What even is armor proficiency?

[Greywander]

And my post was mostly in jest at how people approach the game in different contexts.

Sorry for taking it so seriously. It can be hard to tell the difference between tongue in cheek humor and sarcastic mocking when it's just text.

Someone did point out to you that what you're proposing would it make very easy for casters to get armor, and you were okay with that, saying "that ship has sailed". So my comment seems relevant, given that we have people explaining how real armor works to justify your wizard picking it up and using it without training.

Okay yeah that's fair. But even then, that was in the context of replacing proficiency with something else, specifically stricter encumbrance that requires investing in STR to wear armor without penalties, but I'm sure there's other options as well.

This thread has never been about just letting wizards wear armor for free with no penalties or investment. The original premise of the thread was simply that armor proficiency doesn't make sense to me, so is there a way we can make it make sense, or could we replace armor proficiency with something more intuitive? Another restriction that's been proposed is for armor to limit spellcasting, which could actually work if D&D didn't also want to have armored casters at the same time.

Well, why can't I just pick up a spellbook or scroll and read the words and cast magic without having the actual class feature? How do I roleplay not being able to sound things out and wiggle my fingers the same way I see other people do it? Why can't I just pick up spellcasting? It's a game, that's why.

Spellcasting, especially wizardry, is easier to conceptualize by relating it high level academic fields. Even if I had all the equipment, I wouldn't know how to run a particle accelerator, or make plastic, or perform heart surgery. I consider myself fairly computer savvy, but I can't just write a program to do something complex. I can parse simple code, but more complex code may as well be in another language (which, technically, it is). A lot of people can't understand code at all, let alone write their own.

Funnily enough, in some systems, anyone can use a spellbook or spell scroll. In fact, this is often the explicit benefit of scrolls in a lot of games.

Why have weapon proficiencies? You can just swing a sword repeatedly and pick it up just fine.

Why have skill proficiencies? How hard is it to walk quietly?

Why have spell restrictions? Just practice for a week, simple as.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Each of those are pretty easy to visualize what it looks like to lack proper training. They're all things you do, and can do badly if you don't know what you're doing. But again, you don't "do" armor.

Most adventurers don't go to adventurer school to learn how to adventure.

Every adventurer knows at least two languages. Every adventurer is proficient at fighting unarmed. Do they teach knife-fighting at wizard school now?

There are a lot of skills that most people wouldn't have, but would be common among adventurers, specifically. Every class, even wizard, learns weapon proficiencies, for example. It's not implausible that anyone planning to take up a life of adventuring would spend some time learning "the basics", skills that most people might rarely use but would be vital to an adventurer. Wearing armor could be one of those. It wouldn't have to be (and isn't in vanilla), but if it was then it wouldn't be out of place. It's believable. It would make sense.

How is your version above any less arbitrary than what we have? What are you going to do to replace the (sub)class features that grant armour proficiency?

I mean it's not. That doesn't mean it isn't an improvement. Streamlining is all about getting rid of things that aren't useful or meaningful. The end result is something that's simpler and easier to use, but retains most of it's depth. Complexity is bad, and the only reason it is tolerated is because of the depth it can bring. Reducing complexity without sacrificing depth is always a good thing.

The issue is that we have 3 mental stats that do nothing

Start by making them do something

I object to this way of thinking, as it leads to an endless cycle where nothing can be done because everything is waiting on something else. Before you can fix X, you need to fix Y. Before you can fix Y, you need to fix Z. Before you can fix Z, you need to fix X.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm working on a big overhaul and one of the things it will do is use all three mental stats for spellcasting. INT gives more spells known, WIS is used for concentration, and CHA for attacks and save DC. You might ask, "What about non-casters?" But this is part of the same homebrew I mentioned earlier where every class is a "caster".

Something mildly interesting to note, the Elder Scrolls between Morrowind and Skyrim also dropped medium armor and unarmored, leaving only light, heavy and block (shield).

