I suggest looking at how kirthfinder handled proficiency.
I handle weapon profs as basically being equal to skill points.
1/2 bab classes get prof in a number of simple weapons equal to their base skill points (generally 2).
3/4 classes get prof in all simples and a number of weapons from their class list equal to their starting base skill points.
Full BAB classes get access to all simples and any martial weapons equal to starting skill points + Int bonus.
Fighters and Paladins start with all simple and martial weapon profs, one from training with weapons, one as part of their divine gifts for being in their class.
Monk/rogue/Martial/Exotic, etc weapon proficiencies do NOT gain you proficiency in any weapons. They give you the right to purchase additional weapon profs with skill points.
Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple are considered martial weapon profs, and do not require a feat each to learn.
Shield Bashing is a martial weapon prof, not part of shield proficiency.
NO class gives out weapon or armor proficencies unless taken at character level 1. They are considered part of the founding training for the class. Multiclassing into them requires skill points to be spent to gain any weapon profs you want. Furthermore, they must be on the list of the class you are using the skill points from. You don't learn arcane spells for free when taking divine levels, you don't get weapon profs easy if you take just one level in Barbarian.
==Aelryinth
Dependent on what?
and how do these proficencies make them non-dependent?
And remember that past level 6, 'realistic' goes out the window and gives way to 'heroic' and 'awesome'.
==Aelryinth
I'm thinking a similar overhaul of the system, not by changing the fighter class too much (just the capstones, which I really don't like), but rather by changing some combat rules, the whole weapon list's properties, and a whole lot of feats (especially combat ones).
For example, I can't just understand why the fighter has weapon groups, but weapon proficiencies and fighter specific feats are not based on those weapon groups (like the whole specialization tree, which focuses on just ONE SINGLE WEAPON and gives really lame bonuses).
By using something similar to the old weapon groups proficiencies from AD&D 2nd Edition (a very bad version of which appeared in 3.5 supplement Unearthed Arcana), I could give an edge to the fighter similar to that of the rogue with skill points or the barbarian with his hit die: poor BAB classes would have proficiency in 2 weapon groups, medium BAB classes in 4 weapon groups (with some exceptions, such as clerics), good BAB classes in 6 groups, and the fighter in 8 groups. Also, there would be no "exotic" weapons, just more groups of weapons and more weapons in existing groups. In this system, shields are weapons, not armor, and they form their own group (also, with some changes to their use).
Having weapon groups for everyone, we could introduce some changes, such as:
Weapon Familiarity: every humanoid is familiar with some basic groups of weapons (maces, close, knives), which means that they get only a -2 penalty when using them without proficiency. Good BAB classes are familiar with all weapon groups (this includes Unchained monks).
All feats that apply their benefits to one specific weapon do so with all the weapons in a specific group.
Fighter-specific, weapon-based feats should have as prerequisite a certain level of the Weapon Training class feature instead of just some other feat or a class level, which far too many other classes can duplicate. These kind of feats would basically do what the opener is trying to do with his homerule, just with normal combat feats instead of a new point-based mechanic, and for a whole group of weapons at once (allowing some flexibility).
Obviously, such a reworking would utterly eliminate the need for garbage such as the Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization tree.
Weapon Groups is dumb in and of itself.
What is important is the weapons the fighter USES.
Every other class gets their bonuses with all weapons. The fighter does not.
So, the fighter's bonuses should apply towards all his favorite weapons. Weapon groups is, in the end, unnecessary. If the fighter's favorite weapons are crossbow, sword, shield and spear, those are the weapons he should get his bonuses with.
So, I did Primary weapon group...which is the weapons the fighter uses. i.e. he makes his own weapon group.
Secondary weapon groups are just other weapon groups he's interested in, in case of emergency. Reasonably, his primary weapon group should satisfy everything.
Weapon Focus is still one weapon, and is meant to convey that 'best archer in the land' feeling. He really is a master of one weapon. Of course, it was simplified to auto scale and so cost only one feat...and apply as early as level 1!
