Int Proficiencies

[Angelalex242]

This concept was removed in 5E.

How unbalanced would it be if it were put back?

Presumably, you could still choose only from proficiencies your class allows. Which might inspire people using int based characters to select backgrounds that give skills their class doesn't give.

Presumably, you'd continue to gain extra proficiencies up to the maximum of +5 for int 20.

Wizards, Arcane Tricksters, and Eldritch Knights all stand to be happier by this.

I presume the Wizard will load up on knowledge: Everything, and so on.

On another note, isn't it a little odd the Wizard knows nature better than a druid/ranger, and religion better than the Paladin/Cleric? And if a bard/rogue blows expertise on it, he might well know arcana better than the wizard!

Always thought clerics and druids, at least, should probably have expertise on religion/nature, respectively, so they don't look like morons when trying to explain their god/nature to somebody and the wizard walks by, and goes, "Well, actually, you guys are idiots, HERE is how it actually works..."

Clerics and Druids might go on to call this 'wizardsplaining'

Maybe Clerics and Druids should be able to explain religion/nature based on wisdom?

[Kane0]

I wouldnt do skills but languages and tools are a good way to incentivise INT.
Maybe at +2 and +4, or 13 and 17 INT so it requires just a little investment.

[PhantomSoul]

I wouldnt do skills but languages and tools are a good way to incentivise INT.
Maybe at +2 and +4, or 13 and 17 INT so it requires just a little investment.

That's what our group has started doing (except it's how many extra languages or tools you can learn post-character creating without needing to swap a language or a tool, respectively). Seems quite fine -- we currently have a minimum of 1 (so someone with 6 INT does have the same number of extras as someone with 13 INT), but that's partly because it was added to the existing campaign and we wanted to test mechanics more broadly. (With a minimum, it could surely work plenty well right at character creation, but this has meant characters interact with NPCs even more and they decide who they want to befriend strategically in some cases.)

[Angelalex242]

Well...how unbalancing are skills, really?

It's just a wider array of skills you get your proficiency bonus to.

It would appear to grant versatility, rather than sheer power.

[Kane0]

In the grand scheme not that important really. Bards and Rangers get one more than normal, rogues get two. Plenty of races get one more than normal, some two. Thanks to Tashas's and backgrounds you can get basically any proficiency you're chasing regardless of class list as well, and between MCing and Feats you can theoretically become proficient in all skills plus expertise in over half of them.

But it is a net buff to PCs, and should be noted as such. Chances are one or two extra skills won't change all that much about a game but 3 to 5 will definitely become noticeable at the table. It's up to the people at that table whether they like that or not.

Edit: Specifically this benefits Artificers and Wizards, who are INT based classes. I'm of the position that neither need the additional free skills as the Artificer has plenty already (although they have more tools than skills) and the Wizard has both an excellent range of spells and Rituals to keep them involved outside of combat situations where skill proficiencies typically see the most use.

[Sigreid]

Our table uses the Xanathar's rules for learning skills, tools and languages during down time. Smarter you are, the faster and cheaper you learn.

[JellyPooga]

On another note, isn't it a little odd the Wizard knows nature better than a druid/ranger, and religion better than the Paladin/Cleric? And if a bard/rogue blows expertise on it, he might well know arcana better than the wizard!

Always thought clerics and druids, at least, should probably have expertise on religion/nature, respectively, so they don't look like morons when trying to explain their god/nature to somebody and the wizard walks by, and goes, "Well, actually, you guys are idiots, HERE is how it actually works..."

There's a bit of a disconnect between "knowing about your own religion" (being a character with a religious background of any kind) and "knowing about all religions and related esoteric fields" (having Proficiency or Expertise in Religion). Having an in-depth knowledge of the former, which is going to be somewhat limited to holy days, festivals, rituals, etc of your own deity, does not mean you have any clue about when cultists of Shuib-Thotherate the Unclean celebrate their Carnival of Flesh (unless, of course, you are a cultist of Shuib-Thotherate).