And the game is better for it. Not just armor, but they also consolidated weapon skills from short blade, long blade, axe, blunt, and spear to just one-handed and two-handed. The skills themselves weren't really adding anything meaningful to the game, all they really did was make it harder to switch weapon types.

Hot take but getting rid of attributes was also a net positive. I do think there's a way they could have implemented attributes that would have been even better, but no attributes was an improvement over the janky system of previous games. It vastly improved the vanilla level up system; I can't play Morrowind without a leveling mod. In fact, a while back I made my own leveling mod for OpenMW, since the existing ones didn't seem to work right anymore.

[stoutstien]

This is not a system issue. If you, as the DM, want "off-stats" to matter, you have the tools to do so - just come up with checks using those stats to enable or enhance things the characters want to do. For example, Acrobatics checks to "disengage" for free, Insight checks to measure a monster's relative CR or danger level, Int checks to identify/exploit their weaknesses, Deception checks to feint during combat etc. So long as you're building on the existing framework without taking anything away, and you don't make the consequences for failing those checks slapstick/punishing, players will be interested in trying them, and you may even get a few more average scores at character creation or a few ASIs going to off-scores. Be the change you want to see.

I mean regardless of DM shifting ability modifiers to be more equality distributed they still promotes dump or pump because of how they scale.

[RSP]

Nowhere in my post did I say or even imply any of this so... enjoy your shadow-boxing session .

Hmm…this seems to indeed be an implication that allowing non-martials access to armor proficiencies lessens martials:

“ Remember kids, only YOU can prevent caster/martial disparity”

Not sure why you’re denying that now.

But my point still stands: armor proficiencies aren’t how martials should be defined, therefore, it’s not a big deal to change how they work.

[Talamare]

This is not a system issue. If you, as the DM, want "off-stats" to matter, you have the tools to do so - just come up with checks using those stats to enable or enhance things the characters want to do. For example, Acrobatics checks to "disengage" for free, Insight checks to measure a monster's relative CR or danger level, Int checks to identify/exploit their weaknesses, Deception checks to feint during combat etc. So long as you're building on the existing framework without taking anything away, and you don't make the consequences for failing those checks slapstick/punishing, players will be interested in trying them, and you may even get a few more average scores at character creation or a few ASIs going to off-scores. Be the change you want to see.

Man, if I need to add a mountain of homebrewed systems into the game... or in video game terms... if I have to heavily mod the game to make these stats matter... then it IS a system issue.

In 3.5e your skills were based on your INT, that's a system that made INT a little useful for everyone. That was removed.
In Dragon Age Origins, only the Magic Stat was useless to most classes; and even then Magic affected how strong Potions were.

Honestly, acknowledging that DnDs attribute system isn't a shocking contrarian revelation. It's pretty much part of the common knowledge.

Skyrim dropped a lot of things in the name of streamlining that certainly made the game more accessible, but also eliminated some interesting archetypes from the game. One of my favorite builds in Morrowind was a "monk" with max unarmed and unarmored and Alteration buffs.

And they deleted Spears, wth man

[Psyren]

I mean regardless of DM shifting ability modifiers to be more equality distributed they still promotes dump or pump because of how they scale.

Pump will always be desirable if it's possible because adventurers are specialists. But your goal if you want more of an even spread should be to make some investment still viable.

Man, if I need to add a mountain of homebrewed systems into the game... or in video game terms... if I have to heavily mod the game to make these stats matter... then it IS a system issue.

Except you're in the minority with even wanting this, so yes, mods are the solution for you. Don't force everybody else to go along with your desire to make the game MAD.

In 3.5e your skills were based on your INT, that's a system that made INT a little useful for everyone. That was removed.

Yeah, because it was utter garbage. You ended up with things like Fighters that couldn't even work as town guards because they didn't have the points to put into Spot and Listen, especially since those weren't even class skills for them. Or Paladins that could choose to be good at riding or diplomacy or chivalry but rarely all three.

[Amnestic]

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Each of those are pretty easy to visualize what it looks like to lack proper training. They're all things you do, and can do badly if you don't know what you're doing. But again, you don't "do" armor.

