Get Rid of Proficiencies

[MatthewJHanson]

Is this in reference to a rule in 4e? In 3e, Fighters are proficient in most weapons by default. Is the issue around exotic weapons? Or with non-Fighters?

The OP actually sounds like a reference to 2e, where classes had a limited amount of proficiencies, and had use them to choose particular weapons.

I like the way that proficiencies work in 3e and 4e. Their main purpose is to allow classes that use weapon (such as fighter) to use weapons that are better than classes that typically don't (such as wizard).

Or for armor they help distinguish between classes like fighter and ranger.

 

[CM]

Since it hasn't been explicitly stated in this thread yet, 4e reversed the old proficiency modifiers, giving you an attack bonus if you were proficient rather than an attack penalty for not being proficient. This was necessary to avoid having base AC start at 12 or 13 rather than 10. I think it was easier the old way however--the assumption should be that you're attacking with a weapon in which you are trained, so the fewer modifiers to remember, the better.

There has to be some means of assuring that casters choose "thematically appropriate" weapons. Otherwise what's to stop every wizard from picking greatsword and longbow other than flavor?

As an aside, I hope 5e will have an implement system available (even as an option) like 4e. Orbs, wands, rods, staves, daggers, tomes, totems, symbols, etc., were cool. Before 4e, every wizard I ever saw in any game carried a dagger, staff, and/or sling. Now we have a rod guy, an orb guy, a dual-staff guy, and a staff-dagger guy.

Finally, if exotic weapons are to return, I would prefer them to be limited to actual unique weapons and not simply a "slightly-larger greatsword" or whatever. Spiked chain? Double axe? Exotic. Katana? It's a longsword. Kukri? It's a dagger. That said, I'm fine with feats or abilities which grant you increased damage or maneuver benefits with weapon groups to signify specialized training.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, if we make a couple of assumptions, it's easy to swap proficiences into something more useful:

Assumption 1: The attack/defense math is relatively flat.

Assumption 2: Whatever weapons a class can use, it can use equally well for basic attack/defense (barring some very modest specialization and natural adjustments for talent--i.e. ability scores). Classes that aren't fully martial might have to pay (some resource) to add more weapons to the list, but once added, those weapons are up to this baseline.

So as far as all that goes, there would be relatively little difference with a 16 Str Wizard who paid to use a longsword and a 16 Str Fighter who happened to use a longsword. The Fighter might have some class ability or option to get that modest specialization. The Wizard had to pay a bit more to get to this point, and is poorly positioned to expand upon it, but he is certainly competent with the sword now.

Then proficiences are tied not to attack/defense, but those maneuvers they keep talking about. And you have to learn these proficiences by weapon group--either paying, or because your class is martially-oriented and gets a certain amount for free.

Instead of being proficient with longsword (+3 or no penalty or whatever), you might be proficient with disarm (heavy blades, axes), cleave (heavy blades, axes, polearms), parry (heavy blades), fast charge (polearms), and so on. Perhaps some of the proficiency options are limited by weapon groups--you can't get "fast charge" with light blades.

So an ultra-specialized martial character would only buy proficiences in their preferred weapon group. But even so, if he finds himself without his longsword and picking up an axe, he can still hit about as accurately and hard with it (maybe even better if a magical axe)--but doesn't have access to any maneuvers.

For a more complicated version, you might make buying access to a maneuver cheaper for any weapon group after the first. To keep this relatively simple, do limit each maneuver to 3 or 4 weapon groups. Then it takes one pick to buy a maneuver for one group, and another pick to buy it for the rest that apply. For your favorite maneuvers, it's thus fairly cheap to ensure those are always available, versus spending your remaining picks on maneuvers that weren't your first choice anyway.

 

[CleverNickName]

I like proficiencies, but I think they should change the way the categories are sorted. Instead of Simple, Martial, and Exotic, they should group the weapons by type. A character proficient in Swords, for example, should be able to use shortswords, longswords, bastard swords, etc. Simple and intuitive.

I never understood how being trained to fight with a battle axe made someone good at fighting with a sword.