Likewise, practicing magic is not the same as studying it. A Rogue or Bard (or anyone taking the requisite Feat) that has dedicated Expertise to Arcana has looked into the theory of magic that isn't covered by the mechanics of being able to cast spells. After all, there are many ways of spellcasting, from Bardic traditions to Wizardly scholarship to Alchemical experimentation and Arcana proficiency discusses and explores the theory behind them all, plus magic items, magical creatures and their creation, knowledge of planar matters and so on and so forth. Similar application of practice vs. study applies to Druids/Rangers and Nature proficiency.

I like that skill proficiency is largely divorced from Class; it allows greater freedom of character than forcing all Clerics to be religious experts and Wizards to be arcana ones. What about the Cleric that has no background in study at all and is just blessed by the gods? What about the Wizard that only cares about blowing stuff up and flunked all his other studies? What about the Druid that is little more than a feral shapeshifter and cares little for what a daisy looks like or the mating habits of the lesser spotted turtle-rabbit?

[Unoriginal]

On another note, isn't it a little odd the Wizard knows nature better than a druid/ranger, and religion better than the Paladin/Cleric? And if a bard/rogue blows expertise on it, he might well know arcana better than the wizard!

Always thought clerics and druids, at least, should probably have expertise on religion/nature, respectively, so they don't look like morons when trying to explain their god/nature to somebody and the wizard walks by, and goes, "Well, actually, you guys are idiots, HERE is how it actually works..."

Clerics and Druids might go on to call this 'wizardsplaining'

Nothing odd with that. A Cleric doesn't have to know anything about any religion, they're not chosen by a deity for their scholarly knowledge.

That being said, yes, most Clerics will have knowledge of at least the basics of a specific religion, which means the DM should go "you don't need to roll" for info related to that.

And druids don't have scientific knowledge of nature, either, they just know how to live in it well.



Maybe Clerics and Druids should be able to explain religion/nature based on wisdom?

I 100% disagree.


There's a bit of a disconnect between "knowing about your own religion" (being a character with a religious background of any kind) and "knowing about all religions and related esoteric fields" (having Proficiency or Expertise in Religion). Having an in-depth knowledge of the former, which is going to be somewhat limited to holy days, festivals, rituals, etc of your own deity, does not mean you have any clue about when cultists of Shuib-Thotherate the Unclean celebrate their Carnival of Flesh (unless, of course, you are a cultist of Shuib-Thotherate).

Likewise, practicing magic is not the same as studying it. A Rogue or Bard (or anyone taking the requisite Feat) that has dedicated Expertise to Arcana has looked into the theory of magic that isn't covered by the mechanics of being able to cast spells. After all, there are many ways of spellcasting, from Bardic traditions to Wizardly scholarship to Alchemical experimentation and Arcana proficiency discusses and explores the theory behind them all, plus magic items, magical creatures and their creation, knowledge of planar matters and so on and so forth. Similar application of practice vs. study applies to Druids/Rangers and Nature proficiency.

I like that skill proficiency is largely divorced from Class; it allows greater freedom of character than forcing all Clerics to be religious experts and Wizards to be arcana ones. What about the Cleric that has no background in study at all and is just blessed by the gods? What about the Wizard that only cares about blowing stuff up and flunked all his other studies? What about the Druid that is little more than a feral shapeshifter and cares little for what a daisy looks like or the mating habits of the lesser spotted turtle-rabbit?


Well put.

For the practice vs scholarly knowledge thing, I think a good analogy is:

If you want surgery done, ask a surgeon, if you want to know about the history of surgery, ask an historian. The surgeon will probably know some stuff, due to either the studies they had to do before getting the position or personal interest, but it's not the job they've trained for and practicing regularly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well put.

For the practice vs scholarly knowledge thing, I think a good analogy is:

If you want surgery done, ask a surgeon, if you want to know about the history of surgery, ask an historian. The surgeon will probably know some stuff, due to either the studies they had to do before getting the position or personal interest, but it's not the job they've trained for and practicing regularly.

Agreed. And if you want to know how to solve a physics issue, ask a physicist. If you want to know about the history or philosophy of physics, don't ask a physicist. He may know something, but it's unlikely to be right, because those things aren't taught well at all, as least in the US.

And if you want to know theory, don't ask an experimentalist. And vice versa, for what it's worth.