Right, you do other stuff while wearing armour. And if you're not used to (read: proficient with) armour, then doing that other stuff - dodging fireballs, climbing trees, swimming, stealthing, casting spells - is more difficult/impossible. Just like when you're not used to sneaking (read: not proficient) you're not able to do it as well (you don't add your proficiency bonus).

Every adventurer knows at least two languages. Every adventurer is proficient at fighting unarmed. Do they teach knife-fighting at wizard school now?

Evidently they do, yes. Perhaps for those moments you're stuck in anti-magic fields or you're gagged when all your known spells have verbal components. If you want to argue that wizards should have no weapon proficiencies then go nuts I guess, I'm not gonna say no.

I mean it's not.

Then don't say "it's arbitrary" when you're going to provide something as arbitrary in return. Just a bit silly that.

That doesn't mean it isn't an improvement. Streamlining is all about getting rid of things that aren't useful or meaningful. The end result is something that's simpler and easier to use, but retains most of it's depth. Complexity is bad, and the only reason it is tolerated is because of the depth it can bring. Reducing complexity without sacrificing depth is always a good thing.

But it is useful and meaningful. Giving certain classes and subclasses armour proficiency or lackthereof informs the archetypes they're attempting to evoke.

If you give a wizard the option for leather instead of enforcing no armour, it detracts from the robe wearing armourless spellcaster they want. Gandalf didn't run around in studded leather. Probably.
Rangers don't get heavy armour, because they're meant to be more lightly equipped than that, because they're hunters.
Some clerics (eg. war) get heavy armour proficiency to represent a more martial cleric concept vs. a more caster focused cleric (whether that's mechanically successful or not is another matter but that's the intention).
By giving monks no armour proficiencies they say "use your unarmoured defense, don't be distracted by armour".

By streamlining and getting rid of these proficiencies or bundling them together you detract from these intended archetypes they're attempting to evoke through the mechanics and muddy the waters.

There's more than just mechanical depth to consider when you're streamlining.

[Talamare]

Except you're in the minority with even wanting this, so yes, mods are the solution for you. Don't force everybody else to go along with your desire to make the game MAD.



Yeah, because it was utter garbage. You ended up with things like Fighters that couldn't even work as town guards because they didn't have the points to put into Spot and Listen, especially since those weren't even class skills for them. Or Paladins that could choose to be good at riding or diplomacy or chivalry but rarely all three.

Hah, yet there is a constant stream of people complaining how the Stat system in DnD are basically terrible.

I seriously don't that the majority think the system is well designed and properly utilizes its stats.

Yeah, because it was utter garbage. You ended up with things like Fighters that couldn't even work as town guards because they didn't have the points to put into Spot and Listen, especially since those weren't even class skills for them. Or Paladins that could choose to be good at riding or diplomacy or chivalry but rarely all three.

See, this is the problem with your arguments
You take a piece "At least Int gave skills" then you automatically attach it to the worst parts of the system.

A is related to be B, but let me tell you good sir... A ... is ... not ... B

3.5 having way too many skills was a problem
3.5 not having enough essentially 'free max' was a problem
Int providing Skills? Not inherently a problem

[Greywander]

Real quick, I think it's worth acknowledging that there are a lot of valid points being made on both sides, it's just down to differences in priorities and what people think is important. That, and the fact a lot of mechanics are mutually exclusive and simply can't exist in the same system. So for example niche protection isn't a big concern for me, but it is for some people. A greater concern for me is opening up more options for customization. For example, a battle mage in full plate is a valid character concept, and I think it would be good if there was a way to realize that concept, so long as you have to spec into it and every wizard doesn't get to just wear plate with no penalties. But that would infringe on the niches of martial characters for whom armor is meant to be an advantage they have over casters.

Point is, it's not that the other person is necessarily wrong in what they're saying, rather they just have different priorities than you. A better game for you would be a worse game for them.

