PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Weapon/Armor Proficiencies: Balancing Mechanism, Or Just Annoying?



Fax Celestis
2010-07-13, 08:12 PM
Just like the topic says. The more I look at them, the less I feel like proficiencies are worth the bookkeeping. I can understand exotic weapons needing proficiencies (they're exotic), as long as they're actually worth the feat, but really, they come down to a tiny numerical difference and a matter of fluff. Is it really that big a deal?

Thinker
2010-07-13, 08:16 PM
In 3.5e they are little more than fluff. The step from 2d6 (greatsword) to 1d8 (spear) is only 2.5 on average. This is most apparent at level 1 and seems to reduce in value every level thereafter.

That said, they can a useful piece of fluff for helping to different classes. The greater the effect that weapons have and can scale with level, the more important these choices will be.

tl;dr: No, they don't matter.

Math_Mage
2010-07-13, 08:20 PM
It matters a lot for ranged weapons. Nobody would use a crossbow as their secondary weapon if they could fire a longbow. Action economy and all that.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-13, 08:23 PM
It matters a lot for ranged weapons. Nobody would use a crossbow as their secondary weapon if they could fire a longbow. Action economy and all that.

That sounds like a problem with crossbows, not with proficiencies.

G3N3R3L GHOST
2010-07-13, 08:26 PM
IMO the proficiencies for certain classes make sense. However how they do those proficiencies I find to be very silly. I would say weapon group from UA is a much more realistic approach to weapons. Through your training as a fighter you can effectively use all types of swords or all types of ax weapons. I find it kind of silly to think that one person would just be awesome at scimitars for slashing, longbows for shooting, picks for poking, scythes for harvesting, and lances for charging. No one would actually train for all of those things. The most balanced way to do it to me is grouping like weapons together, exotic and all. And letting characters learn those.

Kylarra
2010-07-13, 08:26 PM
I like weapon group a lot more than individual proficiencies personally.

Yorrin
2010-07-13, 08:28 PM
Despite what spending any amount of time on these boards will make you want to believe: there's nothing wrong with fluff. And fluff is exactly what it is. Yes, from a mechanics standpoint it's annoying, to say nothing of sub-optimal. But it's got flavor!

Though I'll agree with the posters above me, weapon groups are even tastier.

Mr.Moron
2010-07-13, 08:35 PM
Pointless. Base Attack Bonus covers your basic "Weapon Skills" well enough. Special feats and other abilities can cover being able to use advanced techniques with a given weapon but aren't really needed to know which way the pointy end goes.

If was redoing 3.5 proficiencies would be one of the first things to go.

Math_Mage
2010-07-13, 08:35 PM
That sounds like a problem with crossbows, not with proficiencies.

Yes. It's a realistic problem with crossbows that is accurately modeled by proficiency differences.

I like the suggestion of weapon groups from above.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-13, 09:03 PM
Yes. It's a realistic problem with crossbows that is accurately modeled by proficiency differences.

That's pretty accurately modeled with the weapon mechanics, not the proficiencies, actually. But I don't mean to be nitpicky. I mean to say that this a game of fantasy: why does it matter if it's realistic? It is supposed to imitate real life, not simulate it.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-13, 09:05 PM
As a homebrewer, I like proficiencies, because requiring martial weapon proficiency is an excellent way to designate a PrC as for martial types, not caster types. For things like the Eldritch Knight or Abjurant Champion, this is especially important.

Proficiencies go in the same bin as Weapon Focus and others for me - not good on their own, but excellent as entry costs (read: opportunity costs) to PrCs, a good way to balance out a PrC that's a bit more interesting than its entry.

I'd be very sad to see them gone for that reason.

Math_Mage
2010-07-13, 10:05 PM
That's pretty accurately modeled with the weapon mechanics, not the proficiencies, actually. But I don't mean to be nitpicky. I mean to say that this a game of fantasy: why does it matter if it's realistic? It is supposed to imitate real life, not simulate it.

Well, your original contention was that proficiencies were pointless because the weapons you needed a feat tax for weren't actually much better. I pointed out a martial weapon that is significantly better than its simple counterpart, and your response was to blame the simple weapon for being bad. This made me go :smallconfused:. If you complain when proficiencies don't represent a significant in-game difference, and complain when proficiencies do represent a significant in-game difference, well, you can't win, can you? I regard the complaint about simulating real life as a red herring, so I won't respond to it.