[Sigreid]

Eh, the fluff of the cleric class is that the gods choose their clerics for their own reasons and knowing about religions of the world and even their own religion isn't necessarily a given.

Someday I'm going to make a cleric that is incredibly wrong about the religion of the deity he follows and actually gets his powers from another god who things it's hilarious.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh, the fluff of the cleric class is that the gods choose their clerics for their own reasons and knowing about religions of the world and even their own religion isn't necessarily a given.

Someday I'm going to make a cleric that is incredibly wrong about the religion of the deity he follows and actually gets his powers from another god who things it's hilarious.

I have a whole faction of them. They're super fanatic and "purge the heathen". In service to the goddess of hearth and home, a noted pacifist. The god of practical jokes finds this seriously funny and so sponsors them without them knowing. He's a bit of a jerk.

[Hytheter]

As an alternative to consider: rather than just giving out extra skills for INT, give knowledge skills specifically.

[Tanarii]

On another note, isn't it a little odd the Wizard knows nature better than a druid/ranger, and religion better than the Paladin/Cleric? And if a bard/rogue blows expertise on it, he might well know arcana better than the wizard! Not really. If a Cleric or Druid wants to be good at religion or nature Lore, they can invest in Int and the appropriate skill proficiency. And maybe take an appropriate background, like Hermit or Sage.

If they want to communicate the will of the gods, they can cast a spell that does that. Guidance, Augury, Divination, Commune (possibly with nature). Or any number of other divine manifestations in their sphere of power. That's what they're good at. Channeling Divine power in the form of spells. Or Channel Divinity. Or Wildshape. Etc.

[Angelalex242]

Just saying the divine spellcasters should probably know their own stuff. That's why real religions make their pastors go through training, usually. Presumably Druids would have some sort of similar nature training, particularly since Druidic describes the world in nature terms.

This is kind of a 'Art should imitate Life a little better' sort of concept.

[Amnestic]

Well...how unbalancing are skills, really?

It's just a wider array of skills you get your proficiency bonus to.

It would appear to grant versatility, rather than sheer power.

A wizard shouldn't get as many (or more) skills than a rogue, when a rogue being a skill monkey is an inherent part of their class appeal.

Wizards don't need any extra help.

[Sigreid]

I have a whole faction of them. They're super fanatic and "purge the heathen". In service to the goddess of hearth and home, a noted pacifist. The god of practical jokes finds this seriously funny and so sponsors them without them knowing. He's a bit of a jerk.

My intention is to go around as a street preacher spewing whatever nonsense pops into my head. Making up myths. The whole works.

[Tanarii]

Just saying the divine spellcasters should probably know their own stuff. That's why real religions make their pastors go through training, usually. Presumably Druids would have some sort of similar nature training, particularly since Druidic describes the world in nature terms.

This is kind of a 'Art should imitate Life a little better' sort of concept.
If a players wants a PC to be that kind of Cleric or Druid, the studious scholar kind that went through training, they have access to proficiency, they have access to backgrounds, and they have access to making Int a secondary stat.

And so does anyone else who went through training. That Fighter who is an Acolyte? They were or are an active member of the church. That Sorcerer who is a Sage? Studious scholar type. That Rogue who was a Hermit and took Expertise in the Religion proficiency it granted? Secluded scholar who also comes from the class that has a special knack for 2-4 skills instead of Spellcasting.

[Schwann145]

I think the real problem here is that both sides essentially have valid points, so it's hard to say which way would be better as a mechanical issue. Some areas even make more sense than others, depending on the argument.
To pick on JellyPooga's reply a little bit:


What about the Cleric that has no background in study at all and is just blessed by the gods? What about the Wizard that only cares about blowing stuff up and flunked all his other studies? What about the Druid that is little more than a feral shapeshifter and cares little for what a daisy looks like or the mating habits of the lesser spotted turtle-rabbit?