Right, you do other stuff while wearing armour. And if you're not used to (read: proficient with) armour, then doing that other stuff - dodging fireballs, climbing trees, swimming, stealthing, casting spells - is more difficult/impossible. Just like when you're not used to sneaking (read: not proficient) you're not able to do it as well (you don't add your proficiency bonus).

Wouldn't this mostly apply to rigid armors like plate? A gambeson isn't much different from thick clothing, and even mail still allows nearly full articulation. It might restrict you a bit, but I'm not sure it would be enough to warrant any kind of penalty. Lots of things can make a task a tiny bit easier or harder, but the effect needs to be pretty significant before it can become advantage or disadvantage.

Perhaps this would be better represented by having rigid armors give a DEX penalty?

Then don't say "it's arbitrary" when you're going to provide something as arbitrary in return. Just a bit silly that.

My point was that even if we were to stick with the arbitrary system of armor proficiencies, there was still room to improve it.

Your response is like if I called a build underpowered but offered some optimization tips, and you called me silly because even with those tips the build would still be underpowered. Like, yeah, that's what I was saying, but if you insist on playing that build then those tips would at least help slightly.

By streamlining and getting rid of these proficiencies or bundling them together you detract from these intended archetypes they're attempting to evoke through the mechanics and muddy the waters.

There's more than just mechanical depth to consider when you're streamlining.

That's fair. It seems like niche protection is more important to you than to me. We might not be able to find a solution that satisfies both of us, though maybe we can find something we both agree is an improvement.

[Amnestic]

It might restrict you a bit, but I'm not sure it would be enough to warrant any kind of penalty. Lots of things can make a task a tiny bit easier or harder, but the effect needs to be pretty significant before it can become advantage or disadvantage.

Perhaps this would be better represented by having rigid armors give a DEX penalty?

Giving stat penalties is presumably a number you need to keep track of, especially if it differs by armour/armour type. Disadvantage is, ironically enough, the "streamlined" approach.

[Dr.Samurai]

Hmm…this seems to indeed be an implication that allowing non-martials access to armor proficiencies lessens martials:

“ Remember kids, only YOU can prevent caster/martial disparity”

Not sure why you’re denying that now.

Because I try not to get goaded into arguing or defending positions other people are foisting on me.

It seems clear to me that a disparity does not mean "lessening martials" (as removing armor proficiencies would simply boost casters and other martials) nor does it mean "armor is the only or primary feature that defines martials" as you implied I said in your first reply.

So... you can keep interpreting what I said in those ways, but you're just arguing with yourself if you do so.

But my point still stands: armor proficiencies aren’t how martials should be defined, therefore, it’s not a big deal to change how they work.

Your preference and opinion are noted.

@Greywander: Understood. Your armored battle-mage is my heavily armored strength Ranger. Removing armor profs would make that a much easier thing to pull off, without needing to multiclass.

[stoutstien]

Pump will always be desirable if it's possible because adventurers are specialists. But your goal if you want more of an even spread should be to make some investment still viable.

I'm definitely not advocating that everyone needs to have diversified stat arrays. But it would be nice if there was some additional options. Like would it really hurt anything to allow monks to add strength and Dex modify to attack and damage as long as the total couldn't go above the soft cap? Sure 90% the players wouldn't even notice but that one person who doesn't want to be a turtle it would be a huge quality of Play change.

[zlefin]

I'm having a hard time seeing any way to simultaneously satisfy the objectives: have armor proficiency make sense, have it be in the game for some niche protection, and keep the simplicity that's part of 5E design.

So I think, OP, that there's really no other choice than to sacrifice one of the objectives.

I'm doubtful there's a way even if you allowed high complexity; as the amount of ad hoc patching needed to justify the niche protection would likely require some nonsense.

[Amechra]

Encumbrance is not, generally speaking, a system people love to deal with. It's right up there with counting arrows and spell components. I mean you can do it, but it's fiddly, and generally ends up counting every pound, or some system where you get like 1 heavy item per two points of STR bonus, then making all the heavier armor heavy. Which sure is slightly more flexible than the armor proficiency system, but is a lot more bookkeeping. Which is really the major benefit of the prof system for armor, zero bookkeeping.

