Armor and Weapon Proficiencies, Why?

[EnnPeeCee]

I have a pretty simple question to ask The Playground; why have armor and weapon proficiencies in the game? Its something I've been thinking about recently, and I'd like to see what other people think.

I understand it thematically makes sense that if you are not trained to use a certain weapon or armor, you wouldn't be able to use it as well as someone who is. However, (looking specifically at martial weapons) most, if not all, of the classes that are not automatically proficient with martial weapons also have a lower BAB than the classes that do. Mechanically it has the same effect (a lower chance to hit), and thematically you can easily explain that the lower BAB is a result of not being proficient. If you compare a fighter vs a wizard, thematically of course the fighter should be better at swinging swords than the wizard, and because of the BAB difference actually is. So why tack on another non-proficiency penalty because the wizard decided to pick up something more pointy than a quarterstaff?

I can see from a thematic perspective that perhaps they were trying to enforce classes using the weapons intended for them. Maybe they didn't think it was right for rogues to be getting sneak attacks with a greataxe, or wizards to run around dual wielding longswords.

There are a few exotic weapons that would probably be a balance issue if there was no non-proficiency penalties and could be used at no extra cost. Exotic weapons would likely need some re-balancing, or keep the proficiency requirements for exotic weapons.

As far as armors go, I can see that they were probably trying to get the classes to use the armors intended for the classes. But they already have mechanics built in to enforce that. Wizards don't wear armor because of Arcane spell failure, not because they don't have proficiency. Rogues don't wear heavy armor because of the max dex and the armor check penalty, again not because of proficiency. Proficiency penalties just seem like an unnecessary hurdle you have to overcome to use any equipment that the classes wasn't originally designed to use.

So I'm curious what everyone else's thoughts are. Do you think proficiencies work well the way they are? Do you use/enforce them at your table? Is there a better system for proficiencies? What are the consequences to completely removing proficient/non-proficient restrictions?

[Banjoman42]

I understand what your saying, but there are a few things you missed. Rogues shouldn't have shields, because a masterwork one doesn't hurt stealth. Similar situation for clerics and heavy armor; Clerics shouldn't have as high AC as fighters. For weapons, even with the lower base attack, clerics and rogues could get out of hand with bigger weapons, especially in the early game where base attack doesn't matter as much. When a rogue can deal 3d6 damage with their sneak attack at first level (1d6 sneak attack, 2d6 from a greatsword), then it sort of hurts the fighter, especially since the only difference attack wise is +1 BAB for the fighter. Later in the game, it matters less, because there are higher differences in attack bonuses.

Occasionally, I let a character start out with an extra proficiency with a weapon if it makes sense for their character, but usually I leave them how they are.

[holywhippet]

At low levels a wizards AC and BAB isn't much different to that of a fighter. So it would make sense for a wizard to enter melee with a greatsword if they run out of spells. Since they don't have weapons proficiency with greatswords they can't. For that matter, they could hang back in the second row and use a reach weapon like a glaive.

[Madhava]

This is a throwback to earlier editions of the game, when equipment made much more of a difference. And I suppose it still matters thoughout early levels of the game, somewhat. But the ability to use any weapon in the game was, at one time, a big advantage. It was a balance issue, & not just for thematics.

The thing that always confounded me, was that a sling is considered a simple weapon. Slings take a good bit of practice to use. Far more so than, say, a short sword, a spear-like polearm, or many other rudimentary stabbing tools, categorized as martial weapons.

Granted, a leather pouch & some cord are probably easier to come by, than, say, a partisan.

[KillianHawkeye]

The thing that always confounded me, was that a sling is considered a simple weapon. Slings take a good bit of practice to use. Far more so than, say, a short sword, a spear-like polearm, or many other rudimentary stabbing tools, categorized as martial weapons.

Granted, a leather pouch & some cord are probably easier to come by, than, say, a partisan.

A lot of weapons are categorized not by how easy they were to use but rather by what sort of person would typically train to use them.

