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

[TallIan]

Going to? I already did take them from the Rogue (and the Bard).

Ok fair point about the rapier, but the my point was that you either take away weapons that make them useful (or give them a certain image) and the class becomes less appealing, or or leave those as options for their proficiency choice and, in 95% of cases, you just added a lot of book keeping.

 

[ro]

Ok fair point about the rapier, but the my point was that you either take away weapons that make them useful (or give them a certain image) and the class becomes less appealing, or or leave those as options for their proficiency choice and, in 95% of cases, you just added a lot of book keeping.

My thought is that they are still available as weapon choices but that you can't use them until later in the game.

 

[Satyrn]

Here is one way to handle changing proficiencies. What are your suggestions?

What I find fascinating about this rule is that 3 of the four martial melee weapons that a 1st level character can be proficient with are the scimitar, trident and whip.

 

[TallIan]

My thought is that they are still available as weapon choices but that you can't use them until later in the game.

That is getting close to equipment based leveling, ie "My level 1 fighter is bad at fighting because he can only use a short sword. My level 10 fighter is ok at fighting because he can now use a longsword. My level 20 fighter is great at fighting because he can use a great sword."

It becomes a level based gate, like the cost of Plate mail for a STR fighter, without (IMO) a good story reason. If you are going to hand out better weapons as the character advance I wany it to be BETTER weapons rather than bigger. Sting, Longclaw, Excalibur - even just a boring old +1 Longsword (at least as a player I could make my own history for that), not just "You get a bigger mundane sword."

 

[Satyrn]

What I find fascinating about this rule is that 3 of the four martial melee weapons that a 1st level character can be proficient with are the scimitar, trident and whip.

Unless you're a wizard or the like. Then you can only be proficient with the whip.



(Edit - I didn't mean to quote myself. I swear! It was an edit gone bad.)

 

[FieserMoep]

Or you just pick the feat to get more weapons if you so desire.

 

[Yaarel]

What makes a weapon powerful is whatever class and feat features make it powerful.

Proficiency by itself seems not a big deal at all. Some of the Elf cultures grant longsword and longbow proficiencies, and nobody cares about those ribbons.

In most circumstances, I am inclined to let a player pick up a normal martial weapon proficiency during downtime, in the same way as picking up a language proficiency or a tool proficiency.

If I am in the mood to be on the safe time, I would probably let the player sneak the weapon proficiency in by adding it as part of a Feat, the next time the player chooses a feat, especially if the weapon is pertinent to the feat, but even then, a weapon proficiency is less powerful.

 

[Yaarel]

By the way, if a Wizard player wants to swap out a cantrip for a weapon proficiency or an armor proficiency, I have no problem with that exchange. A (good) cantrip is probably worth a bit more than the armor, which is worth a bit more than the weapon. But they are all in the same ballpark, so no problem.

 

[Guest 6801718]

There are two questions I always ask myself before making a house rule.

Why make the rule? Is it to cover something the game doesn't have a rule for? Is it to make something more balanced for everyone? Is it to clarify a vague rule? Etc.

Will this make the game more fun for my group?

D&D is one of the more complex games, with lots of mechanics to it. Adding needless complexity tends to slow things down at some point. So really ask yourself why your doing this.

The other thing to consider is class balance. Based on your charts and proficiencies in a previous post, a warrior can't use a d12 or 2d6 weapon until 14th level. Meanwhile a 14 level warlock can do 3d10 + Charisma mod with a cantrip and an invocation they can take as early as level 2. So which do you think players will gravitate towards? That's not even taking other spell casters into account.

Then think about adventuring. Will your players have fun if they find a magic weapon and then realize they can't use is effectively for another couple of levels? Then they have to carry around this cool new weapon they found until they can use it.

 

[FieserMoep]

D&D is one of the more complex games, with lots of mechanics to it. Adding needless complexity tends to slow things down at some point. So really ask yourself why your doing this.

I actually thing the other way about it yet come to the same conclusion. DnD is one of the least complex RPGs out there, so why destroy that with adding house rules that go into in depth detail for stuff you don't need.

Adding to manducks arguments: Players are supposed to be at least heroes in the making, they are the best of their folk even if they just start out to capitalize on that. Do they essentially have to become half-gods (level ~15LvL) to use a weapon like a two hander? Are these weapons then even used in the hands of common soldiers? Is every NPC running around with a dagger? Because if a random soldier can wield a greataxe that leaves an EXTREMLY bad taste for any fighter while the opposite, every soldier using a dagger because they have no class levels, is SUPER weird too.

I simply ask the question: Where does this improve DnD?