As for weapon spec...it's meant to convey the flavor of 'best swordsman in the land', i.e. he really is the best with that particular weapon.
as for giving out weapon groups...I went even more severe then you did.
1/2 BAB classes get prof in a number of simple weapons equal to their starting skill points...usually 2. they can buy more simple weapons with skill points.
3/4 BAB classes get simple weapon prof and prof in a number of weapons in those permitted to their class equal to their starting skill points, and can buy more from that group with skill points.
Full BAB classes get all simple weapons and can buy prof in a number of martial weapons equal to their starting skill points, and buy prof in more weapons with skill points.
Fighters and Paladins start with prof in all martial weapons.
Exotic Weapon Prof lets you spend skill points to be proficient in exotic weapons.
==Aelryinth
Other classes have bonuses with all the weapons they can use, sure, but at the moment they can use only some kind of weapons (monks, druids) or get their bonuses only in some circumstances (barbarians, paladins, rangers, etc.)
The fighter gets his bonuses when he uses some specific selection of the weapons he can use, so he's kind in the middle, but he's not less efficient than the others: he needs no particular circumstances except for using a selection of weapons, still wider than most of the limited weapons classes.
Also, it's easy to make weapon groups and weapons used to coincide: just limit the use of class bonuses to weapons you are proficient with (and maybe in some cases also to those you are familiar with). For example, a rogue can sneak attack only with weapons from the groups he learned to use, but there could be a talent allowing him to use also weapons he's only familiar with (and another to extend that to improvised and unknown weapons too).
I would really not have characters waste their few and precious skill points in single weapon proficiencies. Skills are far more useful for those. But I also don't want to waste a feat just to get a single weapon proficiency, as in the current rules. Weapon groups solve this problem too: instead of just one, you learn a whole bunch of similar weapons.
Besides, groups are not that dumb: similar weapons are used in similar ways, so what's really dumb is forcing a character to learn each weapon separately, even if they are basically the same thing (for example, long spear, spetum, partisan, and korseke or axes, hammers, and picks).
And introducing weapon groups is but one of the changes I'm thinking of: I'm also reworking two-weapons combat, critical threat and multiplier, armors, shields and reach, introducing weapon encumbrance, etc. This also means changing a whole lot of feats, especially those underperforming relics from 3.5 or those too heavy on prerequisite for the benefit they give (weapon specialization and combat maneuver feats in primis), and rewriting most of the weapons in the game (easier than it seems).
Not entirely true.
Ask any swordsman, there's a difference between using scimitars, longswords, sabers, broadswords and so forth...differences in weight, length and balance all make a difference.
For axes, maces and picks, this is even more magnified by the damage type. A slashing weapon still goes for weakpoints, where you ply a blunt weapon against joints and bones, ignoring the armor, and picks you just try to hit something square so the point goes, while trying not to lose the unwieldy thing during the fight. In other words, the 'motions' might be the same, but the 'style' is very, very different.
So, only very close weapons are like that, and that would be PROFICIENCY, not 'Mastery'. Mastery implies a lot of use and a lot of practice with particular weapons. It's hard to differentiate between proficiency, BAB and Mastery, but there should be rigid differences in between.
My take is that 'weapon groups' should allow you to wield anything in that group without a penalty...and is essentially useless for a fighter, who is THE master of weapons, and can basically use them ALL without penalty. A Weapon Group is something a non-fighter would blow a feat on so he doesn't have to spend his skill points being proficient in a bunch of weapons.
A fighter's primary aim should be being a master of those weapons he uses most, end stop, and then be almost as good with some other weapons he might have cause to use occasionally, and possibly be really, really good with the one weapon that defines him the most.
==Aelryinth
And that's exactly why weapon groups proficiency is a better system: instead of learning ONE weapon, you learn a whole bunch of similar weapons, be it for basic proficiency or for advanced mastery.
The fighter would simply start with more groups known than any other class, much like the rogue starts with more skill points per level than anyone else or the barbarian has a bigger hit die than anyone else.
And fighters also get weapon trainings on top of that (and I'm even developing weapon mastery feats which require some degree of fighter training in a specific group of weapons).
