Pathfinder 1E Profession farmer proficiencies homebrew.

[Puxido]

I was making an npc today who was an Inquisitor, with the profession farmer due to his backstory. It come to me, if he's a farmer, should I treat him as proficient with scythes, and any other farm tool that can dual as a weapon (assuming it's of European origin). Would this be a balanced homebrew?

 

[Celebrim]

I was making an npc today who was an Inquisitor, with the profession farmer due to his backstory. It come to me, if he's a farmer, should I treat him as proficient with scythes, and any other farm tool that can dual as a weapon (assuming it's of European origin). Would this be a balanced homebrew?

As a general rule, nothing that is free is balanced. Everything must have a cost. If you take something, you must give up something of equivalent value.

So, the value of what you are giving is potentially two-fold.

First, on one level, you might could say that it's just the equivalent of having martial weapon proficiency, since most weapons inspired by European farm implements end up on the martial weapon table. That's not worth a whole lot, but its worth a significant amount to cleric type classes. My suggestion is that such a character should lose all standard martial proficiencies in exchange. Thus, if you want to be proficient in scythe, glaive, and guisarme you must give up hand crossbow, longbow, and repeating crossbow as a fair trade.

Second, on another level, if you are suggesting weapon proficiency not merely in weapons based on agricultural implements, but on the agricultural implements themselves, these is an additional advantage since normally agricultural implements - say a threshing scythe or a pruning hook - as improvised weapons would not allow you to be proficient at all (because they tend to make rather bad weapons). I would suggest the ability to use tools as weapons that are not normally used as weapons would be worth a feat and so you must give up something worth a feat. Since nothing in the Inquisitor is a likely candidate for this, I suggest if you want to be proficient in improvised weapons to write it up as a simple feat - "Background (Farmer)" - and use it as your 1st level general feat for the character.

 

[GMMichael]

+1 to Celebrim, and

Profession (farmer) doesn't have weapon implications. That's what feats are for. The skill allows you to make a check whenever a farming issue comes up, like when the chickens fly the coop or a cow's stomachs get tangled or gassy.

 

[Puxido]

Ok then, that does make a lot of sense, there are a lot of farm tools an the martial list... What if it were just scythes?

 

[Celebrim]

Ok then, that does make a lot of sense, there are a lot of farm tools an the martial list... What if it were just scythes?

I'd trade proficiencies on a one for one basis, starting with the most painful to give up which would probably be longbow.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Using a tool for a task is not the same thing as using that same item to battle and kill people, as they are battling and trying to kill you.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

In reality, a lot of weapons from around the world (including Europe) had their origins as farming tools.

In Europe, there were many times (in many countries and regions) where they rounded up peasants to use as additional combatants in battles. It wasn't that uncommon to see commoners fighting alongside trained soldiers. In many cases, the commoners fought with whatever they had at hand, including various types of tools.

In the real world, although it's always a benefit for a combatant to be a trained fighter, that doesn't mean that (s)he will always win against a person who has little formal combat training. A lot depends on the circumstances of the combat, the people involved, and more.

Depending on the culture, some farmers may be quite skilled in folk combat methods. There are a lot of "folk" wrestling traditions spread throughout the world, along with some that focus on particular weapons (like knives and machetes) Some cultures place a high value on fighting as a means of gaining social stature, as well, so you may end up with a farmer (or other everyday person) who has a considerable amount of experience with combat. At various times, Sicily, Albania, and Ireland (just to list a few) have produced a lot of fierce, dangerous combatants with no "formal" training.

Pathfinder doesn't really support that within it's very limited class structure. In your example, he gets the weapon mechanics from being an Inquisitor, and the farming knowledge from being a farmer in the past. There's no reason you can't say that he's good at using a scythe because he was a farmer, as long as you have the feats and class features to back that up. The explanation doesn't have to match the mechanics precisely.