Get Rid of Proficiencies

[Szatany]

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.

Proficiency rules are not worth the paper they are printed on. We don't need them. Don't want cleric to use slashing weapons? This can be regulated with god's tenets (thou shall not spill blood etc.). Druid's forbiddance of using metallic weapons already doubles with her weapon and armor proficiencies. What's that? A rogue with a hammer? Make their combat abilities work only with Dex-based weapons.
Exotic weapons aren't so obvious, but I'm sure the designers would think of something elegant if they wanted.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Proficiency rules are not worth the paper they are printed on. We don't need them. Don't want cleric to use slashing weapons? This can be regulated with god's tenets (thou shall not spill blood etc.). Druid's forbiddance of using metallic weapons already doubles with her weapon and armor proficiencies. What's that? A rogue with a hammer? Make their combat abilities work only with Dex-based weapons.
Exotic weapons aren't so obvious, but I'm sure the designers would think of something elegant if they wanted.

YOU might not need them. Please don't speak for me though.

Currently, there is nothing in the 3.5 rules about clerics not spilling blood or not using blades. That's a Pre-3 invention. Clerics can use daggers, crossbows, sickles, spears, javelins. What they can't do, is by default be proficient with swords, axes, and other martial weapons.

 

[Szatany]

YOU might not need them. Please don't speak for me though.

Currently, there is nothing in the 3.5 rules about clerics not spilling blood or not using blades. That's a Pre-3 invention. Clerics can use daggers, crossbows, sickles, spears, javelins. What they can't do, is by default be proficient with swords, axes, and other martial weapons.

There isn't, but we are not talking about changing 3e. Any single rule doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you want to change something, you can change other rules so the first change makes sense.
As for clerics, that was just from the top of my head. You can make more specific restrictions based on cleric's deity. Even make a list of available weapons if you want to.
I don't see why elven clerics of god of swordplay should not be permitted to use swords effectively.

 

[Janaxstrus]

There isn't, but we are not talking about changing 3e. Any single rule doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you want to change something, you can change other rules so the first change makes sense.
As for clerics, that was just from the top of my head. You can make more specific restrictions based on cleric's deity. Even make a list of available weapons if you want to.
I don't see why elven clerics of god of swordplay should not be permitted to use swords effectively.

Elves can, so bad example (in 3.5 they get Longsword/rapier proficiency free).


But, yes, I do fully agree that Clerics should get their deity's favored weapon as a free proficiency, if it's not already granted.
Limiting the weapons to simple (reflecting their lack of training with the kind of variety fighters see) makes sense to me. Allowing them proficiency in their god's favored weapon also makes sense (required training in the clergy)

Heck, limiting rogue's to light weapons even makes sense to me.

 

[BobTheNob]

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

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

I might not have put it in such sharp terms, but to a degree I agree with this. Proficiencies has always been one of those things in the fighters favor.

Putting 4e aside (as it balanced the fighter, albeit in a way Im still not fond of) in 3.X the fighter struggled to keep up with casters. One of the few things he had was his proficiencies. Before proposing we just "get rid of them" we must consider that all we are doing is giving everyone but the fighter a bonus. Thats just not going to fly.

If you had my vote for anything in this regard it would be get rid of specialization and give fighter equivalent benefits without needing to "invest". A boast FOR the fighter, not AGAINST him.

 

[Szatany]

Elves can, so bad example (in 3.5 they get Longsword/rapier proficiency free).


But, yes, I do fully agree that Clerics should get their deity's favored weapon as a free proficiency, if it's not already granted.
Limiting the weapons to simple (reflecting their lack of training with the kind of variety fighters see) makes sense to me. Allowing them proficiency in their god's favored weapon also makes sense (required training in the clergy)

Heck, limiting rogue's to light weapons even makes sense to me.

That's all besides the point. I'm not disputing what weapons should each class have access to, but rahter the way the game accomplishes that.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Putting 4e aside (as it balanced the fighter, albeit in a way Im still not fond of) in 3.X the fighter struggled to keep up with casters. One of the few things he had was his proficiencies. Before proposing we just "get rid of them" we must consider that all we are doing is giving everyone but the fighter a bonus. Thats just not going to fly.

If you had my vote for anything in this regard it would be get rid of specialization and give fighter equivalent benefits without needing to "invest". A boast FOR the fighter, not AGAINST him.

That's what I'm saying. If a fighter needs to specialize to "keep up," all that means is that he's only useful with whatever he specialized in, and not useful with anything else. Specialization is not a bonus, it's a punishment.

I suppose I could have worded it better. I guess I was just angry at 2e when I posted this thread. :\

4e style works fine, except for the Weapon Focus/Expertise feats, which are specialization options that you have to take in order to keep up.

 

[BobTheNob]

That's what I'm saying. If a fighter needs to specialize to "keep up," all that means is that he's only useful with whatever he specialized in, and not useful with anything else. Specialization is not a bonus, it's a punishment.

Hellelujah! Seriously, sometimes I feel so alone in this belief. Specialization to achieve feasibility is a crutch of the fighter.

One of the best things they could do for the fighter is give him the ability to adapt and change tactics during a fight. But when you have to specialize to "keep up" its completely undoes this. I want my fighter to say "Hey, big beasty. Put away my sword and ready my Long Spear (assuming they have rules for weapon dynamics )" ...and not ... "keep using my sword even though its grossly inappropriate because Im specialized in it and therefore there is no advantage to putting it away".

I want it to be like LOTR (the first movie) in Moria when Strider grabs the Long spear that was on the ground because it was the best weapon to point at a troll. He adapted to the flow of the fight.

There are other ways adaption can the achieved (stances?) but it doesnt mean change of weapon choice as a tactic isnt a good improvement they could make to the fighters overall approach, and for that, this ida of specialization as the only means of granting some punch to the fighter would need to be reviewed.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Honestly, I'm not sure any version of "specialization" we've seen can be balanced. As soon as you create the rule that lets the fighter have higher damage, a fighter has to take it to stay current.

As an example - in 2e, pretty much every thief anyone played in my campaigns wore no armor, because the minor hit to AC (offset by Bracers of Defense) was worth it for the massive bonus to thieves' skills.

I'm good with proficiency - it lets you define what the wizard can't do well - but not so much with specialization.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I agree that we should get rid of proficiencies. While we're at it, let's get rid of skills too... and take a long, hard look at either axing feats or a large number of the specialized character classes.