Without proficiencies everyone would just wield the best weapon in a category. There would be no more variety for weapons and armor. All simple weapons would see no use at all, and everyone would wander around with a great sword, a longbow, and a longsword/large steel shield. It would be terrible.
Is weapon and armor "proficiency" system REALLY necessary?
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Yeah. Whatever happened to options, not restrictions? It really sucks when there's something cool in the rulebook that you'd like your character to be able to do, but you can't because there's a price to be paid for it.
You know what I say? Unlimited options! You only need one class: adventurer. All the skills, powers, feats, weapons, armor, spells, etc will be usable by all characters, at any time, at will, with no penalties or prerequisites. That way nothing ever gets in the way of the fun of being able to use the cool stuff in the rulebook.
"But Olgar," I hear you say, "won't that be broken?" Absolutely not! You can still only perform one action a round, so no matter what you choose to do, everyone else can always do something equally powerful. No one will ever be overshadowed again, because anything his character can do, mine can do equally well or better!
You know what I say? Unlimited options! You only need one class: adventurer. All the skills, powers, feats, weapons, armor, spells, etc will be usable by all characters, at any time, at will, with no penalties or prerequisites. That way nothing ever gets in the way of the fun of being able to use the cool stuff in the rulebook.
"But Olgar," I hear you say, "won't that be broken?" Absolutely not! You can still only perform one action a round, so no matter what you choose to do, everyone else can always do something equally powerful. No one will ever be overshadowed again, because anything his character can do, mine can do equally well or better!
2WS-Steve
First Post
I think it's worthwhile and flavorful to have some kind of distinction between trained combatant types and support folks. And I like unusual weapons being something that require special training, so that the spiked chain user or bastard sword can use that as one additional way to set them apart.
I think simplifying would be worthwhile: there is no simple weapons prof -- instead everyone can use simple weapons (that's why they're simple). Martial weapons prof gives access to all martial weapons for anyone who takes it. Keep exotic weapons prof the same.
Definitely eliminate the enumerated lists of weapons proficiencies. That's clumsy and a pain to keep track of.
Perhaps re-categorize some of the weapons to reflect this. Perhaps short sword goes simple for the rogues, or just give rogues martial prof. Admittedly, seeing rogues use greatswords is a little strange, but it's not like rogues don't easily pop in a level or two of barbarian or fighter and have that option now anyway.
Armor proficiencies could use the most reworking. I don't know about the rest of you, but in my games (and when I play computer versions of D&D) armor use is either none, chain shirt, or full plate. Should just get rid of the medium armor category altogether.
Also, the non-prof penalty for light armor only really a factor for arcane casters, who are more concerned about spell-failure. Could just go ahead and make light armor not require any profs.
The armor itself could use a revamp too. Chain shirt and full plate really seem the way to go with the others balanced by minor cost differences, meaning there's not much interesting decision-making there. Compare this to weapons where there are lots of viable different ways to go.
I think simplifying would be worthwhile: there is no simple weapons prof -- instead everyone can use simple weapons (that's why they're simple). Martial weapons prof gives access to all martial weapons for anyone who takes it. Keep exotic weapons prof the same.
Definitely eliminate the enumerated lists of weapons proficiencies. That's clumsy and a pain to keep track of.
Perhaps re-categorize some of the weapons to reflect this. Perhaps short sword goes simple for the rogues, or just give rogues martial prof. Admittedly, seeing rogues use greatswords is a little strange, but it's not like rogues don't easily pop in a level or two of barbarian or fighter and have that option now anyway.
Armor proficiencies could use the most reworking. I don't know about the rest of you, but in my games (and when I play computer versions of D&D) armor use is either none, chain shirt, or full plate. Should just get rid of the medium armor category altogether.
Also, the non-prof penalty for light armor only really a factor for arcane casters, who are more concerned about spell-failure. Could just go ahead and make light armor not require any profs.
The armor itself could use a revamp too. Chain shirt and full plate really seem the way to go with the others balanced by minor cost differences, meaning there's not much interesting decision-making there. Compare this to weapons where there are lots of viable different ways to go.
italianranma
First Post
Lynke said:
Exactly. If I'm a rogue in 3.5, I get the same sneak attack dice no matter what weapon I'm using. So why mechanically would I opt for anything other than the one that deals the most damage? I know a few prestige classes that offer mechanical bonuses for damage, or restrictions etc. but the short end to the story is that I'm going to use whatever is best for me, which is usually a two handed weapon (because the deal the most damage and I don't have a shield to worry about).
I'm going off on a tangent, so please follow: In Exalted, there are no weapon proficiencies. There are certain requirements (such as having a good enough Strength or Dexterity score) to wield a weapon. Instead this game treats your skill with weapons as any other kind of skill, like swimming or being stealthy. You can easily differentiate yourself from your fellow PCs by sinking a lot of points into being pretty damn handy with a melee weapon right from character creation.