•The Cleric who is more like a PF Oracle than a D&D Cleric is a good example of a character that may not necessarily know a lot/anything about religion, but it's also better covered by the Divine Soul Sorcerer than the Cleric class (a class that can know Religion but has no real intrinsic ties to it).
•The Wizard is a little harder to explain away unless you specifically build your magic in such a way that an Abjuration spell is fundamentally different than an Evocation spell. The default (based on the Realms anyway) isn't clearly defined enough to say for sure one way or another. If you split the schools entirely like that, then this sort of Wizard makes sense. If you don't and what you cast is really more of a personal preference, then it doesn't make sense and the Wizard without Arcane knowledge begins to unravel as a concept.
•The Druid makes the least sense as it's such a specialized class in comparison. Even if all you want to do is focus on the shapeshifting aspect, you're still a 9-levels spellcaster who knows things like the Druidic language that must be taught to know. If you ask your DM to specifically rewrite the class to strip you of things like your spellcasting and such so that you're just a shapeshifter, that's one thing, but we're talking about essentially an entirely different class at this point. Otherwise, a Druid may not give two hoots about flora or mating habits of fauna, but they'll know a little about them at least, because that just goes with the class. (How can you even argue that you can shapeshift into various animals if you can't identify those animals?)

[Tanarii]

•The Wizard is a little harder to explain away unless you specifically build your magic in such a way that an Abjuration spell is fundamentally different than an Evocation spell. The default (based on the Realms anyway) isn't clearly defined enough to say for sure one way or another. If you split the schools entirely like that, then this sort of Wizard makes sense. If you don't and what you cast is really more of a personal preference, then it doesn't make sense and the Wizard without Arcane knowledge begins to unravel as a concept.
All Wizards learn basic lore. So do ATs and EKs. That is inherent in increasing you Intelligence Score. As well as basic deductive reason training.

A Wizard/EK/AT with a +4 modifier from Int 18 has as much combined natural talent, exposure, focus and training in lore as a level 5 Druid with Int 12 and proficiency in all Lore skills.

Both ability scores and proficiency include training.

Edit: I suppose you could build an Int dumped Wizard ...

[Sigreid]

I think the real problem here is that both sides essentially have valid points, so it's hard to say which way would be better as a mechanical issue. Some areas even make more sense than others, depending on the argument.
To pick on JellyPooga's reply a little bit:

•The Wizard is a little harder to explain away unless you specifically build your magic in such a way that an Abjuration spell is fundamentally different than an Evocation spell. The default (based on the Realms anyway) isn't clearly defined enough to say for sure one way or another. If you split the schools entirely like that, then this sort of Wizard makes sense. If you don't and what you cast is really more of a personal preference, then it doesn't make sense and the Wizard without Arcane knowledge begins to unravel as a concept.


You've never known anyone who was good at learning/remembering specific things that interest them and being completely ignorant of overriding theories?

[PhoenixPhyre]

You've never known anyone who was good at learning/remembering specific things that interest them and being completely ignorant of overriding theories?

99.9999999% of kids I've worked with fit this category. As do a majority of software developers. And heck, even physicists. I theoretically learned about experimental methods for condensed matter stuff. Did I remember it, even when I was actively in the (computational quantum chemistry) field? Heck no.

So yeah, I agree. Lots of people learn just enough theory to get by (which is frighteningly little) and focus on practice. In many many fields.

[StoneSeraph]

On another note, isn't it a little odd the Wizard knows nature better than a druid/ranger, and religion better than the Paladin/Cleric? And if a bard/rogue blows expertise on it, he might well know arcana better than the wizard!

Always thought clerics and druids, at least, should probably have expertise on religion/nature, respectively, so they don't look like morons when trying to explain their god/nature to somebody and the wizard walks by, and goes, "Well, actually, you guys are idiots, HERE is how it actually works..."

Clerics and Druids might go on to call this 'wizardsplaining'

Or just refer to the wizards/bards/rogues as "know-it-alls". Or the "ACKTCHUALLY" meme.
That being said, it doesn't seem odd at all - in the instance described, the wizard would just come off as an insufferable geek, and there's nothing saying a holy person MUST have a solid background of knowledge to be pious or reverent to their focus of power. If the faith and its tenets are what matter most, then anything extra would just be trivia.

