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

[Greg K]

That is easily handled by not permitting any character to just pick up a level in any new class spontaneously. As silly as it is to suddenly be proficient in every weapon, waking up being able to cast cantrips and having a spell book (somehow) is worse.

I don't know that it is worse. However, before posting my previous post, I had removed my comments on spell casters since we were discussing weapons. From day one, I have stated that, imo, the first level in full casting classes should be cantrips only and no first level spells- possibly giving those characters starting in the class the ability to cast a first level spell. I have a similar issue with the feat granting spell casting. I am still deciding how I want to address the issue along with the semi-casters

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Am I overlooking something that would be effected by this?

Unless you plan on conspicuously custom loot, limiting players further on weapon choices makes players start expecting magic items tailored for them rather than just being grateful to find a magic weapon. It is a similar problem with Feats, Player focuses on X weapon or weapon style and then expects to find "their" weapon rather to be glad to have a weapon that can get through weapon resistance. But in this situation, you the DM, has forced the player to focus.

 

[Blackbird71]

On the question of multiple weapon training, there is some overlap between learning different weapons.

For example, I've trained in the use of a 5'-6' staff. If you break that in half to a pair of 3' Escrima sticks, I can apply a lot of the same basic moves and techniques that worked with the staff. Break one of those sticks in half again and connect the two halves with a short chain, and again the basic staff techniques apply to the nunchaku as well. So if you are skilled with one weapon, it is not too difficult to pick up a similar weapon and make use of it.

Now that having been said, there are also subtle differences between each of these weapons, and they each require specific training to master. For example, I don't have to worry about hitting myself in the back of the head as much with a staff as I would with nunchucks (I've done both), as the potential for overswing is not nearly as great; or the fact that Escrima sticks, being a pair, can be used in configurations that you can't do with a single solid piece of wood (staff).

The point is that while learning the basics of one weapon can help in the use of other similar weapons, each specific weapon still requires specialized training to make full use of its capabilities. So when it comes to realism of game terms, it boils down to a question of what is meant by "proficiency"? If proficiency (as the word implies) is having a basic level of skill, such as being able to swing the weapon around without seriously injuring yourself, then yes, I can reasonably see someone with a martial background (such as a fighter) being proficient in a wide range of weaponry. However, this would not be the same as being a master of such weapons; this has often been marked in previous editions as "specialization", which indicates a higher level of skill, training, and experience with a particular weapon and only that weapon.

 

[Greg K]

On the question of multiple weapon training, there is some overlap between learning different weapons.

For example, I've trained in the use of a 5'-6' staff. If you break that in half to a pair of 3' Escrima sticks, I can apply a lot of the same basic moves and techniques that worked with the staff. Break one of those sticks in half again and connect the two halves with a short chain, and again the basic staff techniques apply to the nunchaku as well. So if you are skilled with one weapon, it is not too difficult to pick up a similar weapon and make use of it.

Now that having been said, there are also subtle differences between each of these weapons, and they each require specific training to master. For example, I don't have to worry about hitting myself in the back of the head as much with a staff as I would with nunchucks (I've done both), as the potential for overswing is not nearly as great; or the fact that Escrima sticks, being a pair, can be used in configurations that you can't do with a single solid piece of wood (staff).

The point is that while learning the basics of one weapon can help in the use of other similar weapons, each specific weapon still requires specialized training to make full use of its capabilities. So when it comes to realism of game terms, it boils down to a question of what is meant by "proficiency"? If proficiency (as the word implies) is having a basic level of skill, such as being able to swing the weapon around without seriously injuring yourself, then yes, I can reasonably see someone with a martial background (such as a fighter) being proficient in a wide range of weaponry. However, this would not be the same as being a master of such weapons; this has often been marked in previous editions as "specialization", which indicates a higher level of skill, training, and experience with a particular weapon and only that weapon.

I agree that there is overlap. I, personally, found a lot more in common with paired sticks, paired knives, and hand strikes (e.g., spearhand, knifehand) and trapping than I did with any of them to staff or nunchaku. The circular motions of trapping transitioned to circular movements with paired sticks and knives so as not to hit/cut yourself, spearhand and straight punches for straight thrusts, etc. The open hand also transitioned to striking and slashing limbs. Then there was distance and footwork.
The staff an nunchaku both felt more different from the above and from each other. However, staff and spear felt more alike to each other based on my brief introduction. Maybe, it was spending less time with these weapons than I did with my introduction to paired sticks and paired knives (and even that was limited enough that I would not say I was fully proficient with either as my lessons stopped before mastering the katas let alone a chance to spar with them.

