Get Rid of Proficiencies

[GX.Sigma]

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?

 

[NotZenon]

and while we are at it, wizards know all spells, and rogues know all skills.... etc... (just playing devils advocate).

 

[Yora]

You could instead just give characters bonuses with certain weapons they have extra training in. But in regard to the math, it doesn't make any difference.

 

[Szatany]

Agreed - proficiencies are unnecessary.
As it is, weapons are fairly similar to each other. The main difference when using a weapon A versus weapon B doesn't come from the weapon itself, but rather from ability score (if A and B don't use the same one), and from powers.

Now, the main reason I see for proficiencies is to herd players into certain play styles. For example, clerics are proficient with heavy armor and maces because designers want player clerics to wear heavy armor and wield maces. But this can be achieved in different ways. If there are no armor proficiencies but clerics still have an ability to cast spells in heavy armor, they will still use it.
Similar solution should be available to martial characters with weapon groups. If designers want barbarians to run around with two-handed weapons, they should give barbarians abilities or bonuses when they use two-handers. There's no need to add a separate subsystem of proficiencies that accomplished exactly the same for no visible gain.

and while we are at it, wizards know all spells, and rogues know all skills.... etc... (just playing devils advocate).

Not a valid comparison. It would be valid if a wizard could cast ANY wizard spell, but with a -4 penalty is he didn't know it.
If wizard's spells known worked like proficiencies, they would also deserve to be axed.

And rogues do know all skills (untrained ones), just like everyone else.

 

[marelion]

I say: Get rid of proficiency-bonuses as a bonus to attack rolls. D&D has never been trying to simulate real-life combat and increasing or decreasing the attack rolls limits players choices, since accuracy is too valuable to forfeit.

More on topic: If you leave out weapon proficiencies then where is the point in choosing the fighter (sub-)classes? Being able to wield all martial and simple weapons certainly IS an advantage. The fighter gets to wield all of them at equal level until he chooses to specialize in a given type of weapon, so I do not see your point as to why removing proficiences could possibly add versatality to the fighter class. And on a positivev note: Having proficiencies keeps players from only picking exotic weapons. "Oh, Spiked-Chain trip-monster #234...yawn." You get my drift.

 

[Minigiant]

You could instead just give characters bonuses with certain weapons they have extra training in. But in regard to the math, it doesn't make any difference.

This is what I'd prefer.. basically make the characters designed to used a weapon, get a bonus....

...but giving the proficient a bonus is the same as giving the unproficient a penalty.

 

[Szatany]

This is what I'd prefer.. basically make the characters designed to used a weapon, get a bonus....

...but giving the proficient a bonus is the same as giving the unproficient a penalty.

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?

 

[Argyle King]

I agree with ditching proficiency in so much as the way 4E handled the idea. There are a lot of weapons I thought were cool, but then dismissed them because the lower proficiency bonus became a problem at later levels. I think there should be a measure of how good someone is with a weapon though.

While I doubt it will ever happen, I'd be fairly happy with 5E becoming a more skill based system and just making weapon usage into skills. You could have skill names based around the categories of weapons we currently have (heavy blade, axe, club, staff, etc.) Categories such as simple and martial could be covered by the same skills, but with a feat opening the more advanced weapons in a manner similar to how 4E had a feat to open up the more specialized casting implements (their name escapes me at the moment.)

If you want to keep the idea that a class like fighters is inherently better with weapons than a wizard, simply state that a fighter gets X number of bonus feat selections at character creation which can be used to pick up weapon proficiencies (and perhaps a small list of other things too to help define the individual character's fighting style.)

 

[am181d]

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?

 

[tlantl]

Sure I'm all in favor of getting rid of bonuses to hit associated with weapon proficiencies.

Getting rid of them as a measure of what weapons a character might expect to be able to use in combat without incurring a penalty, not so much.