The thing about encumbrance is that it's one of a set of mechanics that has survived from when D&D was a very different game, which has been kept around because of tradition.

Anally keeping track of every last pfennig of weight made sense when your primary way of getting experience was lugging treasure out of the dungeon and into town. And yes, I said pfennig — early D&D measured how much you could carry in terms of coins, because that's what you were most interested in tracking.

In most modern RPGs, on the other hand, the end result of all that bookkeeping is you learning whether or not you have a penalty to your actions, which is far less exciting than learning that your good planning meant that you can earn an extra 100xp on your next trip into the dungeon.

---

On the topic of the thread... armor proficiencies are basically just a "we're trying to make all of the archetypes look right" kind of thing. They're just a kinda clumsy and kinda punitive way of handling it. You should be rewarded for dressing like your class.

(In the sense of full disclosure: I don't get you people who want your wizards to wear plate armor instead of sick robes and a cool hat. You give me the same kind of vibes as those people who look at Sailor Moon and go "why does she have to wear that goofy dress while she's transformed and fighting evil?".)

[Witty Username]

Coin based XP does translate pretty well to 5e, if one has a mind to use it, for those who are interested.
--
Hm, that is a good point on wizards. More generally I have noted that people tend to want lighter or more clothing like armor when the concept there character.
I have been more of a fan of class defense bonuses in other RPGs for that reason more or less.

[Kane0]

And the game is better for it. Not just armor, but they also consolidated weapon skills from short blade, long blade, axe, blunt, and spear to just one-handed and two-handed. The skills themselves weren't really adding anything meaningful to the game, all they really did was make it harder to switch weapon types.

Perhaps. Let us not intermix opinion and fact, therein lies the path to madness.

In any case, my response to the question 'Why does armor proficiency exist' is 'to regulate how different characters are able to raise their AC'. You had it in your first sentence.

If pressed my explanation would probably just paraphrase the PHB. Because not being proficient means you can't cast spells (that require somatic components, presumably) and suffer disadvantage on Str/Dex rolls, I would assume being proficient is in-world primarily about being familiarized and trained in moving in that armor, especially in nonstandard circumstances and for extended periods. The armor itself still protects you just fine whether you are used to it or not, but when you try to do anything complex or strenuous it becomes a hindrance.

[Dr.Samurai]

The thing about encumbrance is that it's one of a set of mechanics that has survived from when D&D was a very different game, which has been kept around because of tradition.

Anally keeping track of every last pfennig of weight made sense when your primary way of getting experience was lugging treasure out of the dungeon and into town. And yes, I said pfennig — early D&D measured how much you could carry in terms of coins, because that's what you were most interested in tracking.

In most modern RPGs, on the other hand, the end result of all that bookkeeping is you learning whether or not you have a penalty to your actions, which is far less exciting than learning that your good planning meant that you can earn an extra 100xp on your next trip into the dungeon.

Well, tradition is certainly one reason. But I think it also makes sense to track anyways, lest the game get too video-gamey.

On the topic of the thread... armor proficiencies are basically just a "we're trying to make all of the archetypes look right" kind of thing. They're just a kinda clumsy and kinda punitive way of handling it. You should be rewarded for dressing like your class.

(In the sense of full disclosure: I don't get you people who want your wizards to wear plate armor instead of sick robes and a cool hat. You give me the same kind of vibes as those people who look at Sailor Moon and go "why does she have to wear that goofy dress while she's transformed and fighting evil?".)

Fully agree. I don't know what the appeal of armored mages is, but to each their own. Heck, if there was an unarmored defense feature that let me pump strength and have great AC I'd choose that 9 times out of 10.

Coin based XP does translate pretty well to 5e, if one has a mind to use it, for those who are interested.

How would this work? Just map the coins to xp amounts 1:1?

Perhaps. Let us not intermix opinion and fact, therein lies the path to madness.