 

[Hriston]

On the question of multiple weapon training, there is some overlap between learning different weapons.

For example, I've trained in the use of a 5'-6' staff. If you break that in half to a pair of 3' Escrima sticks, I can apply a lot of the same basic moves and techniques that worked with the staff. Break one of those sticks in half again and connect the two halves with a short chain, and again the basic staff techniques apply to the nunchaku as well. So if you are skilled with one weapon, it is not too difficult to pick up a similar weapon and make use of it.

Now that having been said, there are also subtle differences between each of these weapons, and they each require specific training to master. For example, I don't have to worry about hitting myself in the back of the head as much with a staff as I would with nunchucks (I've done both), as the potential for overswing is not nearly as great; or the fact that Escrima sticks, being a pair, can be used in configurations that you can't do with a single solid piece of wood (staff).

The point is that while learning the basics of one weapon can help in the use of other similar weapons, each specific weapon still requires specialized training to make full use of its capabilities. So when it comes to realism of game terms, it boils down to a question of what is meant by "proficiency"? If proficiency (as the word implies) is having a basic level of skill, such as being able to swing the weapon around without seriously injuring yourself, then yes, I can reasonably see someone with a martial background (such as a fighter) being proficient in a wide range of weaponry. However, this would not be the same as being a master of such weapons; this has often been marked in previous editions as "specialization", which indicates a higher level of skill, training, and experience with a particular weapon and only that weapon.

First of all, thank you for sharing your weapon training experiences, and thanks to others that have done the same. I really don't have any such experience to draw on and it's very helpful to get an idea of how someone who has training with various forms of weaponry would interpret what it means to be proficient. The word is actually defined on Google as "a high degree of competence or skill; expertise", which, to me, implies more than just a basic level of skill. The word "incompetence" is given as an antonym, but I don't think it would be correct to infer from this that proficiency encompasses everything that is not incompetence, as someone injuring themselves with their own weapon would seem to imply, but rather that it is an opposite extreme of ability. I think this is born out by the mechanics of the game. The 10% bonus that proficiency grants at low levels is not trivial, while at higher levels mere proficiency can grant a bonus as much as 30% above the chance that a non-proficient character has to hit with the same weapon. While it is obviously not the weapon specialization and mastery that various class features and feats give to a character, I think that proficiency does mean that the character has been thoroughly trained in the weapon to the degree to which we might expect a regular soldier, who uses his or her weapon on the battlefield with confidence in his or her own ability, to have been.

The other issue that you and a number of others have brought up on this thread is the degree of overlap that exists between similar weapons. While I'm certain that this is the case, I'm not so sure this is what accounts for classes being granted blanket weapon proficiencies. Frequently we see a class that is proficient with one weapon, while not being proficient with the weapons one would think were the most similar. The Rogue, for example, although trained with hand and light crossbows, is not proficient with heavy crossbows. Classes proficient in simple weapons are proficient with the shortbow, but not necessarily with the longbow. Of course, this makes sense because these martial weapons require a greater degree of training than their simpler counterparts, but if overlap were the main design consideration at play here, I would imagine that we might see something more like "proficient with bows", or "proficient with crossbows" as an option, not that I'd want that. I think the true reason has more to do with game balance, and I don't see how limiting characters to choosing a few weapons to be proficient with would upset that.

 

[Hriston]

A couple of things to consider:

1. What weapons are monsters assumed to be proficient with? I think in the SRD it said that monsters are proficient with the weapons in their stat-block. Is this still the assumption people are working with? For example, is an NPC Commoner proficient with the club only, or would that same NPC be able to pick up and use any simple weapon with proficiency? I know you could give that NPC proficiency with any simple weapon you want without changing its CR, but I'm interested to see how creature stat-blocks are being interpreted with an eye toward balancing character weapon proficiencies v. monster weapon proficiencies.

2. I read somewhere that the sling went out of fashion for use on the battlefield in medieval times because it was too hard to find enough people who had had the training required. Apparently, ancient slingers had to train with the weapon from early childhood to be considered proficient on the battlefield with just that one weapon.