Is weapon and armor "proficiency" system REALLY necessary?

[Remathilis]

Actually, I think WP might go something closer to this (as SAGA does...)

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm

 

[JDJblatherings]

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

I'd suspect that was done more so to indicate one was fleeing and did not intend to turnaround and come back and the folks they were fleeing from.
"look look i'm fleeing , really i am, look I'm dropping my shield."

 

[pawsplay]

Realistically, even two rapiers might have a different proficiency, but the bookkeeping would be a nightmare. I think either a generalized system ("rapier") or tight groups ("light blades") system works pretty well.

Fighters being proficient with all martial weapons I consider one of 3e's real stinker rules.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Fighters being proficient with all martial weapons I consider one of 3e's real stinker rules.

Why? The Fighter is pretty lame as is.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I think every sentence after the first in this paragraph shows that the first sentence is false. There is nothing elegant about the way that D&D handles weapon proficiencies. Compare these, for example, to the way that it handles spoken and written language proficiency - now there's elegance for you!

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.

Excellent suggestion. And entirely fitting for a system which treats spoken language acquisition as a simple binary, and handwaves literacy altogether. D&D doesn't support the level of granularity necessary for a workable proficiency system.

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.

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.

There are all sorts of ways of preventing this outcome. Sneak attack, for example, can require a sneaky weapon. Armour can interfere with sneaking, or spell casting, or whatever. Palace guards can forbid the carrying of guisarmes into audience with the Baron. In short, there is a tremendous range of solutions - mechanical, plot-driven or both - to this problem other than proficiencies.

Admittedly, seeing rogues use greatswords is a little strange

Not for those of us who remember Moldvay Basic D&D, in which Thieves were permitted to wield any weapon, but forbidden to use shields, and (using the optional damage rules) two-handed swords did 1d10 hits (doubled on a successful backstab!).