, they probably have the wrong stats to use it well - the wizard probably has low strength compared to the fighter, so their damage and attack modifier from strength would be low. And as they get higher level, fighters get a bunch of other class-based bonuses to fighting that wizards do not, like extra attacks, action surge, their fighting style, or martial archetype. The difference between a wizard trying to use a sword and a fighter actually knowing what they're doing gets bigger and bigger as both characters level up.
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 ;-)
As for the Armor, you're saying that there is a penalty when not proficient, I saw in the rules that a character is unable to cast a spell wearing an Armor, does it apply to all spells or just spells with somatic component, and is there some other penalties maybe, where the Proficiency Bonus is used ?
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 ;-)
As for the Armor, you're saying that there is a penalty when not proficient, I saw in the rules that a character is unable to cast a spell wearing an Armor, does it apply to all spells or just spells with somatic component, and is there some other penalties maybe, where the Proficiency Bonus is used ?
"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." A lenient DM might rule that spells without a somatic component could still be cast, but generally nobody is going to wear armor without proficiency. There are no other penalties in the rules for doing so, but the ones that are there essentially make wearing the armor untenable as it is.
Ah yes, I forgot about the "avantage / disavantage" thing ... those 5th Edition rules are really well thought of !
Yes, it would make sense to allow the casting of a non-somatic spell, like you say it's just in theory cos noone in their right mind would wear armor without proficiency, but rules are supposed to cover all the possible theories, right ? ;-)
Anyway, I now have my answer about the Proficiency Bonus, thanks guys ! I still think that the penalty isn't high enough at low levels, but it kinda makes sense in a "realistic" view.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
The rules in 5e do not attempt to cover all possible theories. Previous versions sought to, and WotC saw the folly in that with 5e. Many things are left intentionally vague or open to interpretation and are meant to be up to DM discretion.
However, in this case, the possibility of being able to cast verbal only spells while wearing armor you're not proficient in is covered. RAW you cannot do it.
It's worth pointing out that the restriction against casting spells while in armor you lack proficiency with is absolute. It not only applies to spells you can cast as a result of your character's abilities, but also to spells cast through magic items or any other means.
It's more of a game balance thing than a story thing. Relaxing that restriction to spells without S components would allow a wizard to use a Staff of Frost while wearing heavy armor. I'm not saying that's a huge problem, necessarily, but it's good to know the full scope of what would change. There are other reasons why a wizard still wouldn't want to wear full plate (e.g. carrying capacity) and outside of magic items there's only about a dozen spells that are V-only.
It's worth pointing out that the restriction against casting spells while in armor you lack proficiency with is absolute. It not only applies to spells you can cast as a result of your character's abilities, but also to spells cast through magic items or any other means.
It's more of a game balance thing than a story thing. Relaxing that restriction to spells without S components would allow a wizard to use a Staff of Frost while wearing heavy armor. I'm not saying that's a huge problem, necessarily, but it's good to know the full scope of what would change. There are other reasons why a wizard still wouldn't want to wear full plate (e.g. carrying capacity) and outside of magic items there's only about a dozen spells that are V-only.
Well that contradicts a bit the "Wizards can use a sword because it's more realistic than in previous Editions where it was just fobidden for no reason" ... like you say, it's just for game balance, but there's no "realistic" reason to forbid them to do so, so in theory I probably won't forbid that as a DM, although I don't see why any Wizard would want to wear heavy armor if they have Disavantage on about everything...
And that actually gets me back to my first point, if we want Wizards to have a slighlty more important penalty for using a sword or a weapon with which they're not proficient, can we maybe imagine to give them Disavantage when using it ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
I think you're underestimating how useless with a Sword a wizard would typically be. It's not as punishing as previous versions, no, but a Wizard isn't likely to have more than 10 strength, often only 8.
This means they're making their Attack roll with either a +0 or -1 modifier, which is very hard to hit with. Even a level 1 fighter will typically have a +4 or +5 to their attack roll (+2 proficiency bonus, +2 or +3 strength from having 14 or 16 strength) and by level 5 will have a +6 or +7, while the wizard will still have +0 or -1. Actually landing a hit with that modifier would be rare, and the damage output wouldn't be worth it as they have no strength to add to their damage roll.
like you say, it's just for game balance, but there's no "realistic" reason to forbid them to do so, so in theory I probably won't forbid that as a DM, although I don't see why any Wizard would want to wear heavy armor if they have Disavantage on about everything...
Don't need to make any kind of roll to blast someone with a saving throw spell.
