Is weapon and armor "proficiency" system REALLY necessary?

[Ashrem Bayle]

In summery:

Players like bonuses. They don't like penalties.
I think the game should award those with proficiency instead of punishing those without it. The baseline should be unproficient instead of proficient.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Another thing along these lines is the huge variation on damage..although it gives me that 'special feeling inside' I'd like to see these other things changed:

Weapon damages should have a smaller spread (d6-d12) instead of (d2-2d8)
and
[sacred cow alert]
Any weapon should be able to be used two handed (else ditch the two-handed 1.5 strength bonus stuff)

I think this is the best and most important suggestion in this thread, even if it's a tad off-topic.

On-topic, weapon and armour proficiencies as written, are pretty silly and arbitary, and fail to replicate even the archetypes they seek to. Sword-wielding wizards are extremely common in fantasy, for example, even if they're not master combatants, and the idea that these wizard are all proficient in "all martial weapons", as presumably they'd have to be in D&D, is pretty silly.

I have a lingering liking for the concept of weapon proficiencies, because I know how tricky it can be to grasp the operation of certain weapons, but at the same time, I suspect that the "double-penalization" of low BAB aaaaaaaaaand penalties to hit for non-proficiency is a bit silly. Thus I think it'd rather see a system based on an assumption of "general proficiency" based on your BAB, with some classes having enhanced ability with certain weapons. I don't think we still need the -4 non-proficiency penalty in that situation, because the wizard is crap at melee because of his BAB anyway.

Of course, this isn't an issue that's going to keep me awake a night, to be honest.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In 3e I'd estimate about one page or less is devoted to the weapon proficiency system. 135 pages are devoted to magic. If you're looking to trim space, start with the spells.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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.

The unprofficient user most certainly is fighting at a penalty. I've used different sized weapons and found myself using them wrong, i was constantly striking where the weapon didb't reach . In real life a more profficient user can tell what you are doing wrong and gain a larger advantage against you. when you are using an unfamiliar weapon you really aren't fighting at your base level of compitence you are fighting under it.

 

[delericho]

Not only do I hope they keep weapon and armour proficiencies, I hope they adopt the weapon group proficiencies from Unearthed Arcana.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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.

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to say this.

In sparring matches with my friends I can hold my own with a boken or a shinai.

Against someone who was actually formally trained in it's use I'd get beat. It's the difference between someone who watches a lot of MMA and thinks that it not that hard and the guy who's a gym rat and trains EVERYDAY. There are going to be little things that that trained fighter is going to know and the psuedo-fighter isnt.

For me the idea of being proficient in weapon and armor use stays in my game and makes perfect sense.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't know. I like the idea that some weapons are harder to use than others.

There are other ways it could be done though. I'm just not sure how complex things would get, and whether its worth it.

Minimum ability scores would do the job. It would make sense, since a weak person wielding a greatsword would get tired quickly and wouldn't do a very good job. And a clumsy person would be screwed trying to use a knife in melee against someone holding an axe. This would let a rogue be a thug with a huge axe, if he put the points necessary into his strength so that he could use it. Meanwhile, physically weaker rogues who's points went into dexterity or intelligence would just use smaller weapons.

Making class abilities dependent on weapon choice would do it. We have a bit of this with arcane spell failure, the need for a free hand for somatic and material components, and armor penalties on skills. We could add to that. If sneak attack were only usable with a small-ish weapon, rogues would suddenly be more eager to use that shortsword. And while people might want to play thuggish rogues who bash other people in the head with big axes, they'd just have to select different character options than sneak attack, or go with a fighter class.

Frankly, I think that the current proficiency system is the most elegant. If you want a straight rogue who uses a huge axe, take a feat. Or multiclass one level into fighter, gain some extra hit points and a point of BAB, a feat, and the ability to use an axe. While its true that its difficult to create the archetype of the thuggish axe wielding rogue at level 1, well, that's true of a lot of archetypes. Its easier to build them once you're higher level and have more blocks to build with.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Regardless of how it's done, something needs to change. As is, you can have a fighter who has weapon focus and weapon specialization with a hatchet, but if he picks up a kama he takes a -4. That's ridiculous. I know kamas and hatchets are different, but they aren't that different.

I like GURPS's system of Defaults. If you know how to use a weapon, you can pick up a similar weapon and be at least fairly competent.

If a character has mastered the short sword, should he really be a clumsy oaf with a dagger?

 

[Slander]

We're not talking about how well common people can use weapons, we're talking about how well *heroes* can use weapons. It's been stated that 1st level PCs will be heads and shoulders above the common man. A first level PC isn't assumed to be green ... he's either already somewhat seasoned, has amazing natural talent, or <insert other reason why PCs are greatly better than everyone else around them>. Not receiving some type of bonus for lack of proficiency is more "heroic" to me than being penalized for lack of proficiency.

From the little bits we have heard about the new combat, there are some new avenues open to reward proficiency without penalizing non-proficiency. We know that there will be special maneuvers you can make in combat in lieu of a straight-up attack. Non-proficiency might deny you access to those maneuvers.

Your rogue can hack away with the great-axe passed down to him by his father just as well as he can with his shortsword. But because he is proficient with his shortsword, he can actually pull off some fancy maneuvers that he just can't manage with the heirloom. Bonus for being proficient, no penalty for not being proficient. Note, I do not consider "not receiving a bonus" a penalty. I don't think my company has docked my pay when our quarterly performance bonus doesn't come through. I just have to work harder to get that bonus.

I do get where, realistically, you shouldn't be able to pick up some weapon you've never seen and start soundly thrashing baddies. But the apparent direction of DnD is heroic, bigger than life action. And given that, I think realism can be put on the shelf for an option that makes the characters a bit more heroic.

Edit: My definition of "heroic" is Bruce-Willis-Die-Hard hero, not clawed-his-way-to-the-top-through-adversity hero. My impression is that DnD is moving towards the former, and I think the mechanics should reflect that.

 

[Remathilis]

3.X already kinda does that, it has armor check penalties and arcane spell failure to enforce the light armor for rogue and the no-armor for wizards roles. In addition, some classes lose class function in heavier than X armor (bards and ASF, rangers and TWF, Barbarians and fast move, Monks and AC bonus, etc) so armor is pretty self-correcting already.

As for weapons, I think the "fighters get cool martial maneuvers" might be enough to loosen up on the weapon restrictions for everyone else. Sure, everyone can use a longsword, but fighters will do things with it that rogues and wizards can only DREAM of...