A sling is a commonly used tool for hunting small game such as rabbits and possibly even birds. They are cheap and very common and nobody would look twice at one being owned by practically anybody. Compare that to a bow, which is also used for hunting but is also a vital weapon in war, and while it may not require much more skill to learn, there are other factors such as increased cost and maintenance to consider as well as the fact that making the ammunition is much more involved than finding small rocks on the ground. You wouldn't expect an average villager to own a bow unless they were a professional hunter or a member of the militia or something.

Similarly, a club (and by extension, a mace) is among the most simplest of melee weapons to use while also being cheap and pedestrian. Compare them to swords and polearms, which are basically only weapons of war used by soldiers, mercenaries, and adventurers. These items have a higher cost than the weapons used by commoners, and even the ones that are relatively simple to use just wouldn't be a part of a normal person's training regimen.

Heck, don't forget that more than half of the weapons categorized as "exotic" are only because they didn't originate in the western-european medieval fantasy world that D&D is based on, even ones that are quite simple to learn to use (blowgun, I'm looking at you).

[Ashtagon]

Weapon proficiency exists because wizards are not allowed to have nice things.

[Yahzi]

A lot of weapons are categorized not by how easy they were to use but rather by what sort of person would typically train to use them.
This, exactly. It was a way of making social class part of the game. Wizards weren't trained to be knights, so they didn't use swords and shields.

Now, of course, it's merely a feat tax.

[Curmudgeon]

Weapon proficiency exists because wizards are not allowed to have nice things.
You're supposed to use blue for sarcasm around these parts. Wizards can have pretty much all the nice things for the cost of a standard action each.

[JDL]

To be fair, a handful require a full round action or more.

[Curmudgeon]

To be fair, a handful require a full round action or more.
Hence my "pretty much" disclaimer.

[Ashtagon]

You're supposed to use blue for sarcasm around these parts. Wizards can have pretty much all the nice things for the cost of a standard action each.

Back when I had a sig about it, I noted that I use blue for emphasis. But as the giant himself said, sarcasm has no specific colour here,

[Telonius]

You might be interested in the Weapon Group Feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm) variant from Unearthed Arcana. It doesn't do anything for Wizards specifically, but for most other characters it allows you to customize their weapons a bit.

[Vortenger]

snip.

This is pretty much it, though I take particular complaint to the shortbow being a martial weapon. The most common hunting tool in history is only for use with martial characters, whereas the heavy crossbow (an advanced technological weapon that requires a crank to reload for the average human and a severe amount of maintenence) is simple. That one little oversight in the rules constantly niggles at me.

[georgie_leech]

This is pretty much it, though I take particular complaint to the shortbow being a martial weapon. The most common hunting tool in history is only for use with martial characters, whereas the heavy crossbow (an advanced technological weapon that requires a crank to reload for the average human and a severe amount of maintenence) is simple. That one little oversight in the rules constantly niggles at me.

Crossbows are hard to argue as anything other than Simple is the trouble. They may not be common for your average farmer, but said farmer doesn't need much in the way of training to know how to make one work. One of their major benefits compared to bows in real world armies was that it was so much easier to train a group of soldiers to use them.

[WolfLordBran]

This is pretty much it, though I take particular complaint to the shortbow being a martial weapon. The most common hunting tool in history is only for use with martial characters, whereas the heavy crossbow (an advanced technological weapon that requires a crank to reload for the average human and a severe amount of maintenence) is simple. That one little oversight in the rules constantly niggles at me.

The way I've always seen it is a bow takes time to practice with and become competent with. A crossbow on the other hand, assuming you can load it and have depth perception, is point and click (pull?). You can hand a peasant a crossbow and once you show him how to load and fire, he's set. If you hand him a longbow instead, it's gonna be a long while before he can go off to war for the king and use it.

Edit: Swordsage'd

[DeltaEmil]

Weapons are also classified as simple or martial weapons depending on their stats and advantages.

Bows are martial weapons because you can make full attack with them, whereas crossbows require a move action or more to reload (at least they get a slightly higher damage die and range to compensate for their shortcomings). A sling is a simple weapon because you also require a move action to reload it.

It's probably 30% who would use it, and 70% of how much better numerically the weapon is according to the logic of the 3.x designers (greatclub should be put to simple weapons).

