D&D 5E Limiting the Number of Weapon Proficiencies by Class

[Riley37]

Ah, see, fighters don't train with each and every kind of martial weapon.

They learn the general principles of weapon use, and then *apply those principles* to any weapon they may find.

Also, yes, realism... can you show me any human in the real world who has learned two cantrips and two first-level spells in under a year?

If you want more realism, there are LOTS of TRPGs which don't have classes and levels, and which instead have a fine-grained list of various abilities and skills, usually on a point-buy system.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Individual weapon skills are kind of at odds with a class based system. Basic training in a character class is enough to justify the skills & proficiencies in the game. The average person doesn't have a class so for color you might want to say that Broomhilda the barmaid has proficiency in club, because she has trained with the baton she carries and breaks up fights. That distinction is meaningful for a commoner but too fiddly to worry about for a trained adventurer.

It is also why I don't generally allow the spontaneous taking of a level in a new class. The basic training required to be a first level member of a class takes dedication and time.

 

[Sunseeker]

If you do, be prepared to give players the weapons they want to use in loot. You'll have an awful lot of disappointed players if you cut back on how many weapons they can use, then start handing out nifty things they'll just have to hock.

 

[steeldragons]

The "basics" version my World of Orea RPG is handling this, in trying to keep with flavor and possibly addresses some of the mentioned concerns (like, what if you give out something they're not proficient in...which, I don't get how that would ever be a problem, published adventure or whatever...just change it! But regardless...), is to permit new proficiencies in a way that matches the flavor of the classes.

So, Warrior classes: begin with 4 weapon profs. They can gain/learn a new one at each level.
Rogue classes begin with 3 weapon profs. They gain/learn a new one every other level.
Priest classes begin play with 2 weapon profs., gain/learn new every 3rd level.
Wizard classes begin play with 1 weapon prof., gain/learn new every 4th level.

Anyone who doesn't want to wait til the allotted level for your class, spend Skill Points (accumulated by different class groups at different rates) on a "Proficiency Skill" to add that new/extra weapon or special magic item [a thief learning to use a wand stipulated for mages, a cleric learning to use a staff stipulated for druids, etc...].

 

[Greg K]

I don't have a problem with starting 1st level fighters. My issue is with the multi-classing rules and a character picking up his first level in a class like fighter.

I'll probably bring back 2e Complete Fighter/PO:Combat and Tactics/3e UA Weapon groups. Barbarians will get start with a proficiency called clan/tribe cultural weapons and it will resemble weapon 1e Barbarian weapon proficiencies from 1e Unearthed Arcana 1e or David Howery's revised 1e Barbarian from Dragon Magazine.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'd be OK playing in a game that restricted the number of proficiencies, but it does depend a bit on what you define as "trained" or "proficient", and how much training time you alot for a particular training period.

But, realistically, a professional soldier should have wide proficiency even with relatively brief training periods, because you not only need to be able to handle your own weapons, but know the types you're likely to face, how they operate, and how you counter them.

It's not a precise parallel, since modern weapons are generally much easier to learn to employ than most medieval weapons, but as a point of comparison here's what I was trained to employ during just my first four years in the military:

[sblock]
Qualified "Expert" (as in: was formally tested in some form of combat training course and received a score in the highest category, equating to greater combat proficiency): Pistols (M9), Carbines/Rifles (M16), Medium Machine Guns (M60, M240), Heavy Machine Guns (M2), Grenades (M67), Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank

Qualified (as in: was formally tested in some form of combat training course and received a "qualifying" score, equating to basic combat proficiency): Carbines/Rifles (M4), Heavy Machine Guns (Mk19), TOW missile

Trained (as in: received formal training in the use, maintenance, and operation, to include live fire operation, but did not have a combat course graduating or qualifying event -- enabling basic proficiency): Pistols (Makarov, M1911, Browning Hi-Power), SMGs (M3, MP5, Danish Madsen, Swedish K), Carbines/Rifles (AK47, AK74, SKS, FN/FAL, G3), Light/Medium Machine Guns (M249, PKM, MG3), Heavy Machine Guns (DShK), Demolitions (C4, TNT), Mines (M16, M18, M21), Recoilless Rifles (90mm, 106mm), Mortars (60mm, 81mm)

Familiarized (as in: received a basic orientation on operation sufficient to be safe, possibly with some live fire operation): too many to list, but includes things like the Stinger missile, M60 tank, M101 105mm howitzer, and others.

