What are the disadvantages in using weapons you aren't proficient with?

[Sammyrism]

The game doesn't make this clear afaik.

[Speedy Gonzalles]

You don't get your proficiency bonus to attack rolls. Meaning it's pretty difficult to actually hit anything.

[cmwinchell]

If it follows the 5E rules properly in that regard? You don't get to add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls. That's a +2 you end up missing at levels 1-4. Really not worth the sacrifice.

[Panther1944]

-2 ability to attack as shown in the character overview where you also can change the weapons.

[PapaGiorgio]

You will not get your proficiency bonus to your attack roll if you are not proficient. This starts at +2 at level 1, and grows (slowly) with level and nothing else.

Damage does not get a proficiency bonus and is thus unchanged.

This applies to proficiency in skills as well, being proficient just means you get your proficiency bonus added to the roll.

[Speedy Gonzalles]

Originally posted by Curious Mando:

You miss a hell of a lot more and do slightly less damage.

Proficiency weapons do more damage and are significantly more accurate and have a natural 20 roll/ instant kill chance.

Damage is unchanged. You can still roll a natural 20 with a weapon you aren't proficient with and a natural 20 on an attack roll is just double the dice.

[PapaGiorgio]

Originally posted by Curious Mando:

You miss a hell of a lot more and do slightly less damage.

Proficiency weapons do more damage and are significantly more accurate and have a natural 20 roll/ instant kill chance.

Proficiency does not impact damage or crit chance.

It only affects chance to hit.

[Sammyrism]

Thank you guys for the input!

[wendigo211]

At the level range of the game, proficiency bonus is only +2, so if you find a really nice weapon it could be worth using it. E.g. for a +1 weapon you would only be at -1 to hit vs. a mundane weapon you are proficient with. There are a couple weapons with some strong on-hit abilities (bane on hit, burning on hit, etc.). So it could be worth taking a -2 to hit to apply those effects to the enemy, particularly if you can get buffed with Bless and Advantage to offset the proficiency bonus. Currently off-hand dual wielding attacks aren't adding the ability bonus to hit, which tends to be +3 or +4 and I still hit with those fairly regularly, so you can manage without a +2 if you need to.

In 3rd edition a +1 to hit was roughly equivalent to a +2 to damage in terms of damage per turn. However, part of that had to do with iterative attacks (you almost always had 2 attacks that were benefiting from that bonus) and weapon damage being higher in that edition (higher enhancement levels, more buffs, 1.5x strength modifier on damage rolls, etc.). For 5th edition a hit bonus is probably still a bit better than a damage bonus, but it's probably closer to parity, particularly for the level range we have right now.

[Dragon Master]

You're less accurate.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Dragon Master:

You're less accurate.

You aren't proficient. ;) It literally means what it literally says.

[Dragon Master]

Originally posted by Martin:

Originally posted by Dragon Master:

You're less accurate.

You aren't proficient. ;)

lol. Yup.

[Sammyrism]

Originally posted by wendigo211:

At the level range of the game, proficiency bonus is only +2, so if you find a really nice weapon it could be worth using it. E.g. for a +1 weapon you would only be at -1 to hit vs. a mundane weapon you are proficient with. There are a couple weapons with some strong on-hit abilities (bane on hit, burning on hit, etc.). So it could be worth taking a -2 to hit to apply those effects to the enemy, particularly if you can get buffed with Bless and Advantage to offset the proficiency bonus. Currently off-hand dual wielding attacks aren't adding the ability bonus to hit, which tends to be +3 or +4 and I still hit with those fairly regularly, so you can manage without a +2 if you need to.

In 3rd edition a +1 to hit was roughly equivalent to a +2 to damage in terms of damage per turn. However, part of that had to do with iterative attacks (you almost always had 2 attacks that were benefiting from that bonus) and weapon damage being higher in that edition (higher enhancement levels, more buffs, 1.5x strength modifier on damage rolls, etc.). For 5th edition a hit bonus is probably still a bit better than a damage bonus, but it's probably closer to parity, particularly for the level range we have right now.

Wow, thank you for the extensive explanation!