Is weapon and armor "proficiency" system REALLY necessary?

[Ruin Explorer]

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

Yes, you do. This is just silly business. There are things you can do with one that you can't do with the other, and the same is true for all weapons, but the idea that the natural fighting style is inherently wildly different is bollocks.

I know, for a damn fact, that my fencing training means I'm a lot better with a knife than I would be without, and they're too far more different weapons. Sure, you can't simply pretend one is the other, but the same penalty as an untrained person? That's bollocks.

Thornir - I'm sorry, I forgot I was dealing with people so who like to pretend to be utterly literal-minded to further an argument. Let me add "one-handed" in. If I can use ALL scimitars (which vary in size and weight considerably), yes, I believe I can use most one-handed slashing blades with a degree of proficiency. Double-edged and curved allow for extra tricks, but that's what the more advanced stuff is for, not "basic proficiency".

 

[mhensley]

Nope, weapon and armor use should be restricted by the user's strength and/or dexterity.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Ruin Explorer is right.

JDJblatherings,
You make it sound like the difference between a dagger and a short sword is like comparing a club to a three section staff. You can argue that they can be used differently in combat, and one is better than the other at certain things, but a -4 nonproficiency penalty is just ridiculous.

Yes, weapons are different from each other and have different properties. But D&D is about knights slaying dragons and wizards burning villages. Who cares if someone can use a short sword as well as a dagger. D&D isn't about that level of detail.

You'd be a lot happier with GURPS.
As a "simulationist", I know I am.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

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.

Dagger fighting and shortsword fighting are not the same. I've had some training in both. It is possable to stab with a dagger but it usually isn't the best idea. If all you do is stab then you aren't using the advantages that a dagger gives you and opens you up to the advantages that a shortsword has.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Yes, you do. This is just silly business. There are things you can do with one that you can't do with the other, and the same is true for all weapons, but the idea that the natural fighting style is inherently wildly different is bollocks.

I know, for a damn fact, that my fencing training means I'm a lot better with a knife than I would be without, and they're too far more different weapons. Sure, you can't simply pretend one is the other, but the same penalty as an untrained person? That's bollocks.

Or that could just be BAB. Or foils and knives might belong to the same weapon group. After all, I doubt you would assert that your fencing training makes you a better baseball bat or gun wielder, except insofar as it may have improved your hand-eye coordination and reflexes.

I know for a fact that training in saber after I'd trained in foil was a heck of an adjustment; I couldn't fence competitively in saber until I'd trained a goodly while, and I'd already been railroaded into it by our coach *because* my foil style was too slashy to begin with. It took me a while to catch up to my equivalent status in foil, and that too with a less competitive pool of opponents.

I have no problem with weapon proficiencies, really, except that I wouldn't mind if weapons were grouped (short blades, long blades, axes, whatever) and if the wizard, etc. simply didn't get *any* for free rather than the random assortment they have; hopefully, the casters will get a base blasting power that works like a weapon.

 

[Greg K]

I like armor and weapon proficiencies. I just don't like the current simple/martial/exotic weapon system. I prefer UA weapon groups

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Or that could just be BAB. Or foils and knives might belong to the same weapon group. After all, I doubt you would assert that your fencing training makes you a better baseball bat or gun wielder, except insofar as it may have improved your hand-eye coordination and reflexes.

That's precisely what I was arguing for and being told was unreasonable

Honestly, with Saber I got the same point considerably faster, but I guess that's good old YMMV.

Your idea of the Wizard not getting any "free" (though I'd give all humanoids "club, dagger and axe" free) sounds more reasonable, to me, than the random bizarro assortments a couple of classes have at the moment, and the basic/martial/exotic distinctions are sickening mechanical.

Jedi_Solo - What dagger fighting method are you talking about, though? A modern special-forces-style knife fighting program? A medieval style involving a long parrying dagger, or what? The same sort of questions apply to what shortsword style. Remember, dude, a WIZARD IS PROFICIENT IN DAGGERS AT LEVEL 1. A Wizard, who can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag - this implies D&D is putting a very low standard on dagger proficiency, because I'm guessing you could fight your way out of a wet paper bag, no? - Thus D&D should put similarly low standards on similarly easy-to-use weapons like shortswords and batons - the whole basic/martial/exotic catergories are farce, that have everything to do with how mechanically powerful a weapon is, and sod-all to do with how easy/hard it is to use, and they can take 4E as an opportunity to clean that up a bit.

 

[JVisgaitis]

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.

Considering that I've taken years of lessons with all sorts of bladed weapons and have fought in several competitions, I beg to differ. A shortsword and a dagger are both primarily stabbing weapons. The techniques for each are pretty much the same. If your talking knives which are a lot shorter, yeah there's a big difference, but you didn't say knives. You said daggers.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

So, all the people arguing for the weapon proficiency rules which allow a wizard to use a daggar but take -4 on a shortsword or a kama are also opposed to the full simple and martial proficiency for fighters, right? Because if the weapons are so different from each other that a wizard or bard needs to spend a feat on each new weapon, it would be impossible for any human or half orc to have gained proficiency in 33 separate martial weapons (36 of you count the throwing function of 3 of them, 38 if you also count composites seperately) by age 15 to 21. Plus all the simple ones, all but one of which a commoner takes -4 with....

The way I see it, the system as it stands in 3x doesn't work either way you look at it. If weapons are so different and difficult to train in, then fighters should be restricted to a dozen or so martial proficiencies (and less if they don't start at first level) and if it's OK for a 15 year old barbarian with weapon focus club to pick up a glaive and use it perfectly, then the -4 unless you take each individual feat is silly for the non "all martial" classes.

Hrm, while it would add more bookkeeping, perhaps a proficiency point system similar to the skill point system would work. Weapon points per level per class with a multiplication at first level. (Or maybe a set number at first level and only the "all martial" continue to add them.) Simple weapons cost 1 point, martial 2 and exotic 5? Picking up a level of fighter later won't give you everything you could have gotten at 1st, and players could pick their proficiencies to match their character, not a narrow stereotype.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I agree that the current system is both weird and forces a penalty.. something that if oft labeled as 'un-fun'.. but how to fix?

Well, perhaps take pieces of UA's weapon groups and layer on a segment from the 'weapons as special effects' HR thread from a while back.

In this system weapons would have a base damage figured by thier relative size to the weilder.. a 1 handed light {Dagger} deals 1D3, 1 handed {LSword} deals 1D6, 2 handed {Greatsword} deals 1D8, etc..

The character then spends its group proficieny to gain 'skilled' in a group, and scales the damage up one step. Further proficiency to gain 'expert' scales up one step again. The last proficiency to gain 'mastery' increases the crit mulitplier.
{A fighter with Mastery in Short Blades would end up with a 1D6/x3 Dagger, if he dropped it and the Mage picked it up, the Dagger would be dealing 1D3/x2}

In this manner any character can weild any weapon.. just a fighter would be better at it.

Then, final layer, each class gains special abilities with archtypical weapons. Perhaps Rogues get free weapon finesse, mages get a virtual TWF that applies only to the staff, Barbarians are the only ones that deal 1.5 Str with 2-handed weapons ...
Anyway, something special that motivates the character to use the weapon normally associated with that class.

Or maybe not...