[Tanarii]

You've never known anyone who was good at learning/remembering specific things that interest them and being completely ignorant of overriding theories?
Oh sure. No matter how good your PC's Int bonus is, they cant make a check to recall something they never knew / learned. But they'll be really good at recalling lore about things they actually learned.

Of course, if your DM does schrodinger state-of-character knowledge checks, a check to see if your PC ever learned something, where you both know and don't know something until the check resolves your PC's knowledge, this kind of character doesn't work. If you have a high bonus, you're not only good at recalling things you know, you're good at having learned lots of things in the first place.

[Angelalex242]

Basically, it's a pragmatism sort of thing.
The optimized D&D Cleric might well have an int of 10, a wisdom of 20, and a charisma of 10.

Even if he has the religion proficiency, he's rolling at +2.

The optimized D&D Wizard might well have an int of 20, a wisdom of 10, and may even have dumped charisma to 8.

If he has religion proficiency too, he's rolling at +7.

Hence:

Cleric: You should do what makes you happy, and get a divorce.

Wizard: No, ya moron, Pelor ACTUALLY teaches that you can only get divorced if your spouse cheats on you first! What kinda half a**ed cleric are you?

(The proposed fix is giving Clerics expertise in religion, and Druids expertise in nature, so the doubled proficiency bonus will carry them past the wizard eventually.

[Sigreid]

Oh sure. No matter how good your PC's Int bonus is, they cant make a check to recall something they never knew / learned. But they'll be really good at recalling lore about things they actually learned.

Of course, if your DM does schrodinger state-of-character knowledge checks, a check to see if your PC ever learned something, where you both know and don't know something until the check resolves your PC's knowledge, this kind of character doesn't work. If you have a high bonus, you're not only good at recalling things you know, you're good at having learned lots of things in the first place.

Oh, I was commenting on people who learn just enough to get by in their job or class and don't give a darn about anything more than that.

[Unoriginal]

Basically, it's a pragmatism sort of thing.
The optimized D&D Cleric might well have an int of 10, a wisdom of 20, and a charisma of 10.

Even if he has the religion proficiency, he's rolling at +2.

The optimized D&D Wizard might well have an int of 20, a wisdom of 10, and may even have dumped charisma to 8.

If he has religion proficiency too, he's rolling at +7.

Hence:

Cleric: You should do what makes you happy, and get a divorce.

Wizard: No, ya moron, Pelor ACTUALLY teaches that you can only get divorced if your spouse cheats on you first! What kinda half a**ed cleric are you?

(The proposed fix is giving Clerics expertise in religion, and Druids expertise in nature, so the doubled proficiency bonus will carry them past the wizard eventually.

It isn't a fix, it's a break.

The Cleric actually can figure out what Pelor think about the issue, the Wizard is just quoting doctrine and text.


There is NO reason to give an "optimized" Cleric freebies, especially if it's for something that is not actually linked to a Cleric's role. Same thing for an "optimized" Druid.

Also, "re-introduce INT proficiencies for skills" and "give WIS classes better INT skills" are two clashing goals.

[JellyPooga]

Cleric: You should do what makes you happy, and get a divorce.

Wizard: No, ya moron, Pelor ACTUALLY teaches that you can only get divorced if your spouse cheats on you first! What kinda half a**ed cleric are you?

(The proposed fix is giving Clerics expertise in religion, and Druids expertise in nature, so the doubled proficiency bonus will carry them past the wizard eventually.

Let's take another look at your numbers, though...

The Cleric that wants to be the "I know religion" guy (let's leave aside Clerics that don't for a moment) has proficiency. If he wants to be a scholarly Cleric, he has probably also invested at least a 12 in Intelligence, if not a 14. Whilst scholars of average Intelligence certainly exist, a person that espouses it as part of their character is probably going to have above average. This gives our Cleric a +3 or +4 in Religion at lvl.1, that will increase with level (assuming no Int ASI's) to a maximum of +7 or +8 by the end of his career, assuming no further feats, abilitied, etc. spent or acquired for it.