I wouldn't claim mastery of any of these weapons with the possible exception of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and Abrams Tank -- but it illustrates the number of proficiencies that a modern professional soldier can pick up in a relatively short period of time.

[/sblock]

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've been a fan of classes having damage dice, rather than weapon proficiencies.

Like, a fighter deals 1d10 one-handed or 1d12 two-handed with....whatever. A wizard deals 1d4 one-handed or 1d6 two handed in the same way.

....this might be possible to apply to 5e, moar research needed...

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I've been a fan of classes having damage dice, rather than weapon proficiencies.

Like, a fighter deals 1d10 one-handed or 1d12 two-handed with....whatever. A wizard deals 1d4 one-handed or 1d6 two handed in the same way.

....this might be possible to apply to 5e, moar research needed...

That's a great idea, actually. It provides for role preservation, while weapon selection becomes a matter of flavor and perhaps special abilities. I've always wanted to play a ranger whose primary melee weapon was a quarterstaff, for example (too much Robin Hood as a kid, I suspect) but have generally been put off by the inferiority of the quarterstaff as a weapon compared to other choices.

 

[Hriston]

Thanks for all of your thoughtful responses. There are just a few comments I'd like to address in the order they came in.

Adventurer's aren't "most people". They are bigger-than-life heroes.

I wasn't talking about adventurers when I said, "most people." I was referring to the "most people" in this quote from the Basic Rules:

Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency. These weapons include clubs, maces, and other weapons often found in the hands of commoners.

I was interpreting this to mean that the usual commoner is expected to be proficient with all simple weapons, but I now realize that this could just mean that the individual weapons commoners are proficient with typically fall into the simple weapons category, which I'm fine with.

I'm not sure I see any gain, here. Mostly, this looks to push pcs back down the 'but I want a magic x' path that previous editions were so big on (and which I hated so much)- if a character isn't proficient in the glaive, that magic glaive ain't worth dirt.

Personally, I think it enhances the mystique of a magic weapon if it isn't of immediate use to every fighter-class character that finds it. Finding such a weapon could direct choices about which proficiencies to pick up in the future. Also, having the fighter-classes not be automatically proficient in every weapon opens up the possibility that the magic weapon may be more suitable to a character of another class. Why should the fighters get to have all the fun? Other have addressed the fact that the DM decides which magic weapons to give out anyway, so I don't see this as a huge problem.

Also, how would allow pcs to expand their proficiencies? Say my fighter isn't proficient in the glaive and finds a magic version. Is it the same 250 days and a trainer to pick up proficiency? Would you allow a rogue or wizard to gain the proficiency the same way? If so, what's the point of having weapon proficiency limited by class at all?

No, I would keep weapon proficiency tied to specific classes. You can only choose those proficiencies which are available to your class, or that you get from racial weapon training. I would do it like in 1E, where a fighter, for example, had four weapons at first level, and could add another proficiency every three levels. Acquisition of the new proficiency would be considered part of the training to level up.

The only exception to all of this would be when a character is 0 level and hasn't chosen a class yet. I would let them spend some kind of aptitude points picking up proficiencies in whatever weapons or skills that instruction is available to them in. To qualify for a class, they would have to meet the basic requirements for that class, including all of that class's weapon proficiencies. This is why I began to question the large number of proficiencies which some classes have. Like why would a Wizard need to be proficient in five separate weapons? It seems like it sets a high entry fee for some classes when approached from the perspective of training from 0.

Also, yes, realism... can you show me any human in the real world who has learned two cantrips and two first-level spells in under a year?

Uh-oh, I said "realistic," didn't I? Now, in the world I live in, there isn't a lot of magic being used out in the open, so when I'm playing a game that involves magic I can accept that there are special rules for how it operates that may not be entirely intuitive. That's kind of the whole idea of magic, right? On the other hand, weapons and armor aren't presented as being materially different in the game from their real-world counterparts, at least not the non-magical kind. So I'd expect that the amount of training and familiarity it would take to be "proficient" with such items would generally mirror the possibilities that are to be found in the realm of reality. I'm not saying that the game-as-written doesn't already do this well enough. I'm not a medieval weapons expert after all. I'm just questioning some of the assumptions.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't have a problem with starting 1st level fighters. My issue is with the multi-classing rules and a character picking up his first level in a class like fighter.

That is easily handled by not permitting any character to just pick up a level in any new class spontaneously. As silly as it is to suddenly be proficient in every weapon, waking up being able to cast cantrips and having a spell book (somehow) is worse.