In any case, my response to the question 'Why does armor proficiency exist' is 'to regulate how different characters are able to raise their AC'. You had it in your first sentence.

If pressed my explanation would probably just paraphrase the PHB. Because not being proficient means you can't cast spells (that require somatic components, presumably) and suffer disadvantage on Str/Dex rolls, I would assume being proficient is in-world primarily about being familiarized and trained in moving in that armor, especially in nonstandard circumstances and for extended periods. The armor itself still protects you just fine whether you are used to it or not, but when you try to do anything complex or strenuous it becomes a hindrance.

Yeah, I'm kind of skeptical that someone happening across a suit of armor will be able to 1. put it on properly and 2. use it without it imposing on their other abilities.

I mean, I think back to just some costumes I've worn for Halloween and I know I'm in for a night of fumbling things in my hands, bumping into things because I extend further out than I'm used to, and limited vision. So no, I don't think someone just strapping on some armor is going to keep keeping on without any hindrance, especially in the demanding and chaotic world of D&D adventuring. So I think even if we ignore gamist reasons, it still works for realism reasons.

[Witty Username]

How would this work? Just map the coins to xp amounts 1:1?

Yeah, there are essentially 2 ways to use it, both assume 1 XP, 1 GP:
1. Reward by haul: I believe this is the traditional way, looted gold and quest reward grant Xp equal to gold value.
2. The "Yakuza" way (in that game they refer to it as spending money on yourself): where the party can "buy" Xp at a 1:1 rate with gold, during downtime. Training, carousing, plot advancement, fiat, the exact details are more for the DM to hammer out.

I use 2, so far it has done several weird things (not bad weird, just weird). First, it creates a tension between equipment and leveling, allowing the PCs a decision point between upgrading gear and level. Second, it makes for some different approaches to dungeons, like scouting rooms and avoiding encounters if there is not treasure or further suggestions to explore. This does allow for downright baffling encounter design, as fighting is not a priority, but getting the loot is. Third, treasure is a point of conflict within the party a bit, this one is a, keep an eye on if not your thing, but if a party conflict comes up treasure can be used as leverage (my table went full democracy because this one made them uncomfortable). Rogue players may need a talk to if they choke the party out of levels. But if logistics is your party's thing then it encouges a lot more direct cooperation on adventures, party composition, and long term projects.

The actual rules and expectations for 5e don't change much . Modules probably go real weird though.

[Psyren]

Hah, yet there is a constant stream of people complaining how the Stat system in DnD are basically terrible.

I'm sure you have evidence of this "constant stream", or that there are enough of you to possibly justify making every D&D class MAD.

See, this is the problem with your arguments
You take a piece "At least Int gave skills" then you automatically attach it to the worst parts of the system.

A is related to be B, but let me tell you good sir... A ... is ... not ... B

3.5 having way too many skills was a problem
3.5 not having enough essentially 'free max' was a problem
Int providing Skills? Not inherently a problem

Ok... How... would you.... implement A.... here then? An extra proficiency for every point of Int bonus? So wizards are running around with 9 proficiencies before racials and feats?

[Amechra]

so far it has done several weird things [...]

I find this kinda funny... because those effects are only weird if you're used to more modern D&D. All of that stuff? That's originally just how the game worked — combat was a failure state in your grand dungeon-heist, because there were better (AKA less risky) ways of getting rich and leveling up. Combat-as-Failure, if you would.

If you track encumbrance, I'm betting that your players also love gems and jewelry (it's a ton of experience in a nice, portable package!)

[Goobahfish]

I mean, I know it's a game abstraction that exists to preserve class balance. But what is it supposed to represent? Or, more importantly, how do I roleplay not having armor proficiency? If my wizard is in danger and finds a suit of plate armor, why wouldn't they put it on?

Opening Remarks
Armour in D&D is pretty dumb.
#1: It conflates dodging with being hit in non-lethal ways and basically abstracts away the 'actual difference' between weapon types and armour types etc. For example, daggers which were used a lot IRL for finishing 'prone foes', hammers which were used for bludgeoning armoured foes, and swords and spears going from 'best on field' to 'way less useful' against an armoured foe.

