Is weapon and armor "proficiency" system REALLY necessary?

[Ashrem Bayle]

But then question is - is that sort of thug best represented by a pure rogue in the first place?

If he has to be 1st level, yeah, rogue is the best way to go.

 

[Jer]

Actually, I was thinking about this very thing the other day.

What we have right now is a system where the baseline is written for "martial" characters and everyone who doesn't have a proficiency in a weapon gets a penalty.

I'd like to see it reworked so that the baseline for the combat system is centered around non-proficient characters and "martial" characters who have proficiency in weapons get some kind of bonus instead. This doesn't have to be a statistical numerical "+X to hit" bonus - it could be that proficient characters have a wider threat range for a critical. It could be that the weapon does more damage in the hands of a proficient character. It could be that the damage multiplier for a critical is larger in the hands of a proficient character. It could be that proficiency gives you a particular maneuver you can use with that weapon.

Basically, I'd like to see the baseline be that anyone can pick up a weapon and use it by the RAW, but if you're proficient in a weapon you use it BETTER than that baseline RAW. It makes proficiency a little more special if you get something more than "ignoring a penalty" for having it.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Our group got to discussing the various unnecessary aspects of D&D and one main one that arose was why space is wasted on armor and weapon 'proficiency.' Really? Is it that big of a deal that it needs to have space wasted for it?

We were only able to imagine weak and unnecessary band-aid rationale's for determining that a wizard can't wield a halberd or put on plate mail..game-breaking, I know..with all that spell-failure, massively incompetant comparitive BAB, encumbrance and whatnot...

Thoughts?

jh

yes to weapon and armor profficiency.

Your wizard isn't good with a halberd becasue he was busy learning how to be a wizard. spend the feats for a wizrd that spent some time on the side learning how to use a halberd well enough to be considered profficient. It isn't weak rationalization at all, your wizard is going to get his ass handed to him on a pike if he doesn't spend the time needed to learn to use a halberd well when he goes up against other folks in melee that have learned to use their weapons well.

 

[an_idol_mind]

[sacred cow alert]
Any weapon should be able to be used two handed (else ditch the two-handed 1.5 strength bonus stuff)

As an aside, the term "sacred cow" is really being tossed around too much. The use of the term is supposed to designate legacy issues that have remained through the various rules changes, not rules that only appeared last edition and are, to my knowledge, largely ignored anyway.

 

[Emirikol]

Your wizard isn't good with a halberd becasue he was busy learning how to be a wizard. .

What if he was a sorcerer and didn't have to waste time sitting at Hogwarts? See, we're still talking about forced archetypes...

What are the "REAL" reasons that this unnecessary 'rule' still exists?

jh

 

[Scribble]

Basically, I'd like to see the baseline be that anyone can pick up a weapon and use it by the RAW, but if you're proficient in a weapon you use it BETTER than that baseline RAW. It makes proficiency a little more special if you get something more than "ignoring a penalty" for having it.

Shrug... I think it's more realistic as it is... Sure I know in RL I can pick up a sword and try to fight with it... But I'm sure I'm going to be pretty lame at it.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

yes to weapon and armor profficiency.

Your wizard isn't good with a halberd becasue he was busy learning how to be a wizard. spend the feats for a wizrd that spent some time on the side learning how to use a halberd well enough to be considered profficient. It isn't weak rationalization at all, your wizard is going to get his ass handed to him on a pike if he doesn't spend the time needed to learn to use a halberd well when he goes up against other folks in melee that have learned to use their weapons well.

What you are describing is someone without training vs. someone with training. This could be:

Wizard 1 vs. Fighter 1
Wizard 1 vs. Wizard 3
Unproficient Wizard vs. Proficient Wizard

Regardless, the same end result could be reached by granting a bonus to the proficient user instead of a penalty to the unproficient user.

I think the rules should assume you can't use a weapon and grant a bonus if you can instead of assuming you can use the weapon and levy penalties against those who can't.

 

[Emirikol]

That makes me wonder if they should do away with penalties (period). Start at +0 and only work up. CHarts of plusses and minuses are kind of ...well...Rolemasterish....

For example as someone mentioned:
Non-martial: no bonus
Martial: bonus

This could be done for every aspect of the game of course...without any trouble at all..and saving us from the Rash of AoO chart-isms.

Jay
Sacred Cowpoke

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Word has it that a 1st level 4e character will be roughly equivalent in power to a 4th level 3e character.

If that's the case, 1st level Fighters may have a BAB of +4.

That makes for a lot more possibilities at 1st level.

 

[JDJblatherings]

What if he was a sorcerer and didn't have to waste time sitting at Hogwarts? See, we're still talking about forced archetypes...

What are the "REAL" reasons that this unnecessary 'rule' still exists?

jh

I've spent over 20 years learning how to fight I can assure you i don't meet any archtypes but I did have to put in the time and have the desire to learn how to fight, yet by trade I'm a concept artist and animator who went to college to learn applied math and computer science. In game terms i've spent feats on combat profficiencies over the years.

Want to be a fighter/wiz - multiclass. Want to be a wizard unusually good in combat well he put the trainign time in and spent feats to earn that capability.