Is weapon and armor "proficiency" system REALLY necessary?

[Ruin Explorer]

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?

They'd certainly be better off having some UA-style proficiency lists (with ALL the exotic weapons somewhere in the other lists - none of them are that freakish, which the possible exception of the spiked chain, which I hope gets put in a block of concrete and sunk to the bottom of the Potomac, for 4E), and making it so if you were proficient in one weapon, you were automatically proficient in similar ones - Kama and Kukri (which may be a Martial weapon in 3.5E, I admit, but wasn't in 3E) and so on are not that different form other weapons.

Similarly, it is daaaaaaaaaaaaamn silly that a Wizard can use a dagger but it is an idiot with a short sword, a functionally identical weapon in most cases. Being "proficient" with dagger implies the wizard has actually trained in it, professionally, as it were, and if that's what proficiency means (I don't think the designers of 3E and 3.5E really know what "proficiency" actually represents, and this had lead to severe idiocy), then he should certainly be proficient with a gladius or cinequeda, which are merely bigger, better daggers.

Whatever they do for 4E, they need to think this stuff through, and be very certain whether proficiency means "trained to use it formally" or "is so easy to use everyone knows how!" (which is pretty nonsensical as a concept, for anything beyond clubs, axes and daggers - even a crossbow requires formal training to be "proficient" with, and a sling is a buggering monster of a weapon to learn how to use well!), or what and stick to that. If Druids only use certain weapons for religious reasons, that doesn't mean they're only proficient in those, because I'm sorry buddy, but if I can use a scimitar, I can use other slashing swords pretty well.

 

[Umbran]

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.

But players like simple math. They don't like keeping track to too many modifiers.

So then, the game should make the most common state be the baseline. However it is done, characters will have a strong preference for weapons they are proficient with - so this should be the mechanically simplest case - no penalty or bonus when you are proficient.

 

[Reaper Steve]

I'd like to see attacks treated as skills. I've always found it odd that an RPG that focuses on combat only uses one attack number, the BAB. Even more odd is the total lack of control that a player has over it's development when compared to skills.

BAB starts at either 0 or +1, and that covers your melee, ranged, and magic attacks.

I'd like to see a simple system that lets characters emphasize melee, or ranged, or magic (maybe magic melee and magic ranged.) I also like the idea that the attack bonus starts at a higher number. I flipped through Monte Cook's WoD at the bookstore and his classes started with BABs of +3 and +4.

So, I'd like to be able to make a fighter that can't shoot a bow worth a crap, a ranger that can't melee, or a wizard that is much more accurate throwing his spells than throwing a dagger.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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?

Kama and Hatchets are very different weapons. One is a small axe and the other is a hand scythe. Trying to use either like the other in combat would be disasterous.

D&D fighters are generally fairly competent certainly from 5th level on.

Try to fight with a dagger like you would with a shortsword and you are dead; attempting the classical roman overhand thrust with a dagger would result in a gap of 6 inches or more between dagger end and target...not very useful.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I think its very necessary. I certainly don't want to see Wizards running around with greatswords and rogues backstabbing with halberds. That's just crazy. You want to have a unique character it do something different like that then you have the capability to do that.

Getting rid of proficiencies just brings about a lot of silliness and all of the different weapon choices become moot because everyone is going to take what does the most damage.

Try to fight with a dagger like you would with a shortsword and you are dead.

I don't buy that at all. The method in which you fight with both weapons is the same. One just requires a closer range. Not much of a difference at all. If your comparing an axe and a sword, and you're stuck with the one you aren't familiar with then your definitely in trouble.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Similarly, it is daaaaaaaaaaaaamn silly that a Wizard can use a dagger but it is an idiot with a short sword, a functionally identical weapon in most cases. Being "proficient" with dagger implies the wizard has actually trained in it, professionally, as it were, and if that's what proficiency means (I don't think the designers of 3E and 3.5E really know what "proficiency" actually represents, and this had lead to severe idiocy), then he should certainly be proficient with a gladius or cinequeda, which are merely bigger, better daggers.

A gladius isn't just a big dagger. One does not fight with a shortsword and a dagger in the same manner.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I think its very necessary. I certainly don't want to see Wizards running around with greatswords and rogues backstabbing with halberds. That's just crazy. You want to have a unique character it do something different like that then you have the capability to do that.

Getting rid of proficiencies just brings about a lot of silliness and all of the different weapon choices become moot because everyone is going to take what does the most damage.



I don't buy that at all. The method in which you fight with both weapons is the same. One just requires a closer range. Not much of a difference at all. If your comparing an axe and a sword, and you're stuck with the one you aren't familiar with then your definitely in trouble.

Frankly you have no idea what you are talking about. The differenc in a knifes handle being one yuo are familair with and one yuo arent' familiar with can mean life or death in combat start facotring in the differences between a shortsword and a dagger and they are clearly not the same weapon with one simply larger then the other. There is a world of difference in a couple of inches of variation in weapons.
Sword fighting is not knife/dagger fighting.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I'm sorry buddy, but if I can use a scimitar, I can use other slashing swords pretty well.

So, you could use a one-handed, single-edged, curved blade as well as a two-handed, double-edged straight blade? I would be interested in seeing that.

I say keep the system pretty much as is. I don't find it difficult to manage, hard to understand or incredibly illogical.

 

[JediSoth]

I'd like to see attacks treated as skills. I've always found it odd that an RPG that focuses on combat only uses one attack number, the BAB. Even more odd is the total lack of control that a player has over it's development when compared to skills.

I like this idea. Make weapon group proficiencies skills and allow feats to be added for specializations in specific weapons. Classes would all have to get more skill points for this to work though, otherwise, you'd have fighters proficient in a bunch of weapons but have no other skills whatsoever. Maybe take the number of proficiencies a class gets now and add that number to the number of skill points they get at each level. Armor proficiencies could be handled the same way. Proficiencies seem more like skills than feats to me, anyway.

JediSoth

 

[Av3rnus]

A gladius isn't just a big dagger. One does not fight with a shortsword and a dagger in the same manner.

True enough, but it seems reasonable to assume that one wouldn't try to use a short sword in exactly the same manner as a dagger. I mean, a quarterstaff isn't a dagger either, but I'm pretty sure if given one you'd be able to adapt your fighting style well enough.

Now, if you've devoted significant time to training with a particular weapon and becoming very proficient with it, then it makes sense you would be considerably more skilled with it than with another weapon, even if it's pretty similar. To me, this implies there should be bonuses to using that type of weapon.

Granted, it mostly just comes down to where you want the baseline for non-proficiency to be: -4 or 0?