Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Get Rid of Proficiencies
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5869200" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>Well, if we make a couple of assumptions, it's easy to swap proficiences into something more useful:</p><p> </p><p>Assumption 1: The attack/defense math is relatively flat.</p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5869200, member: 54877"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Get Rid of Proficiencies
Top