The average wizard has a 9 in strength as it's a pointless stat for them. Practically every creature has at least 10 AC, so at best the wizard will have a 50 percent chance of hitting them with a Longsword. Even if they do hit, if they have 8/9 Strength and roll a 1 on the d8 damage die, they deal no damage. This means a <50% chance to hit followed by a 12.5% chance to deal 0 damage; AKA a total waste of time.
If you want to use a sword and you're going to bother getting Proficiency with a weapon beyond the few simple ones a wizard starts with - whether by going the Bladesong subclass, sinking a level into another class, choosing the Weapon Master feat, whatever - I would highly recommend either a shortsword or rapier. They at least allow you to make your attack and damage rolls with your Dexterity, which isn't a totally wasted stat for Wizards as it also improves your AC and your initiative.
All that said, unless you're going Bladesong, the only reason a Wizard should ever make a weapon attack is the very rare cases where they get to make an Attack of Opportunity, which a dagger/quarterstaff is plenty for. Otherwise you're better off with spells; even up close Shocking Grasp is going to go a lot farther for a Wizard than any weapon attack will.
And in 5e, the way AC works, a change from a fighter's (+5) to-hit to a wizard's (-1) to-hit is a change from, say, a 70% chance for the fighter to hit against AC 12 to only a 40% chance for the wizard to hit the same AC.
The problem gets compounded then, because the fighter will do 1d8+3 while the wizard only hits for 1d8-1. It's entirely possible for the wizard to finally manage to hit the baddie and still do no damage.
As others have mentioned, the typical Wizard with a Longsword is not going to be more powerful than a Martial class with the same, nor even really that close.
Yes, Wizards typically don't value Strength. That's an important premise, but not really what the OP is getting after (I think); they are wanting to just look at the value of having proficiency.
Imagine both a level 1 Fighter and Wizard with an 18 Strength score. All else being equal, the only difference between those characters is the proficiency bonus of +2 to the attack roll. That isn't as much of a disparity as the "typical" Wizard would face, but it still matters due to bounded accuracy. There's no damage to roll for if they don't hit in the first place, and a +2 bonus is huge no matter what level range we're looking at; it only gets larger as levels increase.
Putting it another way--on the attack roll, at level 1--the difference between proficiency/no proficiency is the same as attacking with 14 Strength vs. 10 Strength. At level 17, it's the same as attacking with 22 Strength vs 10 Strength. Proficiency is a pretty huge boon.
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.
Thanks Sigred, that's exactly what I was getting after !
Of course most Wizards won't have a huge Strength but that wasn't really the point, it was more of a theorical question on my part about the Proficiency Bonus per se ... besides, nothing would prevent a Wizard to have an 18 in Strength if he would so fancy ;)
I get what you're saying the about the comparision with a Strength difference, so you would think that adding a Disavantage on top of that would be too much ?
Adding disadvantage would be too much, and quite frankly it would be rather rude. If a wizard player wants to hinder themselves by trying to use a sword, don't hamper them even more by giving them disadvantage.
Sigred's explanation was very well put. You can basically view being Proficient in something as having an extra ~10% success chance on your d20 rolls to start, and then another ~5% every 4 levels; nothing to sneeze at.
Since you mentioned that you just came back to DnD and are new to 5e, I would advise that until you are intimately familiar with the new rules that you don't start trying to monkey with them, and with things like when to give advantage/disadvantage; the game is very well balanced as is.
In the case of the longsword, it’s not that adding disadvantage is too much, it’s that your typical wizard is never going to use a longsword that they aren’t proficient in with the penalty that already exists. They are too fragile to engage in melee on a regular basis and if they do, they are usually going to have better options.
What needs to be determined is if the proficiency penalty is enough when it comes to reach weapons and ranged weapons.
Wizard with a halberd or heavy crossbow?
I will have to check the math on this but my gut feeling is that the wizard still has better options.
I would say that the penalty is enough. A Wizard is liable to have more in Dex than in Strength, so a Heavy Crossbow would obviously be the best choice of "things with more than 5ft range that they aren't proficient in," but the ~10% (or more) chance to hit that they lose is a big deal.
If the Wizard has 14 Dex I could maybe see the trade-off versus say Fire Bolt for the 1d10+2 damage of the crossbow vs just a flat 1d10 of the spell - to squeeze out a little more damage at the cost of accuracy - but once they reach 5th level that Fire Bolt now does 2d10 and the Heavy Crossbow is now completely pointless.
