What even is armor proficiency?

[PhantomSoul]

Also, combat makes up a very small portion of adventuring, in terms of time. I would like to at some point make an "Adventure Simulator" video game that is like 95% hiking and camping simulator, 4% treasure hunting, and 1% extremely lethal combat. You should be more excited about getting a new backpack than a new weapon. Adventurers aren't soldiers, so it's not realistic to expect them to carry a full kit. Honestly, I'd actually expect very few adventurers to wear full plate, something like a brigandine + gambeson would likely be far more common, striking a good balance between comfort and protection. The problem is that D&D does not represent this in the mechanics of the game at all; there's not really any reason not to wear plate if you're proficient and have the requisite STR. And that's because D&D is hyperfocused on combat, that vanishingly small portion of adventuring where armor is the most important.

I can't stress enough that the point of this thread has never been to find a way to put every character in armor. Quite the opposite. Armor has very few downsides, and proficiency is only a dip away. And I like my multiclassing, so banning that isn't an appealing option to me. If you just got rid of proficiency, I don't think very much would actually change. That's why I think some other method of restricting armor would work better.

I try to reason with it as proficiency being "combat training with the armour" even if that's not quiiiite right. It sounds like itemising more consequences (varying by type of armour) with at least some of them being negatable/reduceable (e.g. swimming penalties with a minimum strength score + maybe athletics proficiency to overcome) could be a more satisfying solution. (If so, I agree even if I'm not sure on specifics!)

Probably while the player endlessly repeats, "It's what my character would do."

twitches

A lesson I wish more players understood is that not every character is a fit for every party. If your character has no reason to stick with the party, or if they're making a nuisance of themselves, or if they're outright working against the party (backstabbing, stealing, etc.), then you should retire that character and roll up a new one who actually meshes well with the rest of the party.

THIS.

Exactly, it's not supposed to be comfortable, it's supposed to keep you from dying. I covered above why comfort would be a factor, but at the end of the day that's not the purpose of armor. If someone doesn't want to wear armor because it's uncomfortable, then that person should not become an adventurer.

Or would really only wear armour for combat / anticipated combat... which (as you mention) makes sense! If hiking in full plate is cumbersome or more difficult, maybe they wear something else for that task even if a planned major combat deserves (and receives) full plate.