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! :)