Though - since they are proficient with it - if your Wizard does have decent Dex it may be worth it to rock a Light Crossbow in the 1st tier of levels until your cantrips level up; 1d8+2 is an average of 6 damage which beats the average of 5 (1d10) from Fire Bolt.
Why would we be penalizing the Wizard at all? There's no reason to. Proficiency with a weapon--mechanically--only means that you are better at wielding that weapon than someone who is not proficient. It isn't a "gatekeeping" mechanic wherein only those proficient would be able to use the weapon (prior editions).
Anyone can swing a hunk of steel around. Those whom are proficient can swing a hunk of steel around well.
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.
To be fair there's not much of a reason to penalize a wizard for wearing armor but the game does so anyways. So I can see why some people would scratch their heads at the lack of an equally severe penalty on weapons.
To be fair there's not much of a reason to penalize a wizard for wearing armor but the game does so anyways. So I can see why some people would scratch their heads at the lack of an equally severe penalty on weapons.
There's a very good reason for the specific armor proficiency rules: AC abuse. So many of the threads on this forum are devoted to abusing AC as much as possible (ugh) as is... Why would a Wizard bother with spells like Mage Armor if they could just slap on Plate and go to town?
It's also helpful to think about fundamental design principle between weapon proficiency and armor proficiency. There is, in fact, quite an important distinction: Weapon proficiency provides a bonus; armor proficiency does not. You actually get something of numerical value for having proficiency with a weapon (proficiency bonus). You do not get any bonus what-so-ever for having proficiency with a type of armor; just the ability to use it correctly (gatekeeping).
The baseline assumption is that nobody has proficiency in anything by default. The baseline assumption for weapons is that anybody can pick up a weapon and be roughly just as effective as another random person without proficiency. If you are proficient, you are better at it than the random person. The actual effectiveness of using a melee weapon is more dependent on your ability scores.
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. Your body is not used to supporting all that additional mass, your movements are severely restricted, you get winded way more quickly than usual, etc. Ask someone from SCA what was a harder/more impactful accomplishment: learning how to handle their preferred weapons, or getting used to doing anything (besides sweat and scream) in their 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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone !
I'm coming back to D&D after a long hiatus, I'm actually an old player who started with the Basic red box in the early 80s !
The 5th Edition is probably my favorite of them all, but I do have a question about the Proficiency Bonus.
This question might be stupid and silly, sorry in advance, but here it is :
When a character is proficient with a weapon, he adds his Proficiency Bonus to the Attack roll, I got that.
But does that mean that a character who is not proficient with a weapon (for exemple, a Wizard trying to use a 2-handed sword) can still use it, and the only penalty he gets is that he doesn't apply his Proficiency Bonus ?
Coming from my previous Editions background, it seems a little light, as I seem to remember that there actually was a malus for the Classes who were trying to use weapons they were not proficient with (or they simply couldn't use them at all in the very 1st Edition).
So, what would prevent a low-level Wizard to use a martial weapon and maybe be more powerful than a same-level Fighter (as the Proficiency Bonus is not that high) ?
Thanks !
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
Yes, a character can use weapons they're not proficient in, and the main effect is that they wouldn't get their proficiency bonus.
Armor has extra penalties for being used when not proficient, but that's just armor.
A wizard using a longsword would not be more powerful than a same-level fighter, for a variety of reasons. First, they wouldn't get the proficiency bonus. Second, they probably have the wrong stats to use it well - the wizard probably has low strength compared to the fighter, so their damage and attack modifier from strength would be low. And as they get higher level, fighters get a bunch of other class-based bonuses to fighting that wizards do not, like extra attacks, action surge, their fighting style, or martial archetype. The difference between a wizard trying to use a sword and a fighter actually knowing what they're doing gets bigger and bigger as both characters level up.
Thanks for your answer !
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 ;-)
As for the Armor, you're saying that there is a penalty when not proficient, I saw in the rules that a character is unable to cast a spell wearing an Armor, does it apply to all spells or just spells with somatic component, and is there some other penalties maybe, where the Proficiency Bonus is used ?
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
"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." A lenient DM might rule that spells without a somatic component could still be cast, but generally nobody is going to wear armor without proficiency. There are no other penalties in the rules for doing so, but the ones that are there essentially make wearing the armor untenable as it is.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#ArmorandShields
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Ah yes, I forgot about the "avantage / disavantage" thing ... those 5th Edition rules are really well thought of !
