Weapon Proficiency

[rgrove0172]

Ive only begun to become somewhat comfortable with the d20 rules so Ive hesitated to tinker too much with the core rules system, saving most of my comments on this forum for matters of roleplaying style, GMing etc.

After 6 months of regular play however Im having trouble accepting one element of the rules. - Weapon proficiency.

In short, I dont think the rules as written make any real sense at all.

Separating weapon familiarization and skill in the way outlined in the rules seems absract to the extreme and Im still searching for the basis behind it.

A character can be proficient with a Yuetshi Knife but be completely unfamilar when handling a Poignard?

A guy can have wielded a hatchet all his life but have trouble with an axe?

A scimitar wielding warrior cant pick up a Saber and use it effectively?

Everyone, including a sheltered scholar, has automatic proficiency in archery and can throw a javeling effectively?

Everyone is born with innate training in the use of a sling and throwing a knife?

I get the idea that the designers sought to destinguish the various categories by the amount of training needed to use the weapons therein but lumping them all together is rediculous, at least in my opinion.

Im considering dropping the whole (simple, martial, exotic) distinction and breaking weapons down into more logical categories.

Knives
Light Blades
Heavy Blades
Axes
Clubs & Maces
Spears
Polearms
Bows
Crossbows

etc.

Adding in proficiency in alternate uses such as "Throwing weapons" and "Two Handed Use" and the like.

Then allowing beginning characters a choice of 3 or 4 or so, based on class, and permitting additional picks when they level up. (And have reflected the necessary exposure and training in the game)

Some of my players as an example -

Aesir Barbarian - Knives, Axes, Heavy Swords, Two-Handed - added Throwing Weapons at 3rd level.

Aquilonian Noble - Knives, Light Swords, Lances - added Bows at 2nd Level.

What do you guys think. Am I missing something in the interpretation of the original rules or is there room for something like this?

I also just considered separating the various types of weapons within each listed proficiency category, so as to use as much of the original rule as possible.

 

[urdinaran]

You're not the only one that feels the same way. I too have a bit of a problem with the way weapon proficiency works in D20. Especially since in Conan RPG the PCs shouldn't get too confortable with a weapon of choice, as they may wake up without it one day.

The only major problem with what you are suggesting is the racial bows. By taking this away, you take away some of the advantage of being a particular race.

 

[rgrove0172]

Well after looking at it further Im now leaning toward keeping the existing rules but classifying each weapon in a further category. (Blades, Axes, Mauls, Poles, Bows etc.) When a character is given a certain proficiency by class, they must also pick which of the types they are proficient in. (3 for most classes, 2 for thieves and nobles, 1 for scholars) When taking a further proficiency as a Feat, they choose a type rather than a specific weapon, in the given proficiency category. (Simple, Martial or Exotic.) Throwing a weapon or using it two handed (when its one handed) are additional proficiencies that must be chosen.

So, for an example - I create an Aesir barbarian. He is considered proficient in all Simple and Martial weapons. So He must pick 3 types of weapon in each to begin. He chooses Simple Blades (for daggers and the like) Simple Poleweapons (to allow him the use of a spear) and Thrown Spear. For his martial picks he chooses Martial Blades (So he can use his trusty broadsword), Two Handed Blade Use (So he can Power Attack with it) and Martial Axes (for his back up battle axe.) When he levels he could decide to take an additional Simple Type (Maybe Bows) to show a proficiency in archery.

Sounds complicated but essentially its just allowing groups of similar weapons to be picked instead of singular ones and forces this distinction during character creation so you dont get every weapon on teh list automatically.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Nah. Not worth the bother.
The Mongooses did screw up some of the weapon classifications though, actually the original SRD makes more sense in those cases.
For example, a bow should be a martial weapon and a crossbow a simple weapon. The question whether a weapon is simple or martial depends on the complexity of usage, not complexity of construction.
A crossbow is point and shoot. A bow requires a proper technique if you want to hit anything.

You can compare the complexity of all weapons in the same way to determine whether it should be Simple or Martial. Also, keep in mind that anyone can wield a weapon they are not proficient with at a -4 penalty. Which would be the case for most people whirling a sword around, for example.

Other RPGs do have weapon groups like you suggested, but in practice it always comes down to the same, players pick the weapon groups one by one, starting with the most effective, and then filling up the gaps over the levels with spare points or how ever the respective system may work. The d20 system makes a short cut and lets all fighter-types be proficient with all weapons (except Exotic) from the start, saves the trouble.

You can shift the weapon classes around a bit if you think that hatchets are used the same way as axes, but keep in mind that from a mechanical point of view, the weapon classes are used to determine their effectiveness -- martial weapons are always better than simple weapons, i.e. do more damage and/or have better crits etc.

 

[rgrove0172]

I heae you and would like to agree, Id really would rather not clutter up the rules as they are. Its bothersome though to have a brand new scholar show up knowing how to use a sling, throw a javelin, knife fight, use a hatchet and shoot a bow etc. Equally bothersome to have even a new borderer or nomad appear as a weapon's master from the start. Even Conan learned his archery later when in the service of Turan, he couldnt have hit anything with a bow when he was thieving in Shadizar earlier in his career. It took time for him to learn these individual weapon skills. I seem to recall him even balking a bit when confronted with his first curved blade, learning the spear while traveling with Belit etc. In the RPG, most characters start with it all. Got to be a way to tone that down some.

 

[argo]

In short, I dont think the rules as written make any real sense at all.

Separating weapon familiarization and skill in the way outlined in the rules seems absract to the extreme and Im still searching for the basis behind it.

Like most parts of the d20 system that "dont make any real sense at all" the reason for the rule is to promote a faster and (presumably) more fun gameplay.

A first level soldier can take his pick from 2/3 of the weapons in the equipment chapter and jump right into the fight. Zero brainpower required. Even more important is the fact that he will very rarely encounter a situation where he is not proficient with the weapon he finds. Thus his player does not have to experience frustration over not being able to use the loot he found in the adventure.

The broad categories also help to reinforce cahracter sterotypes. The Scholar's simple weapon proficiency is universally inferior to the Soldier's martial weapon proficiency. If for some unknown reason a scholar ever wanted to fight a soldier in melee he faces the unhappy choice of using a lower damage die weapon, or taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty; either way a handicap. The system reinforces the idea the scholars shouldn't fight in melee. Likewise, the character who has an Exotic Weapon proficiency will really "stand out from the crowd" for having a unique character accessory (the "Cloud Strife syndrome").


Now, if you and your group are the sort of people who get off on keeping track of such minute character details as who is proficient with a dagger but not a club... then go for it! The basic outline for your house-rule seems solid enough. Mechanically it should not have a major effect on the rest of the d20 system. It is mostly a campaign-specific issue of what to do with a character who has axe proficiency in the land of swords. And of course the Meta-game issue of weither or not the return (on fun) of such a system is worth the investment (in labor) of keeping track of it.

The d20 designers decided that most people did not enjoy such details. And they wrote the game for what they percieved to be the majority. YMMV

Oh, one aside, your system would make the Barbarians' Versatility ability even more powerful than it already is (and it is already prety good). Something to think about.

Hope that helps.