As per the technical part, many weapons are more similar than you may think. For example, all picks are are in facts axes, just with extremely thin blades, while hammers are hybrids between axes and maces, but used with the same techniques as axes (you have to maintain alignment of the weapon to hit efficiently, unlike with maces). Also, swordmanship differentiates basically between swords (mainly chopping or thrusting motions) and sabres (almost exclusively slicing motions).
You can wield any axe or hammer with exactly the same moves and stances, as you can any sword or any sabre. It doesn't matter where you aim, but HOW you aim.
Weight is usually not that meaningful too: a rapier weights just as much as an arming sword or a sabre or scimitar, and two handed weapons are also mostly all around the same weight. The reason is simple: there is a soft spot between nimbleness and effectiveness for a weapon's weight, to not become too slow or tiring, while at the same time hitting with the right amount of mass.
Style is something better left for additional feats, instead. You can learn to use a weapon efficiently because it's similar to other weapons you already know, but learning some advanced martial art which uses that weapon in specific ways is a different thing.
For example, a katana is basically a short two-handed sabre and can be used as such by whoever is sufficiently competent with sabres, but using it with kenjutsu or some other advanced katana-specific styles is completely another matter.
kenjitsu is a sword fighting style, typically used with a katana. It can be used with any curved blade. And there's tons of minor variations within 'kenjitsu'. I mean, the quick draw technique of katanas is considered an art all its own.
Rapiers are fairly heavy, it's true, but the center of gravity is basically at the hand. Move that center of gravity down the blade, and how you wield it changes drastically because it becomes much less responsive. Likewise, lighter weapons won't have near the penetration power.
While you can call anything a modified anything, picks are not wielded like axes. Picks have an incredibly narrow threat zone, with devastating power in that zone. They are also incredibly unwieldy and hard to handle compared to other weapons because of weight, center of balance being at the end of the weapon, and the facing problem that renders their close-in flexibility basically null. No army ever used picks as anything but a finishing weapon because they are such poor weapons (in comparison to any other weapon but fists).
Thus, learning to use a pick means learning a specific style of how to use that weapon effectively.
Kenjitsu is nothing more then learning how to wield a curved blade effectively...it's proficiency.
Your point that a katana can be wielded like another sword effectively means that the katana should not be its own weapon...it should just be another sword (and since katana literally means 'sword'...) and all these bizarre subdivisions of weapons we have should be just done away with. A katana is effectively wielded almost exactly like a bastard sword, with more focus on slicing and less on hacking. For gaming purposes, the minor differences in style don't really mean anything.
Mastery is a function of class, not weapon. If you're a master of the sword, that means you are really good at using swords, not necessarily at kenjitsu. Style is immaterial at this level...you can just use that weapon really, really well.
BUT! Your system, use as you believe. I don't use weapon groups much because I believe Mastery is about the weapons a fighter wields, not how closely related they are, so weapon groups are strictly a secondary grouping of convenience. I consider weapon groups a thing to be used for proficiency, not mastery, thereby.
==Aelryinth
Fair enough, each one has his or her own ideas. We are just here to propose and discuss them.
But one point about picks: they were not that heavy at all. They were just as heavy as axes and hammers. Same weight, different shapes, wielded much the same way and with center of mass in practically the same spot. And they were all really short (a bit longer the cavalry types), with really small heads and thin blades (wood-chopping axes are far more heavy and have much thicker and bigger blades), as opposed to what is shown in media and games. There was no need for superbig heads or giant blades to carve through a human skull or smash in a face.
Also, the transition between axe and pick is fairly smooth: there are axes with wide blades, axes with narrow blades, and picks with basically no blades and just a piercing point. The only difference is merely how much edge the blade has.
And if you make your blade lighter and attach a hammer head or another different blade on the other side, you get a warhammer (hammer + pick), battleaxe (axe + pick) or waradze (or whatever you call a weapon with a hammer opposed to an axe blade).
IMC, Weapon Focus and Specialisation apply to weapon groups, not single weapons. It's a minor difference but it helps a bit (especially for TWF types and when you find a +3 wrongsword).