Yes, it would make sense to allow the casting of a non-somatic spell, like you say it's just in theory cos noone in their right mind would wear armor without proficiency, but rules are supposed to cover all the possible theories, right ? ;-)
Anyway, I now have my answer about the Proficiency Bonus, thanks guys !
I still think that the penalty isn't high enough at low levels, but it kinda makes sense in a "realistic" view.
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
The rules in 5e do not attempt to cover all possible theories. Previous versions sought to, and WotC saw the folly in that with 5e. Many things are left intentionally vague or open to interpretation and are meant to be up to DM discretion.
However, in this case, the possibility of being able to cast verbal only spells while wearing armor you're not proficient in is covered. RAW you cannot do it.
It's worth pointing out that the restriction against casting spells while in armor you lack proficiency with is absolute. It not only applies to spells you can cast as a result of your character's abilities, but also to spells cast through magic items or any other means.
It's more of a game balance thing than a story thing. Relaxing that restriction to spells without S components would allow a wizard to use a Staff of Frost while wearing heavy armor. I'm not saying that's a huge problem, necessarily, but it's good to know the full scope of what would change. There are other reasons why a wizard still wouldn't want to wear full plate (e.g. carrying capacity) and outside of magic items there's only about a dozen spells that are V-only.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Fair enough, that's actually what I love about 5e.
Well that contradicts a bit the "Wizards can use a sword because it's more realistic than in previous Editions where it was just fobidden for no reason" ... like you say, it's just for game balance, but there's no "realistic" reason to forbid them to do so, so in theory I probably won't forbid that as a DM, although I don't see why any Wizard would want to wear heavy armor if they have Disavantage on about everything...
And that actually gets me back to my first point, if we want Wizards to have a slighlty more important penalty for using a sword or a weapon with which they're not proficient, can we maybe imagine to give them Disavantage when using it ?
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
I think you're underestimating how useless with a Sword a wizard would typically be. It's not as punishing as previous versions, no, but a Wizard isn't likely to have more than 10 strength, often only 8.
This means they're making their Attack roll with either a +0 or -1 modifier, which is very hard to hit with. Even a level 1 fighter will typically have a +4 or +5 to their attack roll (+2 proficiency bonus, +2 or +3 strength from having 14 or 16 strength) and by level 5 will have a +6 or +7, while the wizard will still have +0 or -1. Actually landing a hit with that modifier would be rare, and the damage output wouldn't be worth it as they have no strength to add to their damage roll.
Yup. The average wizard has 0 reasons to get into melee combat and several good reasons not to do so.
Don't need to make any kind of roll to blast someone with a saving throw spell.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Indeed.
The average wizard has a 9 in strength as it's a pointless stat for them. Practically every creature has at least 10 AC, so at best the wizard will have a 50 percent chance of hitting them with a Longsword. Even if they do hit, if they have 8/9 Strength and roll a 1 on the d8 damage die, they deal no damage. This means a <50% chance to hit followed by a 12.5% chance to deal 0 damage; AKA a total waste of time.
If you want to use a sword and you're going to bother getting Proficiency with a weapon beyond the few simple ones a wizard starts with - whether by going the Bladesong subclass, sinking a level into another class, choosing the Weapon Master feat, whatever - I would highly recommend either a shortsword or rapier. They at least allow you to make your attack and damage rolls with your Dexterity, which isn't a totally wasted stat for Wizards as it also improves your AC and your initiative.
All that said, unless you're going Bladesong, the only reason a Wizard should ever make a weapon attack is the very rare cases where they get to make an Attack of Opportunity, which a dagger/quarterstaff is plenty for. Otherwise you're better off with spells; even up close Shocking Grasp is going to go a lot farther for a Wizard than any weapon attack will.
And in 5e, the way AC works, a change from a fighter's (+5) to-hit to a wizard's (-1) to-hit is a change from, say, a 70% chance for the fighter to hit against AC 12 to only a 40% chance for the wizard to hit the same AC.
The problem gets compounded then, because the fighter will do 1d8+3 while the wizard only hits for 1d8-1. It's entirely possible for the wizard to finally manage to hit the baddie and still do no damage.
As others have mentioned, the typical Wizard with a Longsword is not going to be more powerful than a Martial class with the same, nor even really that close.
Yes, Wizards typically don't value Strength. That's an important premise, but not really what the OP is getting after (I think); they are wanting to just look at the value of having proficiency.
