Weapon Proficiency: All or nothing?

[SkidAce]

Again, sensible.

My perfect state would be:

Untrained: Penalty
Trained: Nothing
Specialized: Bonus.

Thus you can reach that in between state.

AND as an added bonus, its harder/costs more to become specialized if you start unkilled in that type.

Great conversation....

 

[delericho]

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.

Funny, it's exactly how I conceptualise weapon training. You need to learn the basic techniques to not suck before you can learn to be better.

And for most characters, the weapon proficiencies that they have are the ones they gain for free with their class, so they didn't spend any extra time not to be bad; they spent that time in their basic training for that purpose.

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.

For those players who want to use an offbeat weapon choice, it should be possible for them to spend a feat to get the appropriate proficiency, just as in 3e and 4e. Options, not restrictions.

But that's not the baseline case - most players will naturally stick with the weapons given by their class.

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?

See that difference in BAB between the Wizard and the Fighter? That's the extra time that the Fighter spent to actually get BETTER with his use of weapons. He doesn't need to be getting yet more bonuses on top of bonuses.

Two further reasons why it's a good idea to treat proficient weapon use as the baseline, and so not give out proficiency bonuses:

- It allows the Basic Set to omit the rules for proficiencies altogether. "Wizards can use quarterstaffs, daggers, and slings", or whatever. Sure, it doesn't cut a huge amount of space, but it cuts some.

- There's a sweet spot in the d20 system where the total result in a check is roughly balanced between the d20 roll and the character's modifier - where 'luck' and 'skill' are balanced. This means that in most cases they should be aiming for characters to have a modifier of between about +5 and +15 in the things that they are good at (because those are the ones they use most often).

If the game gives 1st level characters large bonuses (ability modifiers on top of proficiency modifiers on top of BAB) then it leaves them with nowhere to go as the levels advance. Given how high the ability score modifiers are (an 18 Str is assumed for all Fighters), they should be cautious in stacking on yet more modifiers.

(And yes, I know that the probability of success for d20+5 vs DC 12, d20+15 vs DC 22, and d20+25 vs DC 32 are all exactly the same at 70%. But the sweet spot feels better.)

Let characters who are bad at something be bad at that thing.

Now, all that said, there is an alternative I could happily accept: if the bonus for proficiency replaces the bonus that the character gets for his ability score.

 

[Danzauker]

I just assumed that if a character used a weapon he's not proficient in he would not get the bonus listed under "weapon attack" in his class description.

 

[jrowland]

IIRC, the bit about "improvised attack" in the packet talks about this: No attack bonus. Basically I think they treat non-proficiency as an improvised attack.

Don't have the packet here at work. Can someone check it?

 

[Sunseeker]

Let characters who are bad at something be bad at that thing.

Compared to those who are good at it, they already are, and always will be.

Now, all that said, there is an alternative I could happily accept: if the bonus for proficiency replaces the bonus that the character gets for his ability score.

Which accomplishes absolutely nothing.

 

[tuxgeo]

IIRC, the bit about "improvised attack" in the packet talks about this: No attack bonus. Basically I think they treat non-proficiency as an improvised attack.

Don't have the packet here at work. Can someone check it?

The "Equipment" file says, "Any object can serve as a weapon, even if it wasn't designed for such use." That says to me, "Any object" includes weapons with which the wielder lacks proficiency. Right: No attack bonus.

 

[triqui]

Using a weapon without proficiency should impose disadvantage. That way you can do it if you really want to, but it's obviously not a good idea.

That means you can freely use weapons you arent proficient with, as long as you are fighting in a disadventaged position. For example, a wizard might use a martial weapon in darkness, with no penalty.

 

[MoonSong]

That means you can freely use weapons you arent proficient with, as long as you are fighting in a disadventaged position. For example, a wizard might use a martial weapon in darkness, with no penalty.

Or a rogue can use a bastard sword while wearing plate...

I can only think of three/four possibilities:

- Using a weapon without proficiency gives you disadvantage. Simple, but gets easily abusable if you are under other conditions that normally would also grant you disadvantage, and vanishes the instant you get advantage.
- It is treated as an improvised attack. Also simple, but the classes with high attack bonuses are the ones that lose more compared with those that don't.
- It gets a flat penalty. Also simple and intutive, but there is nothing in the raw that could support it and many people don't like the idea of "penalies"
- It is just not allowed. Well it isn't explicitly addressed at any point, unlike armor which is.

 

[delericho]

Compared to those who are good at it, they already are, and always will be.

I meant objectively, as should really have been obvious. If you're going to talk comparitively, then it makes no difference whether proficiency gives a bonus or merely negates a penalty. Hell, it would make no difference if non-proficient characters got a +20 bonus and proficient ones a +24 bonus - the DCs on tests would need to be scaled accordingly, with the net result that the raw probabilities of success would be the same.

Which accomplishes absolutely nothing.

It would do exactly what it does with skills - replacing the bonuses means that you replace the effect of raw aptitude with the effects of training.

That means you can freely use weapons you arent proficient with, as long as you are fighting in a disadventaged position. For example, a wizard might use a martial weapon in darkness, with no penalty.

Yeah, but is that really a problem? You're not suddenly going to get a huge number of Wizards seeking out areas of darkness in which to fight, so that they can use greatswords at no further penalty!

Instead, what you'll see is Wizards trying not to be forced to fight in darkness at all, and trying not to be forced to fight with a greataxe at all. But, if they're forced to do either, they can - they'll just really suck at it. That all feels exactly as it should be.

(It's also worth noting that the worse you are at something generally, the more of a penalty disadvantage is. So that Wizard who is flailing about in darkness is already almost completely ineffectual, whether using a quarterstaff or a greataxe. Any further penalties on top just seem redundant.)

 

[Minigiant]

Isn't the proficiency bonus the weapon attack bonus? Attacks with non-proficient weapons are straight ability rolls right?