-----

As for non-weapon proficiencies, I think they should replace skills completely. All "skill challenges" could be replaced by ability checks. Skills that require special training, such as opening locks or deciphering magical scrolls, would require a character to have the necessary non-weapon proficiency to succeed. Simple and intuitive.

 

[Minigiant]

But what kind of bonus (or benefit) should it be? I agree that it shouldn't be a bonus to attack rolls.
Bonus to damage? Bonus to criticals? Bonus to perform combat maneuvers?

All of the above based on weapon group like 4Es paragon weapon feats but for anyone "proficient". Mace users deal damage on a miss. Axe users deal devastating criticals. Blade users get more stunts.

 

[the Jester]

What do proficiencies add?

I understand that someone might want to "be good with swords," but that necessarily means they're not as good with other weapons. Thus, any weapon you pick up that isn't a sword is basically useless.

If "I'm not equally good with all weapons" means "everything but certain weapons are USELESSE TO MEEE!!!", then sure. I don't think that's true.

Why not just say, Fighters can use swords, axes, spears, maces, and bows, and then the player can just use whichever they want. So if you want to use a sword, just use a sword (rather than spending character resources on it at the expense of other weapon types).

You can.

You are just better with weapons that you know how to use.

Does anyone actually like the proficiency system? Would you be sad to see it go?

Yes, and yes. Though I'd prefer, along with other math-flattening factors, to see a nonproficiency penalty rather than a proficiency bonus.

 

[OnlineDM]

As I understand proficiency with weapons, the idea is that anyone can TRY to swing that fancy sword, but if you haven't been trained in how to do it, it's not going to help as much.

So, in a pinch the wizard can pick up the fallen fighter's bastard sword and try to attack the lich with it since it's the only thing that the lich is vulnerable to, but it's going to be much harder for the wizard to hit - not only because he's not as strong as the fighter, but also because he doesn't really know how to use a sword.

I like the idea that anyone can TRY to use a particular weapon, but that there are some weapons that are really tough to use if you haven't been trained in how to wield them. I'd rather not see a system that says "Wizards can't use bows, so there." If a wizard wants to try to shoot something with a bow, I think it's appropriate that they're not going to be very good at it, but they can at least try.

Could this be done with something other than a to-hit bonus? I'm sure it could. But I hope we don't end up just forbidding certain classes from using certain weapons.

Also, I don't care whether it's a bonus if you're proficient versus a penalty if you're not. They're the same to me.

Armor proficiency, well, I'm not as familiar with the rules off the top of my head, so I can't say.

 

[howandwhy99]

What do proficiencies add?

I understand that someone might want to "be good with swords," but that necessarily means they're not as good with other weapons. Thus, any weapon you pick up that isn't a sword is basically useless.

Why not just say, Fighters can use swords, axes, spears, maces, and bows, and then the player can just use whichever they want. So if you want to use a sword, just use a sword (rather than spending character resources on it at the expense of other weapon types).

Does anyone actually like the proficiency system? Would you be sad to see it go?

Proficiencies are different from Abilities in that non-proficient characters can perform these actions. They simply take a -4 penalty on their attempts.

Weapon proficiencies specifically were a way of denoting combat training by class. Fighters were trained and proficient in every arm and armor they came across, period. Each of the other core classes received progressively less.

• Clerics with bludgeoning were limited in missile attacks, but solid for most of melee.
• Thieves had a limited selection of weapons, but were still proficient in those relevant to their class abilities.
• Wizards basically get to sling bullets, wield a staff, and use a dagger.

I don't have any issue with changing up what weapons are used by any class, but changing the amount of combat training for any class or the utility of each one's set of weapon proficiencies changes the focus of the class. Druids, for example, are trained in non-bludgeoning weapons, but not metallic ones. They are not better than the core cleric, simply different. But they are still better off than thieves and arcane casters.

If this system was dropped, I'd check out the alternatives offered pretty closely. I would consider it as perfectly viable though, if nothing else was better.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I prefer to see non-proficiency penalties rather than bonuses.

In fact, if they went to the 3rd edition style, I would be perfectly fine with it.

 

[Sunseeker]

So...martial classes get nothing and casters get world-shattering magic.

Right, because that's going to fix the game.