Weapon Proficiencies

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

The way weapon proficiencies were (mis) treated in the 3rd edition game was one of the primary drawbacks I found when it first came out. The classification of weapons seemed wrong to me. Since then I've been developing a skill based weapon proficiency system that works with weapon groups. The skill in a particular weapon group dictates some of the combat proficiencies you can take regarding a certain weapon (such as weapon focus). I've also been trying to reimplement the mastery system in a balanced way that has a similar feel to the old method. The use of specific technique feats (such as cleave) I do believe is a good idea. I've also toyed with the idea of a feat based style system based loosely on the old oriental adventures system (each with its own special techniques as well) for both weapon and unarmed combat styles (such as Aikido or French Fencing Style).

What do you guys think about this direction? I've done this mostly because my group is reluctant to enter 3E. This system is based on the same skill points that are normally earned, though I have altered the amount of skill points each class gains from levels.

[Lord Eldred]

We have been playing with the 3e system for awhile now and I like what they did with the feats. Going to a point system like the skill points, I would view as a major drawback because it is just more maintenance stuff that slows down the game!

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

Personally, I don't believe that just because you know how to effectively use a hatchet, then you can also use a staff effectively. I do believe that the ability to use an object lends itself to the use of similar objects, such as a long sword and broad sword.

This system isn't designed to dramatically change the combat system. The idea of a base attack bonus would still be present. The use of the skill points themselves would mostly be confined to out of game book-keeping. The skill points would mostly govern access to combat feats (as inherent requirements). Weapons skill points could also be used to determine opposed rolls for specific combat techniques such as disarms, parries, etc. Considering that these manuevers are dramatically less common than the base attack roll (and the skills would be displayed on the character sheet), I do not believe they would add significant complexity to the combat system.

I understand that the game was designed to remove much of the complication that began to clutter the second edition in the form of optional rules and whatnot. I'm personally for more streamlining of the game (and I rather enjoy the combat system). This system is intended to keep a little bit more of the positive aspects of the old system, still clung to by many players.

[Dosiere]

When I first thumbed through the 3rd Ed. PH, the lack of Weapon Proficiencies stuck out to my horrified eyes. Where had they gone? And why were they missing? It is a step back to first edition that really made no snese to me, or any in my gaming group.

To alleviate this, we simple carried the second edition system of weapon proficiencies forward into 3rd edition. Simple, elegant and slightly modified.

I feel that every adventurer should not be knowledgable in all weapons. Use a sword, the ngo try to use a staff, now go fire a bow, now throw a dart...each one is completly different, and the ability to defend yourself from an attack with the melee weapons are completly different.

Granted, the ability to use a long sword should grant the ability to use a similar weapon (remember the tight group specialization of the Complete Fighters Manual?) Makes a lot of sense, and knowing how to use a long bow would give the ability to use a short bow, but not a sling.

It should be a simple "yes" or "no" as to whether you know how to use the weapon. Penalties if you don't and a 0-mod if you do. No need to add skill levels, for that would just be one more number to track. Let the ability with the weapon be dictated by character class and level.

Weapon proficiencies could be grouped as follows:

Daggers and Small Blades
** Dagger
** Punching Dagger
** Spiked Gauntlet
** Dart
** Shuriken
** Kukri
Maces and Clubs
** Mace, Light or Heavy
** Morningstar
** Club
** Light Hammer
** Great Club
Staves
** Quarterstaff
** Trident
** Scythe
Flails
** Dire Flail
** Flail, Heavy or Light
** Nunchaku
** Halfling Nunchaku
Axes and Hammers
** Sap
** Hand/Throwing Axe
** Battle Axe
** Great Axe
** War Hammer
** Pick, Heavy or Light
** Dwarven Urgrosh
** Dwarven War Axe
Bows
** Short Bow
** Short Bow, composite
** Long Bow
** Long Bow, composite
Crossbows
** Hand Crossbow
** Crossbow, Heavy or Light
** Repeating Crossbow
Short Blades
** Short Sword
** Scimitar
** Halfling Kama
** Kama
Medium Blades
** Long Sword
** Rapier
Long Blades
** Falchion
** Greatsword
** Bastard Sword
Polearms
** Glaive
** Guisarme
** Halberd
** Long Spear
** Ranseur
Spears
** Half Spear
** Javelin
** Short Spear
Lance
Net
Sling
Whip
Double Weapons

The last four are so difficult to learn that they would be learned each as a seperate skill, and each double weapon would require its own skill.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

That's nearly the same system that I already have developed. I've just integrated the skill system into that system to give it a warm and fuzzy 3E feel.