A Wizard will almost certainly have an Intelligence of at least 14, if not higher, at level 1 and will probably pump that to 20 by the end of his career. He's a smart guy and he's quite literally book smart at that (it' a Class feature!). He's done some reading, but let's face it, he might not want to be the "I know religion" guy as much as, you know, the "religion guy". He probably doesn't have proficiency. At level 1, a Wizard likely has a +2 or +3 in Religion just for being smart; that's a point, maybe two, behind the Cleric. If he does take proficiency, he's a point or two ahead...but isn't that as it should be? He's smarter and has done his reading. He better at this stuff. If he doesn't have proficiency, even with his mighty intellect of 20, he falls behind our Cleric of merely "above average" smarts in the field of Religion. If he is interested in Religion, why should the Cleric be better than him? The Wizard is, after all, much smarter than him.

The system works as intended; smart guys are generally going to be better at the smart stuff. And it doesn't force all Clerics or Druids or whatever to be of a certain type, just as not all Rogues are thieves and not all who wander are lost Rangers are Aragorn. If you want a Cleric that's good at Religion...invest in that which makes you good at it instead of complaining that your average-Int local priest don't know squat about some bizarre foreign cult he's never heard of, compared to an educated adventurer who has invested time, energy and character build options into knowing that stuff.

[Amnestic]

There's also the point that a cleric, in this hypothetical, even make a check.

Checks are only supposed to be called for when there's a chance of failure. If you're a cleric of pelor who grew up in the church and the subject if "pelor's religious teachings" a DM could easily
a) not have them roll at all since there's no chance of failure.
b) lower the DC for them compared to a wizard making a check for the same knowledge
c) give them advantage, on account of their background/class.

All of which are quite supported by the rules.

And if it's not religious teachings of pelor, but religious teachings of bahamut, then a cleric of pelor probably doesn't/shouldn't have any significant advantage over the wizard in that regard, it's a whole different religion!

[StoneSeraph]

Basically, it's a pragmatism sort of thing.
The optimized D&D Cleric might well have an int of 10, a wisdom of 20, and a charisma of 10.

Even if he has the religion proficiency, he's rolling at +2.

The optimized D&D Wizard might well have an int of 20, a wisdom of 10, and may even have dumped charisma to 8.

If he has religion proficiency too, he's rolling at +7.

Hence:

Cleric: You should do what makes you happy, and get a divorce.

Wizard: No, ya moron, Pelor ACTUALLY teaches that you can only get divorced if your spouse cheats on you first! What kinda half a**ed cleric are you?

(The proposed fix is giving Clerics expertise in religion, and Druids expertise in nature, so the doubled proficiency bonus will carry them past the wizard eventually.

So, the "ACKTCHUALLY" meme.

I don't see how this proposed "fix" is pragmatic at all. It would seem strange for every cleric on the planet to have universal scholarly knowledge of all religions; it would seem strange for every druid on the planet to have expert academic knowledge of all nature.

Suppose my cleric character is an Outlander, or of some other background far removed from civilization, no proficiency in Religion. He has only ever prayed to an obscure god, whose name he doesn't know, at one shrine once a day and has been blessed with the power of the Tempest Domain. It would not make sense for that character to show up in the middle of a service in the grand cathedral of Pelor, with little to zero exposure to Pelor beforehand, and automatically know what's going on.

Incidentally, the converse is true for the paladin of Pelor, who is proficient in Religion but, after visiting the Outlander's shrine, may have no clue about the history of it; he knows that the ritual in his own temple is the Rite of Solar Glory, of course, and he may know the rituals of a few other faiths in the area, but he dumped INT, so beyond that, not much.

The wizard, on the other hand, relying solely on Intelligence, may know the name of the ritual in the temple of Pelor without the paladin telling him, and he may know a bit of trivia about how the ritual came about. As for the cleric's obscure god, he'd have to wrack his brain, but he may guess the name of the god eventually.

The rogue, proficient in Religion because ripping off lay people is his schtick, knows exactly what the Rite of Solar Glory is, who's involved, and when they typically occur. He also knows that plenty of faithful leave their homes to witness the spectacle, which means he's missing out on a good burglary opportunity at present. As for the obscure god, the rogue may have seen similar symbols worn by sailors, but that's about it.

