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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
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: 5869830" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>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? </p><p> </p><p>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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />)</p><p> </p><p>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.)</p><p> </p><p>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. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5869830, member: 54877"] 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. :D) 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. :lol: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Get Rid of Proficiencies
Top