#2: Armour proficiency is asinine. If you need 'proficiency' to wear a chain shirt then you are indeed a weird person. It's like saying 'backpack proficiency' (except worse). Armour is distributed evenly over the body so basically you are just a bit heavier (and will tire more easily) but isn't really heavy in a real sense. People can still do somersaults and cartwheels in armour.

Where I went with it
So I made a skills-based system and I hummed and hah'd for ages over Armour because I couldn't possibly fathom what to do with it. In the end, I decided the following:
#1: It is damage reduction. Full stop.
#2: There are some weapons (hammers) which reduce the damage reduction by half (armour piercing) and other abilities which ignore armour entirely.
#3: Heavy armour actually reduces your defence score (chance of being hit is higher because you slightly slower).
#4: Proficiency is determined by total stamina (TL:DR this stat is determined by your skill choices and Strength - so high strength more martial characters have access to heavier armours). This fit the best as pure 'Strength' doesn't really get at what armour does. It is more to do with how far you can run carrying a lot (i.e. combination of Strength and Constitution). It also interferes with magic directly reducing the amount of Mana you can draw. Honestly, this is a layover from D&D and I'm considering axing it as it doesn't really add anything.

[Talamare]

I'm sure you have evidence of this "constant stream", or that there are enough of you to possibly justify making every D&D class MAD.

Look around, you stand in the forest and yet are asking for evidence of Trees.

Also, what are you even promoting; that everyone should be completely SAD?

An extra proficiency for every point of Int bonus? So wizards are running around with 9 proficiencies before racials and feats?

That's a possibility, but I was not aware Wizards could reach +9 Int
If this becomes the design choice, classes that use INT as their main stat would probably start at 0 base proficiencies, maybe 1.
It makes sense in a way, After all they are literally the most intelligent members of the group.

Ooh, maybe you could even trade having an additional proficiency for having Expertise instead.
Definitely a lot of possibilities, and if you didn't always rush to strawman and dismiss, maybe you might see some possibilities as well.


but, this is also the point that I was making with the rest of my earlier post. That the system isn't inherently well designed, which honestly isn't a surprise. It's a relic hobbled together with duct tape and shoestring.

[Psyren]

Look around, you stand in the forest and yet are asking for evidence of Trees.

You mean the copse that is GitP? You live in a cave and think you see the whole world. Step outside.

Also, what are you even promoting; that everyone should be completely SAD?

No class is "completely SAD" in current 5e. Not even Artificer. And that's fine the way it is.

If you want to change 5e as drastically as you do, you need a much better case than "look around." Actual evidence for one thing.

That's a possibility, but I was not aware Wizards could reach +9 Int

2 from background, 2 from class, 5 from Int = 9.

[theNater]

...how do I roleplay not having armor proficiency?

Be a little off-balance. Your weight is distributed differently than you are used to, and you sometimes overcorrect.
Occasionally stop a motion part-way through. You've forgotten that this armor restricts that motion. Possibly adjust the motion or the armor to complete it.
Rub your back/arms/shoulders/legs. You're using muscles you don't often use, and they get sore quickly.

If my wizard is in danger and finds a suit of plate armor, why wouldn't they put it on?

Depends on the wizard, depends on the danger. Remember that it takes 10 minutes to don heavy armor, even if one knows what one is doing; your wizard may take closer to 20. Do they have that kind of time? Found armor won't be the right size, so it will be distinctly uncomfortable(like wearing your shoes on the wrong feet all over your body); how much does that matter to your wizard? It'll be noisier; is there a chance to hide from the danger? Is your wizard disdainful of mundane protections, preferring to defend themselves with their magic?

A gambeson isn't much different from thick clothing, and even mail still allows nearly full articulation. It might restrict you a bit, but I'm not sure it would be enough to warrant any kind of penalty.

