Weapon Proficiency: All or nothing?

[ComradeGnull]

I would love to see the 4e prof bonus added into Next. I think it was a great innovation of 4e. It could even be a straight +2 if they didn't want to distinguish between weapons. All classes get a +2 toweapon attacks anyway.

I liked it too- in general I like things that make different weapons 'feel' and play differently, and give some reason to use things other than 'the best' weapon with the highest damage, but I wonder how this will work with the flatter to-hit math that we've been hearing about. 4e used the proficiency bonuses nicely- you had interesting choices to make like whether a rogue was better off using a dagger (lower damage, higher chance to hit) or a larger weapon with more damage and less accuracy. But 4e had lots of big numbers that kept getting bigger-er, and an extra +3 to hit from picking a 'accurate' weapon seems like it would inflate the numbers a bit more.

I think I would maybe make the penalty for non-proficiency substantial (-3 or more), have heavy, hard to steer weapons (big axes and things) be flat +0 for proficiency, and maybe give a small bonus to finesse weapons.

 

[fjw70]

The plus 2 or 3 wouldn't inflate the numbers if the BAB were reduced to 0 at first level.

 

[Grazzt]

I would love to see the 4e prof bonus added into Next. I think it was a great innovation of 4e. It could even be a straight +2 if they didn't want to distinguish between weapons. All classes get a +2 toweapon attacks anyway.

Or do it like RQ and make weapon proficiencies into skills (Heavy Blades, Light Blades, etc). Or like the Dragon Age RPG from Green Ronin, weapons basically function as skills/specialties there with as well. Might be too "un-DnD" however.

 

[Sunseeker]

As a designer, whouldnt you just implement this position by saying "Let impose a -2 penalty for non-proficiency use and increase toHits on all classes by 1"? It has exactly the same effect mathematically and doesnt need a hidden bonus.

I don't like penalties for non-proficiency. I would rather give a +2 for proficiency. Penalties feel like we're saying people should be worse off if they're not proficient, and that sets the wrong tone for character creation.

Though then you'd be left with the odd situation where the default situation, i.e. no penalties but also no bonuses, is not actually a state you can be in. It doesn't affect the game engine in real terms, it's just strange.

Personally, I would consider "no bonuses and no penalties" to be "unarmed", you're not particularly trained it, but unless you have no idea how to use your arms, you're capable of throwing a punch.

 

[Li Shenron]

My guess is either oversight, or its just not a rule they want to bother testing with right now.

This. It's practically irrelevant to define what happens without proficiency at this stage where they should focus on what happens with proficiency (which is the game normality).

 

[delericho]

I am also not sure about using disadvantage since it doesn't with other disadvantages. I would like to keep disadvantage as more of a situational penalty.

Virtually all of the attacks a character ever makes will be with a weapon with which they are proficient. Using a weapon without proficiency is an odd situation; a situational penalty is entirely appropriate.

(That's also why the game should assume that the use of weapons with proficiency is the baseline - it is, quite simply, the most common case.)

I don't like penalties for non-proficiency. I would rather give a +2 for proficiency. Penalties feel like we're saying people should be worse off if they're not proficient, and that sets the wrong tone for character creation.

Why? My Fighter can't cast spells at all. Why should the Wizard not be penalised for using a longsword without proficiency?

 

[Bradley Hindman]

I would treat proficiency with a weapon just like training in a skill, give a +3 bonus. And of course to keep the numbers reasonable, remove the +2 bonus every class gets at 1st level on Weapon Attacks.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't like penalties for non-proficiency. I would rather give a +2 for proficiency. Penalties feel like we're saying people should be worse off if they're not proficient, and that sets the wrong tone for character creation.

Understandable, But I don't agree.

If there is no penalty for unskilled, than when the wizard picks up the "greataxe" he is average with it...just as good as thousands of fighters.

They should be worse off if they're not proficient. IMHO.

 

[Sunseeker]

Understandable, But I don't agree.

If there is no penalty for unskilled, than when the wizard picks up the "greataxe" he is average with it...just as good as thousands of fighters.

They should be worse off if they're not proficient. IMHO.

Like people pointed out with my post, if we give a bonus for proficiency, and a penalty for non-proficiency, then the "normal" state is a state in which noone can actually ever achieve.

I don't see the point in telling people they gain nothing for proficiency, it just doesn't make sense, your class was specially trained for using X weapon, or you spent time training in Y weapon and it....makes you no better than normal, it just doesn't make you worse off.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why? My Fighter can't cast spells at all. Why should the Wizard not be penalised for using a longsword without proficiency?

Because that's not how I conceptualize weapon training. I imagine the Fighter or whoever spent some extra time to get BETTER with a weapon, they didn't just spend extra time to not be bad. It's a way of framing proficiency that I feel gives value to proficiency, without knocking down a player for wanting to play with the weapon of their choice.

And who cares if the wizard runs around with a greataxe or a longsword, their BAB is what, 2, 3? HALF that of the Fighter? Who if we give a bonus for proficiency is now probably sitting at triple?

Wizards are going to shoot spells, and maybe if they run out they're going to try and hit something with their great-axe. So LET THEM. They're not going to hit very often or very hard, and the Fighter will hitter better, harder, and faster every single time.