The proficiency disparity for crossbows vs. longbows makes sense out of game, given that a crossbow is much easier to learn to use proficiently. A Wizard 1 being just as practiced with a bow as a Fighter 1 would make people go :smallconfused:. And it also makes sense in-game, as the longbow has a significant action advantage over the crossbow that is worth being represented by a feat tax--an action advantage that, in turn, makes sense out of game because a proficient longbow user fires faster than a proficient crossbow user. This is one case where everything makes sense mechanically and flavorfully, including proficiencies.

Now, the proficiency system as a whole hasn't been implemented well. Most exotic weapons aren't worth the feat tax, for example. But I don't see why you feel the need to get on my back about this one example just because you think WotC modeled it too well...or something.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-07-13, 10:17 PM
I made a similar argument recently for class/cross-class skills. I consider them more annoying than weapon proficiencies (a wizard isn't going to be using a greatsword much, after all), but they are both quaint little trope-relics. I don't think anything would be lost by their elimination.

lsfreak
2010-07-13, 10:24 PM
Mostly just annoying. I agree to some extent with DragoonWraith, but I think there could be better ways of going about it. Also, since this is probably in context of d20r, I'm guessing you can cover such costs in a different manner, or simply make prestige classes as they are claimed to be and actually giving something up (which homebrewed prestige classes can't really do, simply because they often can't give something up and still be good).

faceroll
2010-07-13, 10:25 PM
I would say weapon proficiencies matter for about the first 7 levels of the game. After that, there's only an average of 2 to 4 more damage on martial weapons, which is mostly negligible when THF with power attacks that are resolved as touch attacks.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-13, 10:59 PM
Well, your original contention was that proficiencies were pointless because the weapons you needed a feat tax for weren't actually much better. I pointed out a martial weapon that is significantly better than its simple counterpart, and your response was to blame the simple weapon for being bad. This made me go :smallconfused:.

Then you're confusing what I'm saying. Exotic weapons should require a feat, and they should be worth the feat to the right player. But the difference between martial and simple weapons (except in the specific instance you indicated) is so negligible, it doesn't really need to be present.

Satyr
2010-07-14, 12:37 AM
I think that they have little significance as is, but should be more important, e.g. by making martial weapons (and in the extension, exotic weapons) better, so that the knowledge of these becomes more significant and a true feature, not just a matter of fact.


I mean to say that this a game of fantasy: why does it matter if it's realistic? It is supposed to imitate real life, not simulate it.

I disagree. Fantasy lives and dies with its verisimilitude. A historical seting or so can always retreat to mere facts if the case may be, but fantasy have to make enough sense all on its own. The easier it becomes to suspend one's own disbelief, the easier it becomes to overlook the inevitable flaws and quirks. "It's Fantasy" is no excuse to not make a game, setting etc. as little intelligence insulting as possible.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-14, 01:26 AM
That sounds like a problem with crossbows, not with proficiencies.

Crossbows were popular because everyone could use them with relative ease.
You could take a crossbow hand it to a farmer and he could kill a knight with it.

But when your talking about a highly trained professional solider the bow is superior because it has five times the rate of fire. D&D is very generous in the crossbow's reloading time but fairly accurate for bows at low level.

Endarire
2010-07-14, 02:08 AM
Proficiency only matters if I want to use the weapon. A typical character needs training in

-his main weapon.
-a backup melee weapon.
-a backup ranged weapon.
-any misc. weapons.

Thus, the typical character only needs proficiency in 2 to 5 weapons. Being proficient in any more just doesn't help significantly.

lesser_minion
2010-07-14, 09:16 AM
I would say that the main reason weapon proficiencies work the way they do is base attack bonus.

At first level, on BAB alone, there's barely any difference between a fighter and a wizard. The difference only becomes noticeable at higher levels. Proficiencies go some way towards addressing that (strength obviously does a lot as well).

Aside from that, I think it's well worth representing the possibility of different degrees of competence with different weapons, since it's not the same thing as 'general competence' in a fight.

You have a lot more to gain from making the distinction more important, IMO, than you do from cutting it altogether.

This was proposed over on homebrew, and might be worth using.