[Yael]

Back when I had a sig about it, I noted that I use blue for emphasis. But as the giant himself said, sarcasm has no specific colour here,

This. I liked using other colors for speech in other forums.. But well...

A proficiency with the Shortsword means you wont cut your arm by accident, you will know how to fire an arrow from a bow, and such. Those are things that everyone with hands can do, but doing it and knowing how to do it are two separate things. A wizard do know how to use, say, the quarterstaff, because it is a low risk weapon that costs nothing and that way s/he can concentrate in studying to be overpowered a few K's of Exp later. That's how I see it.

[Psyren]

I have a pretty simple question to ask The Playground; why have armor and weapon proficiencies in the game? Its something I've been thinking about recently, and I'd like to see what other people think.

I understand it thematically makes sense that if you are not trained to use a certain weapon or armor, you wouldn't be able to use it as well as someone who is. However, (looking specifically at martial weapons) most, if not all, of the classes that are not automatically proficient with martial weapons also have a lower BAB than the classes that do. Mechanically it has the same effect (a lower chance to hit), and thematically you can easily explain that the lower BAB is a result of not being proficient. If you compare a fighter vs a wizard, thematically of course the fighter should be better at swinging swords than the wizard, and because of the BAB difference actually is. So why tack on another non-proficiency penalty because the wizard decided to pick up something more pointy than a quarterstaff?

I can see from a thematic perspective that perhaps they were trying to enforce classes using the weapons intended for them. Maybe they didn't think it was right for rogues to be getting sneak attacks with a greataxe, or wizards to run around dual wielding longswords.

There are a few exotic weapons that would probably be a balance issue if there was no non-proficiency penalties and could be used at no extra cost. Exotic weapons would likely need some re-balancing, or keep the proficiency requirements for exotic weapons.

As far as armors go, I can see that they were probably trying to get the classes to use the armors intended for the classes. But they already have mechanics built in to enforce that. Wizards don't wear armor because of Arcane spell failure, not because they don't have proficiency. Rogues don't wear heavy armor because of the max dex and the armor check penalty, again not because of proficiency. Proficiency penalties just seem like an unnecessary hurdle you have to overcome to use any equipment that the classes wasn't originally designed to use.

So I'm curious what everyone else's thoughts are. Do you think proficiencies work well the way they are? Do you use/enforce them at your table? Is there a better system for proficiencies? What are the consequences to completely removing proficient/non-proficient restrictions?

I like them because they make the game more nuanced than simply "weapon-user" vs. "non-weapon-user." For example, PF Clerics get proficiency with their deity's favored weapon - that's a nice touch that gives you an idea of what it's like to be a cleric of that deity. You can easily picture clerics of Sarenrae ululating as they practice with scimitars, while clerics of Torag use the same hammer they use at the forge to defend their lands. And Calistria's clerics get whip proficiency - I'll let your minds do the rest of the work with that one.

Then there are other classes. Fighters get heavy armor and tower shield proficiency while Barbarians don't - that gives you an idea of how members of these two classes approach combat. Druids and Monks have restricted weapons and armor and this is reflected by their lacking training with some of the options that clerics or other classes train with. Sorcerers have a bit more proficiency than wizards do, which helps you realize that they had less magical training and thus more time to devote to other practices, which may have implications to their outlook and upbringing.

Then there are racial proficiencies. An elven druid can easily pick up a bow or longsword. Dwarven clerics have no problem wielding an urgosh. A Tengu monk might come at you with a katana, or use the one he took from you to run you through. And so on.

It's a way of using game mechanics to encourage differences in theme/feel/kind between classes. You can make that greataxe-wielding rogue or a longbow-wielding cleric if you want to, but mechanically this enforces the idea that this is an esoteric area of study and thus uncommon.


Back when I had a sig about it, I noted that I use blue for emphasis. But as the giant himself said, sarcasm has no specific colour here,

Indeed, I sigged that quote for a reason.

[Coidzor]

I understand what your saying, but there are a few things you missed. Rogues shouldn't have shields, because a masterwork one doesn't hurt stealth. Similar situation for clerics and heavy armor; Clerics shouldn't have as high AC as fighters.

