Why Weapon Proficiency Needs To Go Away

Weapon Profiency is the most popular and picked by most players over other things.
Therefore, it becomes a kind of tax that players have to pay and disallows them from choosing other things that will make their characters interesting.
I propose that we end this now and give everyone a flat bonus to their attacks when leveling up.
This will also get rid of the need to have magic attack, weapon attack and damage dice bonuses.
These bonuses are part of the hit dice damage treadmill that I can still see in the play-test packets.
What we'll do is add this bonus to all attacks either magical or melee.
Then we'll allow this bonus for all main weapon damage but not off-hand weapon damage.
We'll also add this bonus to all saves.


























Calculate your class level modifier.
level / 5 round down = level modifier.
lvl 5 Trained +1
lvl 10 Proficient +2
lvl 15 Specialist +3
lvl 20 Expert +4
lvl 25 Master +5
Im sorry.  What game are you discussing?  Who chooses weapon proficiency?  Isn't that granted by your class automatically?  And what does proficiency have to do with granting a level/5 automatic weapon modifier?

I don't understand your reasoning.
it seems to me that you have a hammer with "Arbitrary level-based bonuses" written on it and you're looking for nails to hit with it.

 
so some think that just because you are a fighter you trained in the over 1000 plus hand to hand weapons and dont need any level of proficency in them indiv.
Simple Solution:
Weapon-Proficency-by-class as a simple spectrum from "pick one" to "all of them"
Simple Solution:
Weapon-Proficency-by-class as a simple spectrum from "pick one" to "all of them"



I don't even know if we need to go that far.  I can't recall the last time I saw anybody carry more than three weapons.  Just pick three or four would  probably cover it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Simple Solution:
Weapon-Proficency-by-class as a simple spectrum from "pick one" to "all of them"



I don't even know if we need to go that far.  I can't recall the last time I saw anybody carry more than three weapons.  Just pick three or four would  probably cover it.

No, because that could be used to justify the continued existence of XWP as a concept.

Simple Solution:
Weapon-Proficency-by-class as a simple spectrum from "pick one" to "all of them"



I don't even know if we need to go that far.  I can't recall the last time I saw anybody carry more than three weapons.  Just pick three or four would  probably cover it.

No, because that could be used to justify the continued existence of XWP as a concept.




Unless you can just pick an XWP as one of your selections, or we just do away with the whole 'simple/martial/exotic' thing.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I think the current system is more or less perfect. I don't fully agree with some class's weapon lists, but I don't think the framework should ever change.
And eating a feat is your punishment for disagreeing.
(which still isn't near as bad as 1e/2e sword-wizard eating a -5 on top of the worst thac0, or the stock cleric being explictly told "no, and stop asking.")
Currently they is not universal way to gain proficiency.

Personally I'd tie in to Intelligence. You get bonus proficiencies equal to INT score -10. Simple weapon cost 1. Martial weapons cost 2. Special and Superior weapons cost 3.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Yet another idea that doesn't make any sense. At all.


I agree with wrecan. I have no idea what game's being responded to, but all the sarcastic comments in response were good fun to read.

Currently they is not universal way to gain proficiency.

Personally I'd tie in to Intelligence. You get bonus proficiencies equal to INT score -10. Simple weapon cost 1. Martial weapons cost 2. Special and Superior weapons cost 3.

That's an interesting idea, although I might soften the curve a little bit so that it comes up a little more.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Im sorry.  What game are you discussing? I don't understand your reasoning.



Man, if you had only asked, "What are you smoking?" I'm just waiting to answer, "I'm from Seattle. What do you think I'm smoking?"
Im sorry.  What game are you discussing? I don't understand your reasoning.



Man, if you had only asked, "What are you smoking?" I'm just waiting to answer, "I'm from Seattle. What do you think I'm smoking?"

maple leaves.

 
Currently they is not universal way to gain proficiency.

Personally I'd tie in to Intelligence. You get bonus proficiencies equal to INT score -10. Simple weapon cost 1. Martial weapons cost 2. Special and Superior weapons cost 3.