D&D doesn't offer that same choice between a 1st level fighter and rogue. There are differences yes, but not nearly as significant as those offered in other games. Removing weapon proficiencies blurs that line even further. Still, if that boundary can be maintained in some other way, then I agree that weapon proficiencies can be done away with. There are other games that have and don't suffer for it.
Finally, this website offers tons of resources on Western European Medieval martial arts (that's a mouthful). Take from it what you will, and also take a strong dose of salt from anyone trying to tell you they know from combat experience how different D&D weapons are from each other. I'll offer that it's irrelevant for the sake of game balance.
edited to remove the double quote
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Didn't 3e already simplify weapon proficiencies enough?
In 1e, you were proficient with a few specific weapons (sometimes rectricted by class) and that was it. One of the things that made fighters different from each other, in fact, was their choices in weaponry.
3e made it so any fighter could use anything (with a few exceptions), and greatly expanded what other classes could use without penalty. Now, it sounds like some would do away with proficiencies entirely, leading to the obvious assumption that every adventurer regardless of class knows how to use every weapon out there. Ridiculous.
I'd rather see 4e tighten weapon proficiencies right back down for all non-warrior classes. So many people are saying elsewhere that spellcasters are too powerful...well, here's an obvious and easy way to give something back to the warriors.
As for armour, I don't think that ever needed a proficiency system...as long as the obvious classes get penalized harshly for wearing armour when they shouldn't (e.g. sneaking thieves, casting wizards, etc.) the armour proficiency rules can disappear and nobody would notice.
Lanefan
In 1e, you were proficient with a few specific weapons (sometimes rectricted by class) and that was it. One of the things that made fighters different from each other, in fact, was their choices in weaponry.
3e made it so any fighter could use anything (with a few exceptions), and greatly expanded what other classes could use without penalty. Now, it sounds like some would do away with proficiencies entirely, leading to the obvious assumption that every adventurer regardless of class knows how to use every weapon out there. Ridiculous.
I'd rather see 4e tighten weapon proficiencies right back down for all non-warrior classes. So many people are saying elsewhere that spellcasters are too powerful...well, here's an obvious and easy way to give something back to the warriors.
As for armour, I don't think that ever needed a proficiency system...as long as the obvious classes get penalized harshly for wearing armour when they shouldn't (e.g. sneaking thieves, casting wizards, etc.) the armour proficiency rules can disappear and nobody would notice.
Lanefan
Sadrik
First Post
My take on weapon and armor proficiencies is that they should be based completely on region. It always annoyed me that a rogue could not use a scimitar without wasting a feat on it- even if he was from Mulharandi.
It should be tied to a characters background what weapons the character has available to them. Have them select a from a list- European, Arabian, Oriental, Tribal etc. Each classification from a region would have the three standard groups: simple, martial, and exotic. Exotic actually being the weapons that are exotic to their homeland. Some weapons are simply more common in some places and they should be cheaper and more wide spread in their training. Exotic weapons should be more expensive and not as well known.
Rather than hand waving this kind of stuff it would be very cool to have something like this written in the PHB or in the DMG for world creation.
It should be tied to a characters background what weapons the character has available to them. Have them select a from a list- European, Arabian, Oriental, Tribal etc. Each classification from a region would have the three standard groups: simple, martial, and exotic. Exotic actually being the weapons that are exotic to their homeland. Some weapons are simply more common in some places and they should be cheaper and more wide spread in their training. Exotic weapons should be more expensive and not as well known.
Rather than hand waving this kind of stuff it would be very cool to have something like this written in the PHB or in the DMG for world creation.
JDJblatherings
First Post
Ashrem Bayle said:
Which D&D have you been playing over the years? D&D is about that levelof detail, part of it was certainly "balance" oriented but classs weapon restrictions are abotut that sort of thing as were the AD&D weapon profficiency rules as are the 3x weapon profficiency rules.
JDJblatherings
First Post
JVisgaitis said:
Could have been harsh before but there is a lot of difference in using weapons a foot different in length. Stances and all that rot are different and make a big deal most certainly so for the folks that haven't put in much training.
JDJblatherings
First Post
Kahuna Burger said:
the fightet is trained to use lots of weapons and get used to the differences in weapons.
I favor the UA weapons group approach myself.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
Just a random thought regarding armor proficiency..
Why does everyone want to wear Armor? because its {almost} the only way to increase survivability against the ever increasing BAB of attackers.
For those out there who play UA and other variants with the rule, does the existance of a 'Base Defense Bonus' change this behaviour?
Why does everyone want to wear Armor? because its {almost} the only way to increase survivability against the ever increasing BAB of attackers.
For those out there who play UA and other variants with the rule, does the existance of a 'Base Defense Bonus' change this behaviour?
Similar Threads
