Weapon Proficiencies

[Tailz Silver Paws]

There seems to be two camps within the role-playing community when it comes to how to handle Weapon Proficiencies.

The first camp follows a simplified system – and this is the current system used in d20. With a wide range of weapons grouped into board categories, having just one proficiency makes a character proficient in a number of different weapons.

Simple Weapon Proficiency
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Martial Weapon Proficiency

The core proficiency gives the character the understanding of how to use the group of weapons, but then taking feats such as Weapon Focus means the character has specialised or learned a better understanding of how one particular type of weapon works.

The other camp views the current system as being over simplified and prefer to use a system that groups weapons together by type and fighting style. Eg:

Bows
Crossbows
Pole Arms
Swords
Daggers/knifes
Pistol
Rifle
Etc…

Weapon Focus and the other feats such as it then function to show a characters greater level of understanding and training in how to fight with or the style of fighting of one type of weapon from the group.

Although the second method gives a character a narrow field of weapons to use, it better reflects the weapons themselves. Eg: In the simplified system by having the Simple Weapons Proficiency a character understands the fighting styles of the Dagger, Mace, Sickle, Club, Morning star, Spear, Quarterstaff, Crossbow, and sling. All of which have different styles of use to be effective as lethal weapons.

So where do you stand? Simple or Specialised?

[LordTomar]

My group uses the simple weapon profs... but if i had a choice I would like to use more specialized, though i would specialize it a little more then you suggested... like instead of swords, I would split that into slashing and thrusting swords... maybe even split it between 1 hand and 2 hand also.

But this is me just making things more complicated then they need to be.

[richvalle]

With Load Tomar. We use simple now (and that is how I voted) but I'll use specialized with the next campaign.

rv

[kalmarjan]

I see where you are going here. Just keep in mind that this was the way of 2nd edition. There is no problem with this if you do not mind that at high levels you will be limited in some options with feats if you want to take more than one "group."

Some of the monsters at the higher CR ratings take into account the feat trees that the characters are "supposed" to have.

While this would not really affect the fighter, who will have 19-20 feats by 20th level, the other classes will be severely hampered.

Just my .02 CP

Sandeman

[Tailz Silver Paws]

The current system is just too simple for me.

I’ve had a “work in progress” for quite a while, milling over how to do the weapon Proficiency. I think the current system is far too simplified, but I don’t want to get too complex. Here is my current rough draft for my World War II rules:

Weapon Proficiency (group)
The character is adept at the use of various silimalar forms of weapons. This feat may be selected multiple times with each selection being for a new group of weapons.
Weapon Groups: All weapons are broken down into weapon groups, these groups represent weapons with a similar function or style of use. Eg: the Foil group encompases swords that use a thrusting style of attack, while the Blade group encompases swords that use a slashing style of attack.

• Simple - This group includes: knives, daggers (includes thrown daggers), and club style weapons such as a baseball bat, mace, or hammer.
• Cannon - This group includes: anti-tank guns, field artillery.
• MG - This group includes all light to heavy machine guns such as the BREN Gun or MG42. Cross over group: Rifle.
• Pistol - This group includes all forms of pistols and hand guns. Cross over group: Rifle, SMG.
• Projector - This group includes all forms of weapons that project a small bomb such as the PIAT or grenade launchers.
• Rifle - This group includes all forms of rifles. cross over group: MG, SMG, Pistol.
• Rocket - This group includes all hand held weapons that launch a rocket.
• SMG - This group includes all assault class firearms such as sub-machine guns. cross over group: Rifle, Pistol.
• Sword - This group includes all forms of swords.
• Staff - This group includes all staff based weapons, includeing the spear.
• Chain - This group includes all forms of weapon that use a chian, includeing numchucks.
• Bow - This group includes all forms of weapon based of the bow, includeing the cross-bow.
• Axe - This group includes all forms of axes both hand weilded and thrown.
• Thrown - This group includes all specialised thrown weapons such as throwing spikes and shirikin.
• Mortar - This group includes both light and heavy military mortars.
• Missile - This group includes all heavy Second World War rocket weapons.

Benefit: The character makes attack rolls with weapons from the group normally.
Normal: A character without this feat takes the –4 nonproficient penalty when making attacks with weapons from a group he or she is not proficient in. Attacks from a cross over group are at -2 instead of -4 because of the similar style of use.
Special: Weapons that require technical training rather than skill of use do not require a Weapon Proficiency, instead these weapons use certain skills such as the Artillery skill. Without the relevant skill the weapon can not be used.

[Craw]

The current "simple" system is as highly specialized as any of the other systems mentioned. How many fighters don't take weapon focus and weapon spec. in a single weapon? Frankly, given the generic nature of weapons in 3.5e (of which I am a fan as a DM) higher penalties for non-proficiency don't make a lot of sense. "Simple weapons" are really low-damage weapons. "Martial weapons" are higher damage weapons. "Exotic weapons" either give a slight damage bonus, or special attack options. In the current mechanism, is there really that much difference between a longsword and a battle axe? And I realise that may specifically be why some want a more detailed proficiency system. If so, they should address the differences in weapons in conjunction with the proficiency system. Weapon speed, reach, armor type, etc. are all candidates for increased complexity. Of course, the increased complexity is exactly what the current system is set up to avoid. As an already harried DM, I avoid increased complexity like the plague. But others may not have such a problem.