 

So spell casters get to be better at learning new and wierd weapons that wont end well.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

in general, I agree that weapon proficiencies are a bit overdone. The only classes that should even need to worry about martial combat are the purely magical classes like wizard. In any case, the weapon attack bonus handles the gaining of proficiency well enough. I don't see the value of limiting rogues or clerics weapon selection as some form of class balance. I see it more as simply a legacy construct that serves little to no real purpose.

I feel the same regarding armor proficencies. Purely magical classes shouldn't know how to wear armor, but other than that, who cares if that rogue wants to be strength-based and wear a tin suit? Maybe it fits the concept better than using fighter as a class.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I don't see the value of limiting rogues or clerics weapon selection as some form of class balance. 



Mechanical trope support (heavy handed)... generally the trickster uses tools useful for stealth and deception and if the game allows lighter armor to be functional it really doesnt need to be heavy handed.

Knights ought to be outfitted by there sponsoring organizations socio-political or religious ... there was probably very little or none at all...  "I am wearing chain mail and later when I can afford it I upgrade to plate". (or maybe that just runs contrary to Legendary and Fantasy Knighthood )
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 
Currently they is not universal way to gain proficiency.

Personally I'd tie in to Intelligence. You get bonus proficiencies equal to INT score -10. Simple weapon cost 1. Martial weapons cost 2. Special and Superior weapons cost 3.

 

So spell casters get to be better at learning new and wierd weapons that wont end well.




Fighters would get a discount but yeah, Int PCs get new more weapons.

Though wizard suck with weapons and would have only 9 proficencies total with 18 Int. So what if they have greataxes, they'll have to spend a lot of resources to be melee worthy.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

If you use Intelligence for weapon proficiencies then you may as well bring back strength and dexterity requirements for wielding them. I prefer keep attributes out of the equation as much as possible. And any proficiency system should deal with what everyone can do, what is gained through feats/specialties, and finally what the class gains. This would include proficiency in skills, weapons, spells, etc.
Therefore, it becomes a kind of tax that players have to pay and disallows them from choosing other things that will make their characters interesting.

Good Point! I propose eliminating proficiency at all! From now on, no one is proficient with anything! Penalties for everyone!

Ok, seriously, proficiency isn't a "tax". It isn't required mechanically for the system to work, so it's not a tax. people opt to become proficient in an oddball weapon, that needs to be by their choice.
If you use Intelligence for weapon proficiencies then you may as well bring back strength and dexterity requirements for wielding them.



Actually, I like this.  It actually might make Strength a little more relevent again.

If you use Intelligence for weapon proficiencies then you may as well bring back strength and dexterity requirements for wielding them.



Actually, I like this.  It actually might make Strength a little more relevent again.




I'm thinking it should be an average of STR, CON, and CHA.  Why CHA?  Because it doesn't matter how well you swing that sword if you don't look good swinging it!  
Weapon Profiency is the most popular and picked by most players over other things.
Therefore, it becomes a kind of tax that players have to pay and disallows them from choosing other things that will make their characters interesting.
I propose that we end this now and give everyone a flat bonus to their attacks when leveling up.
This will also get rid of the need to have magic attack, weapon attack and damage dice bonuses.
These bonuses are part of the hit dice damage treadmill that I can still see in the play-test packets.
What we'll do is add this bonus to all attacks either magical or melee.
Then we'll allow this bonus for all main weapon damage but not off-hand weapon damage.
We'll also add this bonus to all saves.


























Calculate your class level modifier.
level / 5 round down = level modifier.
lvl 5 Trained +1
lvl 10 Proficient +2
lvl 15 Specialist +3
lvl 20 Expert +4
lvl 25 Master +5


What are you smoking?
If you use Intelligence for weapon proficiencies then you may as well bring back strength and dexterity requirements for wielding them.



Actually, I like this.  It actually might make Strength a little more relevent again.




I'm thinking it should be an average of STR, CON, and CHA.  Why CHA?  Because it doesn't matter how well you swing that sword if you don't look good swinging it!  


I think it should use this formula:
# of Weapon Proficiencies = round down (strength mod^2 + intelligence mod^2 + charisma mod^2)/3
Squared negative numbers would need to preserve there negative value as if they were imaginary numbers.

Fighter - Strength 18, Int 8, Cha 12; (4^2 -1 +1)/3 = 5

Because we are all nerds, we might as well just accept it and make the most of it.