Personally, I'd use weapon groups, and then give each group a 'martial weapon proficiency' feat that allows you to do something new and exciting with that group (you'd still have weapon focus, but it would be a separate 'branch', completely independent of MWP).

SilverLeaf167
2010-07-14, 09:32 AM
Instead of doing something like "Fighters can use (almost) anything" and "Wizards can swing sticks", which is practically the way it normally works, why not simply do this:

Give all classes some appropriate weapon groups to choose from, the number of groups varying by class. For example, a Fighter would actually have to choose, for example, that he wants to use swords, daggers and crossbows. A wizard might want to choose staffs and daggers, etc.

I'm happy with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency system, but I think they would require some actual training. "Yay I found a double-axe, nobody told me how to use it but I just know because I took the feat."

Psyx
2010-07-14, 09:36 AM
UA weapon groups are better to my mind. Armour proficiency certainly has its place.



That's pretty accurately modeled with the weapon mechanics, not the proficiencies, actually. But I don't mean to be nitpicky. I mean to say that this a game of fantasy: why does it matter if it's realistic? It is supposed to imitate real life, not simulate it.

It's already possible to fire a heavy crossbow once every 12 seconds, and a normal one every 6. That's already cutting it plenty of flavourful slack.

It's the inability to use a polearm on someone less than 5' away annoys me.
And I so hate spiky chains. With a passion.

lesser_minion
2010-07-14, 09:38 AM
Instead of doing something like "Fighters can use (almost) anything" and "Wizards can swing sticks", which is practically the way it normally works, why not simply do this:

Give all classes some appropriate weapon groups to choose from, the number of groups varying by class. For example, a Fighter would actually have to choose, for example, that he wants to use swords, daggers and crossbows. A wizard might want to choose staffs and daggers, etc.

That's exactly what the weapon groups variant does.


I'm happy with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency system, but I think they would require some actual training. "Yay I found a double-axe, nobody told me how to use it but I just know because I took the feat."

If you're concerned about the game de-valuing training by allowing characters to become archmages just by spending ten weeks wantonly slaughtering monsters, the DMG provides a number of variants that may help you do that.

But that's a universal problem, not one that's specific to feats. A feat is basically the game's way of telling that you took the training.

Saph
2010-07-14, 09:44 AM
I quite like weapon proficiencies. They're flavourful, and at low levels they do make a difference. The extra 1-2 points of damage and/or special ability help.

Another benefit is that it gives classes with more proficiencies more adaptability. If the party finds a random +1 martial weapon in the dungeon, the full-BAB classes can pick it up and start swinging it, but the simple-weapons-only classes can't.

SilverLeaf167
2010-07-14, 09:47 AM
And I so hate spiky chains. With a passion.
You have a good reason (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html) for that.

Lesser minion: True. Like I said, maybe I should use it.
Saph: Proficiencies do not add to damage. If you mean Weapon Focus, that only adds to attack rolls.

Saph
2010-07-14, 09:49 AM
Saph: Proficiencies do not add to damage. If you mean Weapon Focus, that only adds to attack rolls.

Give me some credit. Having proficiency in a better weapon allows you to use a weapon with a higher base damage; e.g. a Glaive rather than a Longspear, or a Greatsword rather than a Morningstar. This effectively increases your average damage by a point or two.

SilverLeaf167
2010-07-14, 09:51 AM
Sorreh. I thought you meant they directly add to damage. And i DID suspect a typo... or two, for that matter.

Thinker
2010-07-14, 10:02 AM
Here is what I think it would take to make weapon proficiencies matter:


Armor as DR that scales with level, either based on class abilities or BAB. Also, different armor protects better against different weapon types.
AC scales with level, based on class progression.
Base weapon damage scales with level, either based on class abilities, feats, or BAB.
Divide proficiency into weapon groups.
Different weapon types do different things, with each group providing a different benefit. You could have axes that deal extra damage at the expense of accuracy, pole arms that grant extra battle field control, etc.
Eliminate "slashing/piercing/bludgeoning" approach, i.e. instead of skeletons taking full damage from bludgeoning, make them take full damage from Axes and Maces & Hammers (if that's how you split them up)

Psyx
2010-07-14, 10:19 AM
^

AC should scale with BAB, rather than level. Makes more sense.