[Lord Eldred]

I just don't like the idea of a point system. You could adapt the groupings Dosiere is talking about into different feats. Thus you get what you both want and not have a complicated point sysytem!

[dmferry]

Why make things difficult when they are so easy?

thats why they made windows XP ;)

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

I think feats should not have to be wasted on what can be defined as skills. Its not a difficult point system, it seems fairly rudimentary to me, to be honest. It works in a manner that isn't very obtrusive to normal combat. I personally believe that feats should be special, not merely a substitute for skills that people are too lazy to apply the point system to (ala Tracking).

[Eric McLuen]

If you want to reference a good skill based system, I would recommend RMSS (RMFRP is a watered down version and not worth it). It may seem very complicated at first but it does get easier when you use the system for a while. I have to admit it does never get simple but it does give you the ability to get a very fleshed out character that you just can't get in any of the other systems I've played. In 3Ed I find being a fighter and therefore proficient in everything right out of the box is a little oversimplified and somewhat disappointing. However, D&D and its many incartaions haves never been big on character detail. Its strength is in the massive amount of source material available for use and modification.

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

I think feats should not have to be wasted on what can be defined as skills. Its not a difficult point system, it seems fairly rudimentary to me, to be honest. It works in a manner that isn't very obtrusive to normal combat. I personally believe that feats should be special, not merely a substitute for skills that people are too lazy to apply the point system to (ala Tracking).

I guess I am too dumb to get this easy system then! :)

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

I haven't posted my system, its not finished, but its also not at this point much more difficult. It works (so far) similar to a combination between Shadowrun (without all the dice) and d20. Its based on d20, and the only things changed (besides the elimination of proficiency feats) are amount of skill points acquired per level (to account for weapon skills) and the way certain combat maneuvers are performed (any that require an opposed rolls, in particular, disarms). I wouldn't present an incomplete system as finished. I apologize if I've confused anyone with this thread (or post). My intentions are purely for good.

[Rcook12a]

Obviously you should use whatever kind of system you and your players want to use, but I have to agree with Lord Eldrad on this one. I was overjoyed when they got rid of weapon proficiencies in fact I'd get rid of skills all together (if it wasn't for thieves and Rogues) and just let PCs role everything using their abilitiy scores.
In the case of weapons in 3d edition I think that feats seperate styles of combat very well. You can focus with weapons you want to be better with (significant at low levels) you can specialize (great at all levels) and there are numerous feats to do many other things. If you want to be a bounty hunter learn all the weapon breaking and disarm feats, etc.
Perhaps you system will be different but in the earlier versions of D&D after a number of levels a fighter was proficient with all of the good weapons.
Regards

[Hernan Cortez]

Even if it's not quite ready, I'd be fairly interested to hear how you handle the effect on skill point distribution, especially because fighters and the like would need quite a lot of them... or wouldn't they?
Otherwise I'd agree with you. Since fighters still have their owerwhelming attack bonus, they'd still trash most people in combat even with weapons they're not skilled with...

[Sir Justine]

I agree in some points with Gargamel and Dosiere, in that I don't like how fighters (and others) can use EVERY weapon they find, and I don't think exotic weapons are a good way out of this. I was planing something like Dosiere: create weapon groups, like in 2º edition, that you could buy spending a feat. Not much different from what is now (you can spend a feat to learn a martial weapon, if you don't know already), but instead of saying that fighters know all weapons, they would receive, let's say, four "weapon proficiencies" feats in character generation. Other classes, would receive less, based on what they can use in 3º edition.