What are you smoking?



Dude. I'm from Seattle. Isn't it obvious?

What are you smoking?



Dude. I'm from Seattle. Isn't it obvious?


I would have guessed Colorado.
Regardless of what is or isn't being smoked, I'm really not sure where the OPs is going here.  But he tends to make cryptic posts anyway.

Regarding weapon proficiencies:

There is currently no way to gain a weapon proficiency in the game - but I assume there will eventually be feats to gain weapon proficiencies.   I'm hoping they are a bit more interesting than they have been in the past.  Something more like the current Polearm Training feat:  A feat that gives you proficiency in a group of related weapons, as well as a bonus with those weapons.

But I've never seen any of the proficiency feats in 4E as a feat tax.  Many people choose to take them, because they are useful.  But just because a feat is useful, that does not make it a tax.  It just makes it useful.

On the issue of dumping class-based proficiency:

As noted - they are an essential part of how the game is balanced.  I don't think (and don't want) that essential difference to go away.  On the other hand - in ages long past there was a Dragon Magazine article which proposed that rather than limit weapon by class, all classes should beallowed to use all weapons - they would just do less damage with them.  For example a fighter might do 1d8 with a longsword, a cleric 1d6 and a magic user 1d4. 

This could work and it makes some sense.

But it isn't a change I'd expect to see made (although someone could write a module for it.)


Carl
I'd honestly like to see more things handled as "proficiency" - two-weapon fighting, armor-replacement-effects (abilities that boost AC), skills, maybe even some magic - rather than less.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
On the other hand - in ages long past there was a Dragon Magazine article which proposed that rather than limit weapon by class, all classes should beallowed to use all weapons - they would just do less damage with them.  For example a fighter might do 1d8 with a longsword, a cleric 1d6 and a magic user 1d4. 

Damage-by-class just solves far too many problems and makes way too damn much sense to ever actually be implemeted.

On the other hand - in ages long past there was a Dragon Magazine article which proposed that rather than limit weapon by class, all classes should beallowed to use all weapons - they would just do less damage with them.  For example a fighter might do 1d8 with a longsword, a cleric 1d6 and a magic user 1d4. 

Damage-by-class just solves far too many problems and makes way too damn much sense to ever actually be implemeted.




The article I was referring to was in The Dragon #66 (October 1982).  They did a set of two articles addressing the question of whether Clerics should be allowed to use edged weapons.  John Sapienza addressed the 'pro-edge' side with the tagline "Spell-users should be allowed to use forbidden weapons - but with decreased damage."

Over thirty years later and it still hasn't caught on....

Carl
I think the classes and their weapon proficiencies make up a nice framework for what stereotypical members of that class should be proficient with.  However, PCs (while being based off archetypes) probably shouldn't be stereotypes.  I've proposed before that we let every PC have one free melee and one free ranged weapon proficiency (in addition to their class proficiencies) so that each character can have proficiency in weapons that are iconic to that one character.

I know that some have mentioned the exotic weapons as a reason not to allow people to just pick and choose.  Naturally, my answer to that is that exotic weapons shouldn't be mechanically better than normal martial weapons.  You use an exotic weapon, like a boomerang or an african throwing knife (see the sblock) because they're cool and fit into both the world and your character concept, not because you want better dpr.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

On the other hand - in ages long past there was a Dragon Magazine article which proposed that rather than limit weapon by class, all classes should beallowed to use all weapons - they would just do less damage with them.  For example a fighter might do 1d8 with a longsword, a cleric 1d6 and a magic user 1d4. 

Damage-by-class just solves far too many problems and makes way too damn much sense to ever actually be implemeted.

Myself and Lawolf proposed a handful of ways to make it work after the advent of MDD (even had more than one thread going on the subject), but multiclassing tosses a wrench into the entire construct.

Well, more specifically, the belief that multiclassing into classes that are more martially inclined should bump your damage output tossed a wrench into the entire construct. I'm one 'one of those' who thinks that your first class should weigh a ton in terms of defining your character, but many do not agree.

Danny

I'd honestly like to see more things handled as "proficiency" - two-weapon fighting, armor-replacement-effects (abilities that boost AC), skills, maybe even some magic - rather than less.