Different armour protecting better against different attacks just slows things down and goes back to 1st Ed. It adds nothing to a game which has an absurdly abstract system. If this matters a great deal to your group, then use a better game system.


I'e just remembered what I hate more than spiked chains: Dire flails.

And mercurial swords.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-14, 10:21 AM
Proficencies do not add damage?

Are there in the PH simple weapons with a base crit chance of 18-20, or a critical multiplier of x4?

Person_Man
2010-07-14, 10:34 AM
You could essentially consolidate all weapons down into 5ish categories:


{table=head]
Weapon Group|
Damage|
Crit|
Hands|
Range
Simple | 1d6 | (20)*2 | 1 | 20 ft (thrown)
Martial | 2d6 | (17-20)*2 or (20)*4 | 1 | 10 ft (thrown)
Reach | 2d6 | (20)*3 | 2 | 10 ft (reach)
Ranged | 2d6 | (20)*3 | 2 | 100 ft. AoO adjacent
Exotic | * | * | * | *
[/table]


You could even consolidate it down further to 3 weapon groups if you wanted to. Basically just give everyone proficiency with the short spear, spiked chain, and longbow, and each deals 2d6 (20)*3 damage or some similar formula. Let people call their weapons whatever they want, and take Exotic Weapon Proficiency if they want something different or better.

All the fiddly math and reach rules are basically for the benefit of world simulation. If you don't care about simulating the differences between katana and daggers, then it makes no difference to the game.


Slightly off topic: I've never understood players who feel the need to write down how many pairs of socks they have and what color they are, but they exist. My feeling is that if you care about the equipment rules and book keeping, then 3.5 does a pretty decent job of it. If you don't (as I don't) then there's essentially no good reason for 90% of the equipment listed. Everything except for powerful magic items could essentially be eliminated, and the system would be much more compact and easy to manage. But that's just me.

SilverLeaf167
2010-07-14, 10:47 AM
Kaiyanwang: Oh c'mon, this is the exact same thing as with Saph. Proficiencies do not add damage: better weapons do. You just need proficiencies to use better weapons. Properly, that is.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-14, 10:49 AM
Kaiyanwang: Oh c'mon, this is the exact same thing as with Saph. Proficiencies do not add damage: better weapons do. You just need proficiencies to use better weapons. Properly, that is.

:smallconfused:

Isn't one a direct consequence of the other?

SilverLeaf167
2010-07-14, 10:51 AM
Yea yea, just like with Saph, it's a matter of how you look at it. I meant that the proficiencies themselves do not add damage, but they open a chance to do so by other means. Questions?

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-14, 10:54 AM
Yea yea, just like with Saph, it's a matter of how you look at it. I meant that the proficiencies themselves do not add damage, but they open a chance to do so by other means. Questions?

No, because I'm completely done with the whole thread :smallsmile:

Math_Mage
2010-07-14, 10:55 AM
Yea yea, just like with Saph, it's a matter of how you look at it. I meant that the proficiencies themselves do not add damage, but they open a chance to do so by other means. Questions?

Why are you being so aggressive (and, frankly, a little rude) about this relatively minor point? :smallconfused:

SilverLeaf167
2010-07-14, 10:57 AM
Sorreh. I guess it was just that about two posts ago I had gone through the same thing with Saph. And I'm tired. And it's hot in here. And I think I have a cold.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-14, 10:58 AM
Ok, nevermind. I overreacted. Sorry for the derail, fax.

Thinker
2010-07-14, 11:44 AM
^

AC should scale with BAB, rather than level. Makes more sense.
That's true. I was just trying to remember how they did it in UA. BAB is better for AC scaling.



Different armour protecting better against different attacks just slows things down and goes back to 1st Ed. It adds nothing to a game which has an absurdly abstract system. If this matters a great deal to your group, then use a better game system.
It probably does slow things down. To emulate this you could simply have a weapon property or feat that helps overcome DR from armor. You do have to slow things down a little bit if you want the differences in weapons to be more apparent. These arguments are not necessarily unique to a given system. If weapons are too closely related to one another, proficiency in a given weapon simply doesn't matter. I consider this discussion to be primarily with regards to 3.5e, but also a discussion of game mechanics in general.



I'e just remembered what I hate more than spiked chains: Dire flails.

And mercurial swords.
Right, there are quite a few weapons that shouldn't exist, at least not as they do in DnD.