Clerics have basically the same base AC potential as Fighters, even if you're taking it as a given that all Fighters will make use of Tower Shields, or trade them for an Exotic shield proficiency, which are the only shield or armor that Fighters are proficient with that Clerics are not. As they level, their theoretical potential AC outstrips Fighter due to their spellcasting (hello, Magic Vestment!), as do their other, non-AC defenses.


Clerics are proficient with all simple weapons, with all types of armor (light, medium, and heavy), and with shields (except tower shields). (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm)

It is only in Pathfinder where Clerics lost Heavy Armor proficiency, but gained automatic proficiency in their deity's favored weapon rather than having the War domain be required.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Clerics are proficient with all simple weapons, light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields). Clerics are also proficient with the favored weapon of their deity. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/cleric.html)

[ZamielVanWeber]

You might be interested in the Weapon Group Feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm) variant from Unearthed Arcana. It doesn't do anything for Wizards specifically, but for most other characters it allows you to customize their weapons a bit.
My group started using that and experience a profusion of exotic weapons. Nothing OP at all, just a lot of people were using weapons that were normally sub-optimal but were now available for your normal proficiency.

[Honest Tiefling]

I guess I kinda get the idea of certain classes getting only certain weapons for flavor reasons, but then I must wonder if anyone has a good reason as to why the bog-standard druid can use a scimitar. I think I prefer a system to vary up proficiencies by campaign or setting.

Also, I have never seen those rules. I must add them to my game.

[Elkad]

The thing that always confounded me, was that a sling is considered a simple weapon. Slings take a good bit of practice to use. Far more so than, say, a short sword, a spear-like polearm, or many other rudimentary stabbing tools, categorized as martial weapons.

Pretty sure there is a quote in existence claiming slings were actually modeled after slingshots.

A real sling needs the same range and damage as a longbow and ammo weight needs a massive reduction (to 10 bullets per pound).
As to difficulty, learning to hit things with a sling isn't that hard. Sure, it's not a crossbow, but you can teach it to yourself by practicing vs a stump in the backyard. That's part of why it's a traditional shepherds weapon. Nothing else to do all day, and the ammo (if you use rocks) is free.

It may be easier for someone who has never picked up a weapon to stick a sword in a man than hit him with a sling, but only if he doesn't fight back. Using a sword competently vs an armed opponent takes real training.

I houserule exactly what I suggested up there. A sling using rocks keeps the same 50' increment and d4 damage. Lead bullets double both, giving 100' range and d8 damage. Rapid Reload is also houseruled to apply to slings as well as crossbows.

[Coidzor]

I guess I kinda get the idea of certain classes getting only certain weapons for flavor reasons, but then I must wonder if anyone has a good reason as to why the bog-standard druid can use a scimitar.

There is an explanation, but I can never remember what it is. :smallredface:


I think I prefer a system to vary up proficiencies by campaign or setting.

That is definitely a way to switch up the flavor of different cultures within a setting, too, in addition to setting the setting as distinct from standard expectations. Takes a bit more work which might have a bit more of an impact if it were applied to the approach to magic and unique items and the like, though.

[Ashtagon]

Pretty sure there is a quote in existence claiming slings were actually modeled after slingshots.

A real sling needs the same range and damage as a longbow and ammo weight needs a massive reduction (to 10 bullets per pound).

I actually ran some numbers a long while ago based on real-world data, and came to the conclusion that the relative range difference between a sling and a long bow is actually quite correct, even once you adjust for using sling ammo with a weight of 1/10 lb.

[holywhippet]

There is an explanation, but I can never remember what it is. :smallredface:


According to this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2h9d4?Why-do-druids-use-scimitars Gygax wanted a weapon that the druid could use which would be as close to a sickle (which druids use for harvesting plants) as possible. Since both are curved weapons he picked the scimitar. I can't recall if a sickle was in earlier versions of D&D (it is in 3.5). I do recall my first D&D experience being the old gold box game Pool of Radiance on the PC. I recall going into a weapon store and finding pretty much every pre-gunpowder weapon ever invented in Europe being on sale with no indication of what the difference was.