I could be down with this. And a Fighter starts with say three proficiencies (grabbing a little old school in the process) so said fighter takes Proficiency: Axes, Proficiency: Two-Weapon Fighting and Proficiency: Thrown Weapon Technique, or some such.
Myself and Lawolf proposed a handful of ways to make it work after the advent of MDD (even had more than one thread going on the subject), but multiclassing tosses a wrench into the entire construct.

MDD, though, essentially eliminates the need of damage-by-class by implementing it anyway.

Regardless of what is or isn't being smoked, I'm really not sure where the OPs is going here.  But he tends to make cryptic posts anyway.

Regarding weapon proficiencies:

There is currently no way to gain a weapon proficiency in the game - but I assume there will eventually be feats to gain weapon proficiencies.   I'm hoping they are a bit more interesting than they have been in the past.  Something more like the current Polearm Training feat:  A feat that gives you proficiency in a group of related weapons, as well as a bonus with those weapons.

But I've never seen any of the proficiency feats in 4E as a feat tax.  Many people choose to take them, because they are useful.  But just because a feat is useful, that does not make it a tax.  It just makes it useful.

On the issue of dumping class-based proficiency:

As noted - they are an essential part of how the game is balanced.  I don't think (and don't want) that essential difference to go away.  On the other hand - in ages long past there was a Dragon Magazine article which proposed that rather than limit weapon by class, all classes should beallowed to use all weapons - they would just do less damage with them.  For example a fighter might do 1d8 with a longsword, a cleric 1d6 and a magic user 1d4. 

This could work and it makes some sense.

But it isn't a change I'd expect to see made (although someone could write a module for it.)


Carl




that makes sense till you condsider stregnth. if im a cleric with a 16 str should i do less damage with a mace than a fighter with a 12 str. maybe instead of doing seperate proficiencies they should go with bigger groupings but not huge ones like past editions so maybe short blades, long blades, mechanicle and non mechanicle ranged ect that way people arent stuck picking long sword and still get hit with a penalty using bastard swords
that makes sense till you condsider stregnth. if im a cleric with a 16 str should i do less damage with a mace than a fighter with a 12 str.


If the Str bonus is still part of the damage, then the cleric would be doing 1d6+3 (average of 6.5) and the fighter would be doing 1d8+1 (average of 5.5).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

weapon stuff



I sent an Q&A question about humnga munga/mambele/kpinga.

HEY DEVS, WHERE DA KPINGAS AT? SCREW DEM LAME KATANAS! I NEED A HUNGA MUNGA!

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

that makes sense till you condsider stregnth. if im a cleric with a 16 str should i do less damage with a mace than a fighter with a 12 str.


If the Str bonus is still part of the damage, then the cleric would be doing 1d6+3 (average of 6.5) and the fighter would be doing 1d8+1 (average of 5.5).




ok as long as it balances like that it works for me
that makes sense till you condsider stregnth. if im a cleric with a 16 str should i do less damage with a mace than a fighter with a 12 str.

It is precisely the case in the current packet that a fighter with 12 Str does more (FAR more at higher levels) damage with a mace than a cleric with 16 str. Different die sizes for weapons by class is simply taking part of what's represented by the MDD and MDB and shifting into the weapon's die. (Also, as MechaPilot notes, unless the difference in weapon die size is huge, the Str bonus will overwhelm it anyway.)

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Why not make weapon profs skills based on weapon groups? I really want to see how a skills-based combat resolution would work. If combat was integrated into the skills system, you could even do something like rolling a weapon skill check instead of intimidate

Weapon Skills:
Simple melee weapons (includes some finesse weapons)
Martial melee weapons (includes some finesse weapons, requires training in simple melee weapons)
Heavy melee weapons (requires training in simple melee weapons)
Simple ranged weapons
Martial ranged weapons (requires training in simple ranged weapons)
Heavy ranged weapons (requires training in simple ranged weapons)

Make an attack roll as normal, adding the appropriate ability mod and skill bonus.

We could go back to the 2e days of number of weapon prof slots based on class.

This could work well for direct magic attacks as well. Would replace WAB/MAB completely. Damage could even be some function based on the result.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.