D&D 5E Limiting the Number of Weapon Proficiencies by Class

[Hriston]

I was thinking of introducing a system whereby a 0 level character could work its way up to first level through training, and it struck me how unrealistic it seems that certain classes have so many weapon proficiencies staring at first level. How realistic is it that a fighter is proficient with every weapon? Or even that most people are considered proficient with all simple weapons?

What I would change is to impose a limit by class, a la 1E, to the number of weapons a character could be proficient with. The list of weapons they could choose from would be the list their character would be fully proficient in by the normal rules.

Am I overlooking something that would be effected by this? Also, can anyone think of a similar way of dealing with armor proficiencies? Thanks!

 

[PnPgamer]

I think the main point of "mass weapon proficiency" is that most weapons function similarily to others, such as clubs are similar to maces. I do think that this is for a reason, and fightery types do weapon training for years, maybe decades. I believe they can learn in that time every weapon listed in phb.

 

[Celtavian]

Knights learned a ton of weapons during their training. Every skilled soldier learned swords, spears, armor, and shield use. It was all relatively similar with slight variations for unique weapons. The reason the crossbow was popular was its ease of use. Took almost no training to shoot a crossbow. I wouldn't worry about it too much unless you want to role-play childhood training.

 

[eMalc]

Thematically, I always go with the thought that adventurers are the exceptional people among the norm. As such learning to use weapons generally comes faster to them than a common mook. Also the whole years of training before starting off on their adventure kind of lends to knowing many weapons.

Mechanically, would there be any actual gain to limiting players to only a few weapons? The majority of the time I only ever see players using 1, maybe 2 different types of weapons so a hard limit would have no effect. Also it would do absolutely nothing to caster classes outside of situations where they couldn't use magic.

 

[Hriston]

Mechanically, would there be any actual gain to limiting players to only a few weapons? The majority of the time I only ever see players using 1, maybe 2 different types of weapons so a hard limit would have no effect. Also it would do absolutely nothing to caster classes outside of situations where they couldn't use magic.

Right, I'm not trying to impose a mechanical penalty on anyone. It's really more of a conceptual problem/consideration. Say a fighter class character, proficient in every weapon and type of armor known to man, is training a 0 level commoner to be a fighter. To become a fighter, the commoner needs to train with all of those weapons and armor types. How can the fighter and/or his apprentice afford to buy all those different types of weapons and armor for training, especially when you consider the high cost of the heavier types of armor? Even for a rogue, it seems like quite an investment to acquire all of the weapons you'd need just for training.

 

[Mephista]

So, we're training someone to be a fighter.

First, lets consider that mere proficiency isn't the same thing as being a master of said weapons. You simply know how to use them without stabbing yourself in the foot. Well, the game doesn't really model that, but, realistically, if you're not proficient, there's often little reason to use a weapon. Is it possible to train someone in how to use various weapons within, say, 3 months training time (I believe that one season was standard military training time for peasants)? Is that realistic? I believe so, yes. US Marine training is 12 weeks long, and think of everything that they teach you in those weeks.

Secondly, in addition to learning how to swing a weapon, you have to build up muscle mass in order to swing the weapons over the course of a day. You also need to practice accuracy. These are modeled by your Attribute scores in game, and are raised independently of knowing the correct way to swing the weapon without hurting someone. I can have a STR 8 elf wizard proficient in using a longsword. Will he ever actually USE it? Doubtful. There's a bit of meta-gaming considerations here as well - you want a class to grant all these proficiencies so players have the option of making a choice. A low STR, high DEX fighter may never learn more than Finesse weapons and archery from a story prospective, but we need to be able to cover all variations of STR and DEX from a design perspective.

Actual mastery of using a weapon involves learning Fighting Styles and appropriate feats in addition to any class features and a high attribute. Our above elf wizard may be proficient with a longsword, but he'll never have Duelist, pick up a feat for it, get Extra Attacks or any other things you do with weapons. Training often requires raising all those things at once; again, proficiency is an easy part of the instruction.

Third, lets consider that most of these skills are transferable. Instead of looking at long lists of armors and weapons, we really can break it down to more basic things - light, medium, heavy armors, shields, knives, bludgeons, swords, crossbows, bows, axes, thrown. Teaching someone how to properly wear and care for light armor will take hours. Using knives and a polearm are likewise simple. It'll take me a single day to teach proficency in all three of those.


So, no. Its not unrealistic considering how much beyond proficiency is required to use a weapon effectively. If anything, the game puts way too much weight on learning proficiency after character creation.

 

[Pickles III]

D&D unrealistic? Say it ain't so!

 

[Umbran]

It's really more of a conceptual problem/consideration. Say a fighter class character, proficient in every weapon and type of armor known to man, is training a 0 level commoner to be a fighter. To become a fighter, the commoner needs to train with all of those weapons and armor types. How can the fighter and/or his apprentice afford to buy all those different types of weapons and armor for training, especially when you consider the high cost of the heavier types of armor?

Imagine, for a moment, that this 0-level commoner is the hero of his own movie, and the fighter is the mentor figure in that movie.

What we'd see is a training montage. We would see the commoner in training, and there's be a bunch of weapons on the table, but we wouldn't actually see him train with each and every one. There's be an implication of "this training is exhaustive" but we would not see the details on screen. Then, when the time came, the newly minted hero* would be able to reach for whatever weapon was at hand, and be effective with it. And the audience would not mind that one bit. They'd been told "He has trained" and that is sufficient.

If you need a more pedantic reason for this to be okay - a fighter doesn't know how to use each individual weapon. He or she goes beyond proficiency, and knows the *theory* of fighting. He or she goes beyond having trained with every known type of weapon, and has gone into, "I know how to fight, with anything, in general". And that's what the fighter teaches.



*New armor smells like mint, you see.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Adventurer's aren't "most people". They are bigger-than-life heroes.

 

[the Jester]

I always look at this sort of proposed change through a "How does this improve the game?" lens.

I'm not sure I see any gain, here. Mostly, this looks to push pcs back down the 'but I want a magic x' path that previous editions were so big on (and which I hated so much)- if a character isn't proficient in the glaive, that magic glaive ain't worth dirt.

Also, how would allow pcs to expand their proficiencies? Say my fighter isn't proficient in the glaive and finds a magic version. Is it the same 250 days and a trainer to pick up proficiency? Would you allow a rogue or wizard to gain the proficiency the same way? If so, what's the point of having weapon proficiency limited by class at all?