The bard, obsessed to a fault with religious iconography, has Expertise in Religion. He's done entire stage productions on the Rite of Solar Glory and knows the ritual by heart, better than the paladin, who at this point is genuinely confused as to why the bard isn't multiclassing. As for the cleric's obscure god, the bard recognizes the iconography from an old catalogue of tribal sea gods and puts a name to the face: Gyarados, The Dragon's Rage, worshipped by fishermen who pray to the god for the strength to fight and bring outrageous storms upon their enemies.

Now, back to the cleric. As a player, I have an opportunity to play a person ignorant of the scholarly aspects of his own faith. Part of what drives that character forward may be learning more about their faith over time, whether by gaining new spells, learning information from other members of the party, seeking out sages or ancient libraries, witnessing the reaction of those who behold the divine power, what have you. If, by your "fix", that character is automatically an expert on all religious matters, then such a character is impossible. "Wait, your character lived in the woods all his life, but he knows about the Grand Exsanguinations performed by the Cult of Nerull in the Lower Planes? Press X to Doubt".

[heavyfuel]

I don't allow skill proficiencies, but do allow languages.

+1 Language per Int mod breaks literally nothing and is an okay bonus for people not to completely dump Int.

I think I'll also start allowing Tool proficiency as Kane0 suggested.

[Joe the Rat]

If the goal is to have those who did not invest in broad general knowledge and being good at crosswords have a similar showing in the lore of their general fields, adding proficiencies for INT is not going to help - if anything it will exacerbate the issue, because now the wizard can be specialist in all Int skills (has proficiency), and then gets to show of their Disappearing Pig Trick (Sleight of Hand proficiency) or some such.

Awarding "tool" proficiencies is going to go further in giving incentive for INT - tool in this case referring to tools, languages, weapons, and perhaps armor. These are the things that, without proficiency, you can't (languages) or might not (tools) be able to use at all without proficiency.
Even Wizards benefit from Languages - Comprehend Languages is fine for reading, and eventually you can burn a spell slot for tongues, but sometimes you want to be able to actually converse with someone without waiting for magics. Tool proficiency may be DM dependent in this regard - I tend to use these as yea or nay beyond the most basic functions. Yes, this gives Artificers a direct boon - with a little investment, they can run into any workshop and have spell foci. But it also really opens the build everything approach to artificery. Extra starting weapons - while wizards can get feat-free swording, I suspect Rogues and Tasha Monks will enjoy the added options. Even Int 12 gives your run-of-the-mill Rogue One some fun choices: Longbow or Heavy Crossbow for heavier snipery, or the whip. No waiting on multiclassing, no spinning a tale of your dwarf or elf coming from a family of muleskinners or flagellants to explain the weapon swap (or using Tasha options at all), just straight up Indiana Jones or Zorro from 1. Armor is the trickier one, as armor group proficiency is a half-feat. My instinct is to err on the side of restriction and piecemeal it - added proficiency in shield, or in one suit, provided you are proficient in the lower weight classes (No wizards who know full plate, but trip over themselves in a reinforced jerkin).

Regarding Druids and Nature - It strikes me Survival is going to be a better reflection of their knowledge. You don't have all of the textbook knowledge of the local birds, but you do know their diet, nesting and breeding habits, etc, as it pertains directly into your ability to find them, and where to find the eggs. Or to borrow something from another forum, "I don't care what it's called, I just know you shouldn't eat it."

[Angelalex242]

It also helps Animal Handling is WIS in this edition, making the low Charisma Druids and Rangers better at dogs than the high charisma bards and paladins.

Also, my eyes may deceive me, but it looks like nature isn't actually on the possible skill list for wizards, which means he needs to have a nature background of some kind to pull ACTUALLY on druids and rangers. Or Cloistered Scholar from Sword Coast, Faction Agent, Golgari Agent, Knight of the Order, or some such.

[Naanomi]

I mean... I’ve known plenty of career preachers who know <insert holy book> pretty well, but even after seminary (which is of course not a requirement for all religious professionals) wouldn’t be the person I’d go to for deep history of their denomination (let alone beyond that or into other religions); or even deep and intricate theology; don’t particularly know the languages the books are translated from... or even hold theological ideas that are demonstrably wrong from a scholarly perspective as a matter of dogma