Free Proficiencies

[Curelomosaurus]

The feats Simple Weapon Proficiency and Light Armor Proficiency say that anyone who isn't a druid, monk, wizard, or sorcerer automatically gains proficiency with all simple weapons and all light armor. So:

Do commoners automatically get both proficiencies?

If a rogue DCSF'd his light armor proficiency away, would she still be proficient with light armor?

Would a fighter with the Dragonscale Husk ACF still be proficient with light armor?

[Gruftzwerg]

The feats Simple Weapon Proficiency and Light Armor Proficiency say that anyone who isn't a druid, monk, wizard, or sorcerer automatically gains proficiency with all simple weapons and all light armor. So:

Do commoners automatically get both proficiencies?

If a rogue DCSF'd his light armor proficiency away, would she still be proficient with light armor?

Would a fighter with the Dragonscale Husk ACF still be proficient with light armor?

commoners:
Arguable, because the feats are presented in the player's handbook, while a commoner is not a PC class. Imho by the rule hierarchy it has no right to make global changes for npc classes.

rogue:
You traded it away. so no. The light armor proficiency feat is the general rule, while the ACF is specific and thus overrides that.

fighter:
Same as rogue. And further the ACF itself says if you should ever gain any armor proficiency, you can either avoid it again to keep your ACF or your can loose your ACF for gaining the light armor feat. You can't have both, it is clearly worded.

[KillianHawkeye]

The feats Simple Weapon Proficiency and Light Armor Proficiency say that anyone who isn't a druid, monk, wizard, or sorcerer automatically gains proficiency with all simple weapons and all light armor.

This statement is true within the scope of the Player's Handbook, but quickly becomes disproven by the publication of other classes. Some of the text of the PHB was written with the idea of being accessible to brand new players, and this is an example of that.

[Psyren]

This statement is true within the scope of the Player's Handbook, but quickly becomes disproven by the publication of other classes. Some of the text of the PHB was written with the idea of being accessible to brand new players, and this is an example of that.

Indeed. The PHB also says there are eleven base classes, which is obviously not the case. Some of it you have to look at from that lens.

[Ruethgar]

The feats Simple Weapon Proficiency and Light Armor Proficiency say that anyone who isn't a druid, monk, wizard, or sorcerer automatically gains proficiency with all simple weapons and all light armor. So:

Do commoners automatically get both proficiencies?

If a rogue DCSF'd his light armor proficiency away, would she still be proficient with light armor?

Would a fighter with the Dragonscale Husk ACF still be proficient with light armor?

Simple Weapon Proficiency is a little less clear, but Light Armor Proficiency is very cut and dry in that it automatically grants itself to all classes except those listed. Do note that Alternate Base Classes(not merely any Alternate Class Feature choices) of the Wizard/Sorcerer/Monk would get the light armor proficiency feat even if their ‘normal’ counterparts don’t.

A commoner would have light armor proficiency, however Simple Weapon Proficiency doesn’t have the same language explicitly granting itself as a bonus feat, so I would say no, probably not.

A rogue who DCS away his bonus light armor proficiency feat would still have the proficiency via class feature.

Yes, the proficiency feats are granted by the feats themselves, not the classes so they are not traded away with alternate class features. So a fighter starts with five more bonus feats than their class grants with matching proficiency from their proficiency class feature as a redundancy.

That being said. Most people who wish to rule with reason would probably do best to decide that the Special lines in the proficiency feats should be ignored.

[Vaern]

A commoner would have light armor proficiency, however Simple Weapon Proficiency doesn’t have the same language explicitly granting itself as a bonus feat, so I would say no, probably not.
That's because there's only one Armor Proficiency (Light) feat, while Simple Weapon Proficiency needs to be taken for each individual weapon. You can't just say that they start with Simple Weapon Proficiency as a bonus feat because it would actually be 19 separate bonus feats.

The fact that the feats are listed in the Player's Handbook with the intention of players using them with player character classes may be true, but the context of the feats' descriptions is irrelevant to the mechanics of the game.
Fortunately, the ruling of "specific trumps general" comes into play to settle the issue. The feats provide a general case in which all classes except those listed in the description have proficiency; the individual class descriptions provide specific cases that explicitly indicate that a certain class is, for example, only proficient with a single simple weapon and no armor. The specific case takes priority, and therefore the commoner does not gain free proficiencies.

[Ruethgar]

That's because there's only one Armor Proficiency (Light) feat, while Simple Weapon Proficiency needs to be taken for each individual weapon. You can't just say that they start with Simple Weapon Proficiency as a bonus feat because it would actually be 19 separate bonus feats.

The fact that the feats are listed in the Player's Handbook with the intention of players using them with player character classes may be true, but the context of the feats' descriptions is irrelevant to the mechanics of the game.
Fortunately, the ruling of "specific trumps general" comes into play to settle the issue. The feats provide a general case in which all classes except those listed in the description have proficiency; the individual class descriptions provide specific cases that explicitly indicate that a certain class is, for example, only proficient with a single simple weapon and no armor. The specific case takes priority, and therefore the commoner does not gain free proficiencies.

Simple Weapon Proficiency appears to also only be one feat, unlike Martial and Exotic.

Specific vs general works for the weapon proficiency feats, however, because the armor proficiency feats explicitly grant themselves as bonus feats instead of simply stating proficiency like the weapons, they are added as bonus feats above and beyond the class proficiency class features. The armor proficiency feats are not a function of the classes themselves, but the feats. No class grants the armor proficiency feats so it’s not a general rule that they do trumped by the specific class feature proficiency which are not feats.

[Vaern]

Simple Weapon Proficiency appears to also only be one feat, unlike Martial and Exotic.
Oh, I guess you're right. Not gonna lie, I've never paid much attention to the feat before and only just now took the time to look at the special line for this thread.

And as far as armor proficiency granting itself as a bonus feat... well, I guess the only argument I would have against that would be that of the context in which the material is presented, except that I've already called that out as being irrelevant to the actual mechanical effects of the text. Bummer.
I guess commoners have free light armor proficiency.

[Ruethgar]

Honestly I didn’t know it was one feat either until I went to look it up for this thread.

But RAW aside, it would generally be good practice to ignore the armor proficiency special lines and just go based off of class proficiency, else you get monsters like Elf Fighters DCS for 9 more feats.