Weapon Proficiency: All or nothing?

[MoonSong]

I just noticed this, or more accuratley noticed that nobody else has noticed, but this package (as the previous one) is extremely silent on what weapon proficiency truly means. Unlike armor proficiency, which has a "Wearing Armor you cannot use" part explainning the effects of wearing a suit of armor you shouldn't, there is nothing on using weapons you aren't proficient with, and this comes as a big shock to me.

Did I miss the relevant bit somewhere else on the package? Does this means that if you aren't proficient with a weapon you cannot use it at all? (like in Basic?). If the later is the case then it means a BIG step backwards for me, since, except for basic, every edition I know allows you to use any weapon you want regardless of wether you are proficient with it or not. (Of course you would get penalties for it as in 2e or 3.x or not get the proficiency bonus in 4e, but the option was there). This problem is compunded because with the current stand on Specialities gainning extra proficiencies isn't very likely to happen.

Any usefull hints? Is this a good or a bad thing for you?

 

[Transformer]

Probably an oversight in the playtest package. My random guess is using a weapon you're not proficient with = no base attack bonus, but I suppose that might not be drastic enough at level 1 to dissuade greataxe-wielding wizards.

 

[fjw70]

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.

 

[delericho]

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My guess is either oversight, or its just not a rule they want to bother testing with right now. They know what WeapProf has worked in the past... they can keep it in reserve and then test with it down the road when those kinds of nitpicky rules come into play.

 

[the Jester]

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.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Perhaps we can maintain the average of a +2 profeciency, by saying the following:

Using a weapon you are not proficient in gives you a -1 penalty.
Using a weapon you are proficient in gives you a +1 bonus.

That way the numbers are still kept low, but you are still penalized for using something you're not proficient in, and rewarded for using something you are. Likewise, it doesn't STOP a player for using a weapon they're not proficient in, and it doesn't mandate that you MUST use that +3 proficiency longsword.

 

[slobster]

Perhaps we can maintain the average of a +2 profeciency, by saying the following:

Using a weapon you are not proficient in gives you a -1 penalty.
Using a weapon you are proficient in gives you a +1 bonus.

That way the numbers are still kept low, but you are still penalized for using something you're not proficient in, and rewarded for using something you are. Likewise, it doesn't STOP a player for using a weapon they're not proficient in, and it doesn't mandate that you MUST use that +3 proficiency longsword.

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.

 

[fjw70]

Perhaps we can maintain the average of a +2 profeciency, by saying the following:

Using a weapon you are not proficient in gives you a -1 penalty.
Using a weapon you are proficient in gives you a +1 bonus.

That way the numbers are still kept low, but you are still penalized for using something you're not proficient in, and rewarded for using something you are. Likewise, it doesn't STOP a player for using a weapon they're not proficient in, and it doesn't mandate that you MUST use that +3 proficiency longsword.

This seems like unnecessary complexity just o sy we are using penalties.

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.

 

[BobTheNob]

Perhaps we can maintain the average of a +2 profeciency, by saying the following:

Using a weapon you are not proficient in gives you a -1 penalty.
Using a weapon you are proficient in gives you a +1 bonus.

That way the numbers are still kept low, but you are still penalized for using something you're not proficient in, and rewarded for using something you are. Likewise, it doesn't STOP a player for using a weapon they're not proficient in, and it doesn't mandate that you MUST use that +3 proficiency longsword.

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.