Well, you can do an experiment. Put on layers of shirts and sweaters until you've got enough to significantly soften a blow. (You can have a friend punch you, to see if you've got enough layers). Then, do an exercise routine: sit-ups, toe touches, side stretches, twists, all the things that move your arms and back. Are they the same difficulty, slightly harder, or significantly harder?

[Witty Username]

If you track encumbrance, I'm betting that your players also love gems and jewelry (it's a ton of experience in a nice, portable package!)

When I am DM, I handle encumbrance by honors system. So far when I double check the math the party is pretty consistently below half the encumbrance limit. 5e is very conservative on the subject from my standpoint, so honors system has worked pretty well so far.
Also, the last 3ish, games I have played/ran we had a cart for atmosphere, which helps alot with hauling random nonsense.

[Ignimortis]

Ok... How... would you.... implement A.... here then? An extra proficiency for every point of Int bonus? So wizards are running around with 9 proficiencies before racials and feats?

1) Give Wizard 1 fixed base skill proficiency (Arcana), and give martials 6 baseline unfixed ones, Rogues get 8 baseline. Yes, that does mean that a Wizard will never be as good at skills as a martial with 12 INT. This is perfectly fine. Other spellcasters can have a baseline of 2 - one fixed (Arcana for arcane casters, Nature or Religion for Druids/Clerics), one unfixed.
2) Instead of Expertise being a Rogue/Bard class feature, give the ability to trade a proficiency for expertise - to martials only. Do not give that to Bard unless you change their spellcasting and Lore Bard existing. Give out more "proficiency points" to martials - at the same time as default ASIs (4, 8, 12, 16, 19). Maybe give half of that to casters if you feel they're falling behind too much.
3) Perhaps Rogues get a few more "proficiency points" in their levels, or maybe something that supports them being INT-secondary (in fact, I would like all martials to have features that would encourage at least one mental off-stat being more than 10 that aren't the base benefits).

[Psyren]

1) Give Wizard 1 fixed base skill proficiency (Arcana), and give martials 6 baseline unfixed ones, Rogues get 8 baseline. Yes, that does mean that a Wizard will never be as good at skills as a martial with 12 INT. This is perfectly fine. Other spellcasters can have a baseline of 2 - one fixed (Arcana for arcane casters, Nature or Religion for Druids/Clerics), one unfixed.
2) Instead of Expertise being a Rogue/Bard class feature, give the ability to trade a proficiency for expertise - to martials only. Do not give that to Bard unless you change their spellcasting and Lore Bard existing. Give out more "proficiency points" to martials - at the same time as default ASIs (4, 8, 12, 16, 19). Maybe give half of that to casters if you feel they're falling behind too much.
3) Perhaps Rogues get a few more "proficiency points" in their levels, or maybe something that supports them being INT-secondary (in fact, I would like all martials to have features that would encourage at least one mental off-stat being more than 10 that aren't the base benefits).

None of these key off Int in any way except the third one, which isn't even a proposal, it's just a vague "perhaps/maybe something."

[Ignimortis]

None of these key off Int in any way except the third one, which isn't even a proposal, it's just a vague "perhaps/maybe something."

It all presumes +INT to proficiency points, of course.

[Psyren]

It all presumes +INT to proficiency points, of course.

Are you still able to get proficiencies from race, background, and feats?

[Ignimortis]

Are you still able to get proficiencies from race, background, and feats?

Race, probably yes (since it tends to be zero or one proficiency at most, half-elves notwithstanding). Backgrounds, no - frankly, I don't really see them as something that works in 5e or One D&D aside from providing "number plugs". Feats, sure, as long as feats are still tied to ASIs.

[Psyren]

Race, probably yes (since it tends to be zero or one proficiency at most, half-elves notwithstanding). Backgrounds, no - frankly, I don't really see them as something that works in 5e or One D&D aside from providing "number plugs". Feats, sure, as long as feats are still tied to ASIs.

Gotcha. Good luck with that.

Note that multiple modern races get two (Changelings, Kenku, Astral Elves etc) and 1DD humans can get up to 4!