Is weapon and armor "proficiency" system REALLY necessary?

[D.Shaffer]

As long as certain groups of weapons are superior then others, then I beleive weapon proficiencies are needed, otherwise everyone would just take the 'better' weapon every time. The only other option, IMO, is to generate all weapons using the same baseline, but I suspect many people would not like that idea.

 

[Jer]

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.

That's exactly what I would argue - get rid of all penalties and assume that non-proficient is the baseline. Build the weapon stats around that assumption and then give some kind of bonus for being proficient with a weapon. As it stands now, the write-ups for weapons assume that you're proficient with the weapon being used, but I'd argue that shouldn't be the baseline - the assumption should be that you're NOT proficient with the weapon and proficiency should let you use it better.

With what's been said regarding 4e so far, I might solve this using the damage the weapon does - a character proficient in a weapon is allowed to add his level to damage done with the weapon, while if you aren't proficient you can only ever do the "baseline" damage with the weapon. I might also suggest that only proficient characters can make critical hits with a weapon - if you're not proficient, you can use the weapon but you'll never be able to get those key strikes in no matter how lucky you get.

 

[fuindordm]

Actually, I think the AD&D method worked pretty well. It was maybe a shade too restrictive, but giving each class its own non-proficiency penalty makes sense. It could easily be adapated as follows:

The standard classes have a non-proficiency penalty as follows:

Wizard (as commoner): -4 to hit, start with 2 simple weapons
Thief (as expert): -3 to hit, start with 3 simple and 1 martial
Cleric (as warrior): -2 to hit, start with 3 simple, 1 (blunt) martial, and deity's weapon
Fighter: -1 to hit, start with all simple and 3 martial

The penalty represents a class' level of general training. A fighter can adjust the lessons learned for one weapon to other, similar weapons on the fly. A wizard or commoner does not have enough experience or training to do so--the best they can do is learn the moves associated with a given weapon by rote, and they are relatively helpless with another.

For an extra layer of complexity, impose an additional -2 penaty if there is no similarity between the weapon used and any of the character's proficiencies.

I don't advocate granting new proficiencies AD&D style, though. Buying more with skill points would make sense in 3e, but skill points might not exist in 4th ed. Since additional weapon proficiencies don't significantly increase a character's power, however, perhaps it could be handled in-game through finding a trainer or simply practicing with a weapon for X combats.

I do like the idea of spreading the acquisition of proficiencies out so that dipping into a martial class doesn't grant a slew of new weapons all at once.

 

[mmadsen]

D&D's weapon proficiencies are neither realistic nor fun.

The whole notion of martial weapons is silly. Evidently a handaxe and a sap are too complex for a common man to wield, but a mace isn't. A dagger is simple to wield, but a short sword isn't?

I can understand and support exotic weapon proficiencies for weapons that are truly difficult for an otherwise-skilled warrior to use -- flails, longbows, couched lances, etc. -- but most weapons aren't awkward.

And remember, that -4 penalty is enough to eliminate the difference between a 4th-level Fighter (a "hero") and his kid brother.

 

[mmadsen]

As long as certain groups of weapons are superior then others, then I beleive weapon proficiencies are needed, otherwise everyone would just take the 'better' weapon every time.

One weapon is only "better" than another if they have so few characteristics that it can "dominate" the other across all variables. That's one of D&D's problems; a weapon is largely just a damage stat.

Also, in real life, one of the key differences between weapons is cost, but D&D characters blow past ordinary wealth levels so quickly that only the magical elements of a weapon cost enough to notice.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

I'd love to see the designers at least look to reality when deciding these things. Virtually every army in history has had light troops with very little armor but a shield and heavy infantry with a shield, a helmet, and heavy torso armor -- scales, or mail, or bands, or solid plate. Heavy cavalry tend to wear head-to-toe armor into combat.

Those seem like natural breakpoints. Anyone can wear any kind of armor for a short period, but only trained soldiers like Roman legionaries can march and work in "medium" armor, and no one can march and work in "heavy" armor -- although they can sprint, fight, etc. in bursts.

Also, any troops running away used to drop their shields. I assume shields weigh you down much more than in D&D.

 

[GreatLemur]

I think the "Wizards never had time to train with halberds" argument is slightly shaky, as I kind of doubt all characters from every automatic-proficiency-with-all-simple-and-martial-weapons class, regardless of individual or cultural background, have had a chance to train extensively with all the stuff they're proficient with by first level. I dunno; I guess it can be explained as a "once you're a professional with a sword and a bow, it's not too hard to figure out a flail" kinda thing. But it's definitely a bit of a stretch.

Also, I'm not even a little bit interested in preserving character archetypes.

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 makes a hell of a lot of sense.

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.

Right, right. But you'd probably have a pretty good chance of whacking somebody with it if they are equally untrained in defense. If we assume the baseline "+0" level of skill at a task to be "totally untrained", I think things should work out pretty well.

 

[Flynn]

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.

Personally, I like this approach. It makes sense to me, and is in keeping with the way skills work. Skills don't assume you know them, and take a penalty if you don't. Instead, skills assume you don't know them, and you get a bonus to your roll if you do. I'd love it if weapons worked the same way.

I have to admit, though, that I think there's a place for weapon proficiencies, and I prefer them in groups (see UA weapon group proficiencies) instead of individual weapons.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[fuindordm]

It's easy to iimagine a system where weapon groups are treated as skills, and each point gets you +1 to attack rolls with weapons in that group. I'm sure someone has done it, or done something similar, and published it on a PDF. But it seems too fine-grained an approach. When all the weapons are doing pretty much the same thing, placing skill points into the different groups to improve your attack roll isn't a very interesting choice.

Ben

 

[Gentlegamer]

There's more to making use of arms and armor than strapping on the armor or waving the weapon. Weapon and armor proficiencies attempt to reflect this.