[Tailz Silver Paws]

The current "simple" system is as highly specialized as any of the other systems mentioned. How many fighters don't take weapon focus and weapon spec. in a single weapon? Frankly, given the generic nature of weapons in 3.5e (of which I am a fan as a DM) higher penalties for non-proficiency don't make a lot of sense. "Simple weapons" are really low-damage weapons. "Martial weapons" are higher damage weapons. "Exotic weapons" either give a slight damage bonus, or special attack options. In the current mechanism, is there really that much difference between a longsword and a battle axe? And I realise that may specifically be why some want a more detailed proficiency system. If so, they should address the differences in weapons in conjunction with the proficiency system. Weapon speed, reach, armor type, etc. are all candidates for increased complexity. Of course, the increased complexity is exactly what the current system is set up to avoid. As an already harried DM, I avoid increased complexity like the plague. But others may not have such a problem.

I can understand the desire for simplicity from a stand point of not wanting to get bogged down in rules, but I find the current system of handling weapons proficiencies a little too simple.

I agree that to add in the nuisances of each weapon would just bog down the system, but from experience with my own martial arts training I know that various weapons, although similar, have very different fighting styles.

For example would you say that the fighting styles of the Dagger and the Mace are the same? Both are listed as simple weapons, but a user of either can easily tell you that a dagger is used for short stabbing jabs to puncture flesh, while a Mace is used with a swinging motion to use the weight in the head of the mace to smash an opponent.

The same can be said of modern weapons – take the rifle and the sub-machine gun. At first glance and to the novice user they both are just point and shoot weapons. But the rifle is a weapon effective at range with aimed shots from the shoulder; the sub-machine gun is a short-range weapon effective with bursts from the hip.

For me the current system is too simple, but at the same time I would not like to make it too complex.

Can there not be balance?

[kalmarjan]

For example would you say that the fighting styles of the Dagger and the Mace are the same? Both are listed as simple weapons, but a user of either can easily tell you that a dagger is used for short stabbing jabs to puncture flesh, while a Mace is used with a swinging motion to use the weight in the head of the mace to smash an opponent.

The same can be said of modern weapons – take the rifle and the sub-machine gun. At first glance and to the novice user they both are just point and shoot weapons. But the rifle is a weapon effective at range with aimed shots from the shoulder; the sub-machine gun is a short-range weapon effective with bursts from the hip.

I see exactly what you are saying. 2E tried to rectify this, and failed. 3E took it one step further, and introduced Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization trees.

They fighting styles are indeed different, but as a fighter, you would be trained in all of the melee weapons, just enough not to cut yourself with the sharp end. (Basic training as you would.)

Later, if you decided that you would like to "focus" on the dagger style, then you get the bonus of +1 to attack, representing the effort that you have placed into learning that weapon. Then you could "specialize" with it and learn to deal out some greater damage. You could even improve both your specialization and focus with "Greater Focus" etc.

While I do not disagree with your WIP, one cautionary note: In 2E, if you ever tried to use a weapon that you were not proficient in, you were screwed. TSR tried to alliviate this with the "complete" series, adding in proficiencies in weapon groups.

Another thing that people do not really talk about. For us old timers that remember how AD&D was to play, and how AD&D 2E was to play, the rules were pretty complex, and open to a lot of interpretation. I remember when WOTC bought out TSR, I said to my best friend, "How long until you see D&D look exactly like magic?"

Now, with the simplified systems, and the styles of writing, that is exactly what D&D is today. MTG. Simple rules, "simple" combat, and the game has multiple revisions, errata, (even banned effects... polymorph anyone?) Today it is all about how you build your character up to the 20th level. It resembles a MTG deck. (We have Feat Trees, Spell Chains, "Stacking" - That one was invented by WOTC.)

And I beleive the game is better because of it.

Think about it for a minute; when you read a feat, do you not feel like you are reading an enchantment card? Or an Effect? Notice that the style of writing is "you" instead of "your character".

With 2E, the rules were bloated and complex. 3E succeeded (Even with a revision, mind you!) because the rules were streamlined. Now you don't need to worry that you took the Dagger Group and all you have on hand is a Longsword, so you now get -4 to attack.

Those are my thoughts, not yours,

Jason Sandeman

[Tailz Silver Paws]

I agree with kalmarjan, and I undershand where D&D has come from and where it went with WOTC - and I think the new direction has been healthy for th game.

The aproach I have taken has been to split of the broad groupings from the three core groups into weapons of similar fighting styles. To me thats not too complex and still retains some flexability.

Instead of these being: Simple, Exotic, and Martial Weapon Proficiency. There are just more groups.

The only point I get complexitiy is with cross over groupings. eg: If you have trained with a pistol, you can use all pistols without any mods. But pick up a rifle and you get only -2 instead of -4. Simply because a rifle is kinda used like a pistol, but slightly different. But pick up a sword, and its -4 as a sword and pistol are totaly different.

Everything else works the same.

[Ged]

I think that ICE's HARP has a rather good system for handling "weapon proficiencies", although there still remains some complexity that could be streamlined.

• Weapons are classified into several classes (such as 1-handed edged, 1-handed concussion, and thrown),
• which are subdivided into weapon groups (e.g. for 1-handed there are 4 groups including long blades and axes)
• and further a default weapon is selected from the group. In summary, on might have skill for long sword, without the need to worry about groups and classes.

However, having the long sword weapon skill gives a bonus for using all 1-handed edged weapons and better bonus to all other long blades. The default weapon of a group can be changed by training for a week (for instance, from long sword to falchion).

Using the conversion mechanisms between Rolemaster and D&D 2nd edition (or just common sense), the rule could be quite easily adapted to d20.

(ICE offers the HARP lite (98 pages pdf of core rules) freely on their web site.)