[kgauck]

I greatly expanded the exotic weapons list, based on table 7 on p. 17 of the
BR rulebook. So, for example, the rapier is an exotic weapon, except in
Anuire and Brectuer. This significantly reduces the ease with which people
go around picking up strange weapons.

Also consider that with a few feats that are based on a single weapon,
Improved Critical, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, &c,
the difference between the weapon I have selected and a found martial weapon
might be pretty significant. Not to mention the fact that I may have feats
that don`t work well with certain weapons. I may power attack from time to
time with my greatsword. I`m not likely to do that with that light mace I
picked up, or a halfspear. With a dagger, I might actually wish I had
expertise instead.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[usermaatre]

I agree that it seems odd that every fighter can use any simple or martial weapon. They, however, cannot use exotic weapons without taking the feat for every such weapon.

It seems strange that a Scottish Highlander would be as proficient with a Turkish scimitar, and a Spanish rapier as with his trusty claymore.

(It seems equally odd to say that a Mamaluke would be as proficient at wearing full plate as would a Templar.)

However, the 3e rules were not written to restrict choice but to enhance it.

Instead of a point system for proficiencies, I would change the exotic weapons group (and armour and shields) for each culture.

Turks don't use claymores and Highlanders don't use rapiers.

But the rules should be flexible. After all, the PCs are special and they may be the only Turks wielding claymores.

So a Turkish PC would have to spend a feat to be proficient with the claymore.

This expense represents the costs involved in going so far from his or her cultural norm.


Usermaatre "The Power of the Truth of Ra"

[Birthright-L]

Something I`ve been wanting to try is to make "weapon proficiencies" act
like skills in 3e, and do away with the BAB. This is something I`d
wanted to do in 2e, but 3e makes it easier. Instead of BAB, each class
would get a certain number of skill points to be spent on weapon skills.
These characters could also use normal skill points on these, too.

usermaatre wrote:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=187
>
> usermaatre wrote:
>
> I agree that it seems odd that every fighter can use any simple or martial weapon. They, however, cannot use exotic weapons without taking the feat for every such weapon.
>
> It seems strange that a Scottish Highlander would be as proficient with a Turkish scimitar, and a Spanish rapier as with his trusty claymore.
>
> (It seems equally odd to say that a Mamaluke would be as proficient at wearing full plate as would a Templar.)
>
> However, the 3e rules were not written to restrict choice but to enhance it.
>
> Instead of a point system for proficiencies, I would change the exotic weapons group (and armour and shields) for each culture.
>
> Turks don`t use claymores and Highlanders don`t use rapiers.
>
> But the rules should be flexible. After all, the PCs are special and they may be the only Turks wielding claymores.
>
> So a Turkish PC would have to spend a feat to be proficient with the claymore.
>
> This expense represents the costs involved in going so far from his or her cultural norm.
>
>
> Usermaatre "The Power of the Truth of Ra"
>
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.


--
/ Adam Theo, Age 23, Tallahassee FL USA
// Email & Jabber: theo@theoretic.com
// Pager: (850) 709 7738
=//=====
// || Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
|| "Building Ideas by Bringing them Together"
|| Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
|| "The Next Generation Communications Protocol"
|| "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American Buddhist"

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Sir Justine]

Have any of you seen the Lord of the Rings RPG by Decipher? The character sheet is VERY like D20 system, except it has a different hp system and doesn't has BAB, instead there are three skills: armed combat, unarmed combat and ranged combat. Check out at www.decipher.com

[Trithemius]

Adam Theo:
> Something I`ve been wanting to try is to make "weapon
> proficiencies" act like skills in 3e, and do away with the
> BAB. This is something I`d wanted to do in 2e, but 3e makes
> it easier. Instead of BAB, each class would get a certain
> number of skill points to be spent on weapon skills. These
> characters could also use normal skill points on these, too.

Ha! Just play Ars Magica instead! ;)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.