Hey. I was just thinking what need there is to use Weapon Profs at all.
Sure, a sword is handled other than a dagger or a staff,
but then again so is an axe.
But both count as Martial Weapons while the other to as simple ones.
But if we are honest, the are all used to stab or crush one end on the head of you enemy.
Yeah right, fighting with a dagger is completly different to fighting with a greatsword, but is it really worth a feat?
I don't think so.
True20 maid the decision to make all Martial Weapons Proficiency one feat.
Probably quite ok, but I would suggest getting rid of this mechanic completly.
Why can't a mage fight with a sword if he desires it?
His BAB is still worse, so don't bother. Let him use his few feats to actually get BETTER with the sword (like Weapon Focus - no laughing please!) and not use his feats to get basic first.
My POV and my 5 cents. Let the "buh" begin.
|
The reason I don't like the idea is because races, specifically the dwarf and elf, have iconic weapons associated with their race. Axe, hammer, longsword, and bow. If you mess with the proficiency system you make it difficult to make those weapons distinctive for that race.
A dwarf can use an axe regardless of his class and a same goes for an elf with longsword (ok maybe not as a druid.) I REALLY don't want to see dwarves and elves getting weapon focus for free to replace being proficient.
Plus, with the power of Hand of the Apprentice, Wizards running around with whatever weapon they want and being skilled with it is very dangerous.
Well we won't get good on this one I fear.
I think racial weapon profs are somewhat unnecessary.
They are those typical Cultural feats that really depend on the setting.
Imagine wood elves more like hunters. They would use spears and shortbows instead or even axes instead of the usual weapons.
I would make signiture equipment instead of proficiencies.
The Dwarven Axe is already there, make an Elven blade (like a light martial weapon as a longsword, weighting 1 pound less, having both cutting and piercing), and rule that those weapons are mostly/only sold to members of the race.
Well and this new Mage Hand spell (or whatever), maybe the spell is just unnecessary too with this rule?
|
|
The non-prof penalties don't prevent you from using it, just from being really good with it. All soldiers are trained with a knife (mostly for baoynet training but in a lot of countries it's regular training too). Give any of them a longsword or a greatsword they won't be 'just as good' with it as they are with the knife. They still get to add some of their training bonuses to it (IE Base Attack Bonus) but they're certainly rather poor with it.
You did catch that part about Pathfinder being as backwards compatible as possible while ironing out the kinks of 3.X, right? Just asking. :)
You did catch that part about Pathfinder being as backwards compatible as possible while ironing out the kinks of 3.X, right? Just asking. :)
Are you referring to me?
Well I think the Weapon Prof. rules are somewhat too stiff.
I think spending one (precious) feat to get used to only ONE specific weapon is just too hard.
As I said, I would at least rule them into one feat.
So you get "Simple Weapon Proficiency" and "Martial Weapon Proficiency".
Actually I even get the distinction made as is right now.
Why is fighting with a spear (what I think is actually really tough) easier then fighting with a handaxe?
There is also this strange thing of multiclassing into fighter/barb/etc. and character proficiencies "pop" all at once.
Weapon Groups are a better system than the normal Simple, Martial, and Exotic rules, IMO. They also have the benefit of being 1) already developed and 2) OGL material.
How about this: proficiency isn't requried to use the weapon, just to get the full ebenfits of it. get rid to the senselessly primitive -4 and replace it with subtler penalties.
So we have:
Heavy Mace: 1-handed Bludgeoning 1d8
Batleaxe: 1-handed slashing 1d8; Martial: X3 Critical
Bastard Sword: 2-handed slashing 1d10; Martial: 19-20 critical; Exotic: 1-handed
That way, anybody can use any weapon they want, for cosmetic or plotline effect. But, only fighting characters get the full benefit of advanced weaponry, so only they have a strong *incentive* to load up on specialized military gear, while everyone else *may as well* be using clubs and spears no matter what they're actually holding.
How about this: proficiency isn't requried to use the weapon, just to get the full ebenfits of it. get rid to the senselessly primitive -4 and replace it with subtler penalties.
So we have:
Heavy Mace: 1-handed Bludgeoning 1d8
Batleaxe: 1-handed slashing 1d8; Martial: X3 Critical
Bastard Sword: 2-handed slashing 1d10; Martial: 19-20 critical; Exotic: 1-handed
That way, anybody can use any weapon they want, for cosmetic or plotline effect. But, only fighting characters get the full benefit of advanced weaponry, so only they have a strong *incentive* to load up on specialized military gear, while everyone else *may as well* be using clubs and spears no matter what they're actually holding.
I have to problems with that, and both start with "B"
Bloat: Now, weapons take more space than before. Sure, it's not that much more, but there's also the space it takes up in your noggin. I think it would unnecessarily complicate things.
Backwards-Compatibile, is not:
In the end, I'd say it would be too much work for too little gain.
moo?
But I really think that crossbows should not be simple (at least to respan) but that short bow (or hunting bow) should.
(Im also putting str bonus on crossbows - min 14)
I find crossbow quite "simple" to use - aim - pull the trigger.
I believe it is why it became so popular. It did not necessitate the low bow training and had similar result.
But I really think that crossbows should not be simple (at least to respan) but that short bow (or hunting bow) should.
(Im also putting str bonus on crossbows - min 14)
I find crossbow quite "simple" to use - aim - pull the trigger.
I believe it is why it became so popular. It did not necessitate the low bow training and had similar result.
The crossbow's definetly a simple weapon. That was the biggest thing it had going for itself. With those things, a filthy, worthless peasant who can't recite his heritage back 13 generations or anything was able to just go and kill a noble knight who does know his heritage, and is noble, and a better person, and all that.
Or, to put it in words that don't drip of knightly arrogance: A peasant, without big training, was able to kill an armoured knight who trained to be a knight all his life.
The simple point-and-click-interface allowed even untrained users to achieve quite a lot with the thing. It's like the Windows of weapons.
Actually, it would be almost entirely backwards-compatible. Since the critters in published material essentially *only* use weapons they're proficient with, nothing owuld need ot change.
The only thign being changed is the mechanic for nonproficiency penalties. Effectively, instead of clerics and experts having a -4 to hit with martial weapons, they'd just be treated as using the nearest equivalent simple weapon.