underfoot007ct
First Post
Prof add a way to let some char to be better at some weapons than others. That is why we "martial" & "simple" weapons (etc).
So Yes, I like a prof system, & want a prof system.
Get Rid of Proficiencies
- Thread starter GX.Sigma
- Start date
Prof add a way to let some char to be better at some weapons than others. That is why we "martial" & "simple" weapons (etc).
So Yes, I like a prof system, & want a prof system.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
Hmmm... well, I got along well enough without proficiencies in B/X D&D, so they aren't necessary.
I think the problem with them is they attempt to model the idea that a peasant farmer just can't pick up a sword and start swinging it like a master swordsman. Thing is, the ascending THAC0/BAB bonus pretty much models this already so weapon proficiencies really aren't needed if we keep a form of THAC0/BAB.
Likewise, proficiencies are also used as a tool to "lightly" ban certain weapons or armor from characters using them - unless they're willing to multiclass or give up other special abilities (such as feats) to gain access to them. Giving wizards only proficiency with dagger and dart is meant to give a soft limit to that class, as is the lack of armor proficiency. If we could find a better way to enforce these stereotype limitations, I'd be all for it, otherwise we'll looking at the likes of wizards running around in plate or wielding two-handed swords, for good or for ill. For the most part, I think the "chance of spell failure" and "skill check penalty" coded into armors was sufficient for keeping wizards (and rogues) in genre without needing a proficiency system stacked on top of it. And I doubt many wizards would want to run around with two-handed swords as the implication they would be wading (unarmored) into melee combat and is probably inferior compared to what their spell ability is*.
* This isn't to say the wizard's spell should be better than a fighter armed with a two-handed sword, but that the fighter ought to be better with the sword while the wizard ought to be better at spells - in other words, you don't see a computer programmer fixing code with a monkey wrench and you don't see a car mechanic disassembling a transmission with a flash drive.
I think the problem with them is they attempt to model the idea that a peasant farmer just can't pick up a sword and start swinging it like a master swordsman. Thing is, the ascending THAC0/BAB bonus pretty much models this already so weapon proficiencies really aren't needed if we keep a form of THAC0/BAB.
Likewise, proficiencies are also used as a tool to "lightly" ban certain weapons or armor from characters using them - unless they're willing to multiclass or give up other special abilities (such as feats) to gain access to them. Giving wizards only proficiency with dagger and dart is meant to give a soft limit to that class, as is the lack of armor proficiency. If we could find a better way to enforce these stereotype limitations, I'd be all for it, otherwise we'll looking at the likes of wizards running around in plate or wielding two-handed swords, for good or for ill. For the most part, I think the "chance of spell failure" and "skill check penalty" coded into armors was sufficient for keeping wizards (and rogues) in genre without needing a proficiency system stacked on top of it. And I doubt many wizards would want to run around with two-handed swords as the implication they would be wading (unarmored) into melee combat and is probably inferior compared to what their spell ability is*.
* This isn't to say the wizard's spell should be better than a fighter armed with a two-handed sword, but that the fighter ought to be better with the sword while the wizard ought to be better at spells - in other words, you don't see a computer programmer fixing code with a monkey wrench and you don't see a car mechanic disassembling a transmission with a flash drive.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Yes, the ultimate question on proficiences to reach basic competence is, if the fighter needs those for each weapon or weapon group, why does the magic user not need them for each spell or spell group?
Or if you want to go all the way back, why does the magic user get to learn a set of spells based on his Int, and can grow this list organically in play, while the fighter can't do likewise? If you wanted to model basic proficiency in a way that keeps the peasant from picking up the sword, but actually simulates how "basic training" in a weapon might take place, you could do worse than make some fighter weapon analog of the 1E magic user spells knowns mechanic. So eventually, any fighter with a decent Int is going to get proficient in most weapons, and the higher Int fighters have got a better shot at getting proficient in the ones that matter to them. (Better grant a few free picks to start, like the free magic user spells.
)
Really, basic proficiency in a weapon isn't that hard to learn--especially if you already have built up the muscles involved, some stamina, and know a bit about grips and footwork. It can't be any harder than learning a new spell. (For weapon, make it an Int roll, but give martial characters a bonus, lousy weapon users like wizards a minus, and the cleric/rogue types can cope at base.)
As an extension of this, it might be interesting to require proficiencies in all equipment--including magic equipment. Suddenly, that's why that +1 sword is nice--it works just like a regular sword for proficiency purposes. But find a flaming longsword (of any plus or none), and you'll have to get proficient in it to keep from given yourself some singed eyebrows.
Or if you want to go all the way back, why does the magic user get to learn a set of spells based on his Int, and can grow this list organically in play, while the fighter can't do likewise? If you wanted to model basic proficiency in a way that keeps the peasant from picking up the sword, but actually simulates how "basic training" in a weapon might take place, you could do worse than make some fighter weapon analog of the 1E magic user spells knowns mechanic. So eventually, any fighter with a decent Int is going to get proficient in most weapons, and the higher Int fighters have got a better shot at getting proficient in the ones that matter to them. (Better grant a few free picks to start, like the free magic user spells.
)Really, basic proficiency in a weapon isn't that hard to learn--especially if you already have built up the muscles involved, some stamina, and know a bit about grips and footwork. It can't be any harder than learning a new spell. (For weapon, make it an Int roll, but give martial characters a bonus, lousy weapon users like wizards a minus, and the cleric/rogue types can cope at base.)
As an extension of this, it might be interesting to require proficiencies in all equipment--including magic equipment. Suddenly, that's why that +1 sword is nice--it works just like a regular sword for proficiency purposes. But find a flaming longsword (of any plus or none), and you'll have to get proficient in it to keep from given yourself some singed eyebrows.
I always thought that all classes should be able to use all weapons without penalty, essentially using them in a very basic and rudimentary fashion.
Each class would however have some weapons they they are considered proficient with which gives them a bonus to hit and damage.
Clerics - Blunt weapons and some ranged weapons
Rogues - Short or light weapons, some bludgeons, and some ranged weapons.
Wizards - Staffs and canes of different kinds, clubs, knifes and daggers, and a very limited number of simple ranged weapons
Fighters - All weapons
Then allow additional proficiencies with a feat or in the case of clerics additional or more limited proficiency based on their Gods.
Sub classes would have a further bonus for specialized weapons appropriate to their theme.
Each class would however have some weapons they they are considered proficient with which gives them a bonus to hit and damage.
Clerics - Blunt weapons and some ranged weapons
Rogues - Short or light weapons, some bludgeons, and some ranged weapons.
Wizards - Staffs and canes of different kinds, clubs, knifes and daggers, and a very limited number of simple ranged weapons
Fighters - All weapons
Then allow additional proficiencies with a feat or in the case of clerics additional or more limited proficiency based on their Gods.
Sub classes would have a further bonus for specialized weapons appropriate to their theme.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I like the B/X Companion method of dealing with it. The hit tables limit how good the various classes are with weapons in general and damage is based on class. So a magic user picking up a 2 handed sword won't unbalance anything because MU damage with 2 handed weapons is d6 and he attacks on the crappy MU attack progression chart.
The fighter using that same sword attacks on the most favorable table and does d10 with 2 handed weapons.
The best part is this is all acheived without having to give specific penalties to certain weapons or worse, bonuses to some weapons which make using anything but that weapon a sub-optimal choice.
The fighter using that same sword attacks on the most favorable table and does d10 with 2 handed weapons.
The best part is this is all acheived without having to give specific penalties to certain weapons or worse, bonuses to some weapons which make using anything but that weapon a sub-optimal choice.