Imagine both a level 1 Fighter and Wizard with an 18 Strength score. All else being equal, the only difference between those characters is the proficiency bonus of +2 to the attack roll. That isn't as much of a disparity as the "typical" Wizard would face, but it still matters due to bounded accuracy. There's no damage to roll for if they don't hit in the first place, and a +2 bonus is huge no matter what level range we're looking at; it only gets larger as levels increase.
Putting it another way--on the attack roll, at level 1--the difference between proficiency/no proficiency is the same as attacking with 14 Strength vs. 10 Strength. At level 17, it's the same as attacking with 22 Strength vs 10 Strength. Proficiency is a pretty huge boon.
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.
Thanks Sigred, that's exactly what I was getting after !
Of course most Wizards won't have a huge Strength but that wasn't really the point, it was more of a theorical question on my part about the Proficiency Bonus per se ... besides, nothing would prevent a Wizard to have an 18 in Strength if he would so fancy ;)
I get what you're saying the about the comparision with a Strength difference, so you would think that adding a Disavantage on top of that would be too much ?
A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make...
Adding disadvantage would be too much, and quite frankly it would be rather rude. If a wizard player wants to hinder themselves by trying to use a sword, don't hamper them even more by giving them disadvantage.
Sigred's explanation was very well put. You can basically view being Proficient in something as having an extra ~10% success chance on your d20 rolls to start, and then another ~5% every 4 levels; nothing to sneeze at.
Since you mentioned that you just came back to DnD and are new to 5e, I would advise that until you are intimately familiar with the new rules that you don't start trying to monkey with them, and with things like when to give advantage/disadvantage; the game is very well balanced as is.
In the case of the longsword, it’s not that adding disadvantage is too much, it’s that your typical wizard is never going to use a longsword that they aren’t proficient in with the penalty that already exists. They are too fragile to engage in melee on a regular basis and if they do, they are usually going to have better options.
What needs to be determined is if the proficiency penalty is enough when it comes to reach weapons and ranged weapons.
Wizard with a halberd or heavy crossbow?
I will have to check the math on this but my gut feeling is that the wizard still has better options.
I would say that the penalty is enough. A Wizard is liable to have more in Dex than in Strength, so a Heavy Crossbow would obviously be the best choice of "things with more than 5ft range that they aren't proficient in," but the ~10% (or more) chance to hit that they lose is a big deal.
If the Wizard has 14 Dex I could maybe see the trade-off versus say Fire Bolt for the 1d10+2 damage of the crossbow vs just a flat 1d10 of the spell - to squeeze out a little more damage at the cost of accuracy - but once they reach 5th level that Fire Bolt now does 2d10 and the Heavy Crossbow is now completely pointless.
Though - since they are proficient with it - if your Wizard does have decent Dex it may be worth it to rock a Light Crossbow in the 1st tier of levels until your cantrips level up; 1d8+2 is an average of 6 damage which beats the average of 5 (1d10) from Fire Bolt.
Why would we be penalizing the Wizard at all? There's no reason to. Proficiency with a weapon--mechanically--only means that you are better at wielding that weapon than someone who is not proficient. It isn't a "gatekeeping" mechanic wherein only those proficient would be able to use the weapon (prior editions).
Anyone can swing a hunk of steel around. Those whom are proficient can swing a hunk of steel around well.
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.
To be fair there's not much of a reason to penalize a wizard for wearing armor but the game does so anyways. So I can see why some people would scratch their heads at the lack of an equally severe penalty on weapons.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
There's a very good reason for the specific armor proficiency rules: AC abuse. So many of the threads on this forum are devoted to abusing AC as much as possible (ugh) as is... Why would a Wizard bother with spells like Mage Armor if they could just slap on Plate and go to town?
It's also helpful to think about fundamental design principle between weapon proficiency and armor proficiency. There is, in fact, quite an important distinction: Weapon proficiency provides a bonus; armor proficiency does not. You actually get something of numerical value for having proficiency with a weapon (proficiency bonus). You do not get any bonus what-so-ever for having proficiency with a type of armor; just the ability to use it correctly (gatekeeping).
The baseline assumption is that nobody has proficiency in anything by default. The baseline assumption for weapons is that anybody can pick up a weapon and be roughly just as effective as another random person without proficiency. If you are proficient, you are better at it than the random person. The actual effectiveness of using a melee weapon is more dependent on your ability scores.
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. Your body is not used to supporting all that additional mass, your movements are severely restricted, you get winded way more quickly than usual, etc. Ask someone from SCA what was a harder/more impactful accomplishment: learning how to handle their preferred weapons, or getting used to doing anything (besides sweat and scream) in their 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.