D&D 5E What if you had to learn to use weapons?

[TallIan]

As other have said, it was done this way in older editions and it doesn't really add much to the game. As a fighter, I rarely used anything other than an ax is I was a dwarf or a sword if I was a human.

So you end up with two choices;
1) Give martial classes enough weapon proficiencies at first level so that they are more martial than other classes but can use all the weapons they want to anyway (sword and bow; ax and crossbow; two swords; etc.) this just means that proficiencies gained later are meaningless
or 2) Give martial classes one proficiency so that they have to learn more later on to become more versatile - or even to realise their concept. Then what do you do with non martial, non caster classes like rogue? With a weapon proficiency, they are as good as a fighter and without a weapon proficiency they are rubbish.

This is one of those idea's IMO that sounds cool but is really just extra bookkeeping.

 

[jasper]

First Level Katana
second level lightsaber
third level triblade rocket launching sword
fourth level phaser
fifth level m60
sixth level kasi men garmi me sickle chain thingy
seventh level, a board what has a rusty nail in it.
eight level rock
ninth level paper
tenth level spock
eleventh level star destroyer
twelfth level sonic screw driver
thirteen level fork
fourteenth level SPOON!
fifteenth level uzi
sixteenth level speak and spell. blunt throwing returning thingy.
seventeenth level turkey leg
eighteenth level switch pick off the apple tree by your momma
nineteenth level DAD'S BELT!
twentieth level eraser

 

[Satyrn]

I'd say that after about 3rd level I'd simply not care what weapons my character is proficient with and this would feel like a chore.

. . . and yet, in the last session of my gnome battlemaster's life, I picked up a pair of sixshooters off a couple corpses and had a blast doing the two pistol gunslinger thing rolling every attack with disadvantage because they were foreign to me.

So I get what you're going after.

 

[FieserMoep]

Just why?
Most characters start level one with the type of weapon they intend to keep anyway.
Some builds may switch after the first or second ASI but that is it then.
True, some overall proficiency is nice for the odd scenario the GM stole your gear and only gave you a shortsword in return but does that warrant a complex mechanic to keep track off?
More importantly: The access to certain weapons is part of the balance between martial proficient classes/backgrounds.
A fighter is not some guy that also just happens to have a lot of proficiency. A fighter is a dude that has some skills AND all the access to the proficiencies.

 

[ro]

From levels 1 to 20, how much weaker would a fighter be with a 1d4 weapon than a 1d12 weapon, assuming all other bonuses still apply?

 

[Satyrn]

From levels 1 to 20, how much weaker would a fighter be with a 1d4 weapon than a 1d12 weapon, assuming all other bonuses still apply?

Are you asking that in reply to FieserMoep's post above yours?

What I got out of his post is that he thinks your change will take away from the fighter's schtick - that he can pick up any weapon and use it to full effect, no matter whether that weapon does 1d4 for 1d12.

So I think what his post should lead you to is, if you implement a houserule like this, you should consider finding a way to reinforce the idea that the fighter's still the guy who can fight well with nearly any weapon he grabs.

 

[Lanefan]

As other have said, it was done this way in older editions and it doesn't really add much to the game. As a fighter, I rarely used anything other than an ax is I was a dwarf or a sword if I was a human.

And when you broke or lost your ax/sword, what then?

So you end up with two choices;
or 2) Give martial classes one proficiency so that they have to learn more later on to become more versatile - or even to realise their concept. Then what do you do with non martial, non caster classes like rogue? With a weapon proficiency, they are as good as a fighter and without a weapon proficiency they are rubbish.

Limit what weapons a non-martial can ever become proficient with. In 1e, for example, non-martial classes had restricted lists of allowable weapons from which to choose their proficiencies.

Also, even if proficient a non-martial will still never be as good as a martial; the combat ability variances (to-hit matrix in 1e, BAB in 3e, etc.) see to that.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Are you asking that in reply to FieserMoep's post above yours?

What I got out of his post is that he thinks your change will take away from the fighter's schtick - that he can pick up any weapon and use it to full effect, no matter whether that weapon does 1d4 for 1d12.

So I think what his post should lead you to is, if you implement a houserule like this, you should consider finding a way to reinforce the idea that the fighter's still the guy who can fight well with nearly any weapon he grabs.

Make the fighter's penalty for non-proficiency be somewhat less than any non-fighter.

Also, the idea that the fighter can fight with anything she picks up doesn't suit all situations. Some see fighters as being specialists, laser-focusing on one or two weapons only and rather hopeless with anything else.

Lan-"like me with longsword - give me a longsword and I'll carve my foes to bits but put a club in my hand and I'm as much a danger to my allies as my enemies"-efan

 

[FieserMoep]

While you may be an expert with the sword the "baseline" of a fighters proficiency is still vastly superior with pretty much every weapon that someone that never used a complicated weapon in his life.

So if you just can spend off-time to learn weapons for free, why not allow off-time for the fighter to learn cantrips?

 

[Satyrn]

Also, the idea that the fighter can fight with anything she picks up doesn't suit all situations. Some see fighters as being specialists, laser-focusing on one or two weapons only and rather hopeless with anything else.

Hmm . . . That looks like an excellent argument for putting the additional weapon proficiencies into the subclass. So if there's a weapon specialist fighter, they wouldn't be loaded down with proficiencies they oughtn't have.

Of course, then whoever's making that subclass would need to avoid the temptation of adding in power to compensate for what is barely even a ribbon feature.