I have been reading about the changes in fourth edition and I was wondering if there were any plans to incorperate the new ideas being brought in by fourth edition to the alpha or beta tests.
For example that you don't receive a -4 to attack rolls on weapons your not profecient with. Instead you receive a bonus to your attack rolls with weapons in which your profecient. This looks very similar to the fighters weapon groups. I do have one sleight problem with this idea. If someone uses a weapon like a whip, spiked chain, nunchuku, and etc; they should probably get a minus for using these weapons when they aren't profecient with them.
I mean everyone knows how to use a sword but some are just better than others. Unlike when you pick up a whip for the first time and hurt yourself.
I have been reading about the changes in fourth edition and I was wondering if there were any plans to incorperate the new ideas being brought in by fourth edition to the alpha or beta tests.
For example that you don't receive a -4 to attack rolls on weapons your not profecient with. Instead you receive a bonus to your attack rolls with weapons in which your profecient.
No. If you do things you're no good with, you have to accept penalties. 4e seems to treat us like a bunch of sissies who cries if they're not a perfect sunflower or something, but this is Pathfinder. A game for grownups or those who're grownup enough to accept that you're not great at everything
I mean everyone knows how to use a sword but some are just better than others. Unlike when you pick up a whip for the first time and hurt yourself.
You can hurt yourself with virtually any weapon. Swords are definetly among them. 3e is actually nice about it, only giving you a penalty for using such weapons. Any nicer than that, and I feel we'd have to get rid of races and start with my little pony colours. ;-)
But there are weapons in 3e that everyone, or almost everyone, knows how to use: simple weapons. There's already no penalty for using those, unless you're a monk (and not supposed to use weapons that are inferior with your fists) or wizard (ditto, but replace fists with arcane power)
I really think the 3e way works fine. It's easy. In most cases, it doesn't hurt anyone, since proficiencies aren't that hard to come by. And giving people bonuses for things that used to be the norm will screw up the numbers.
Fixing what isn't broke is the 4e way. In PF, there's backwards compatibility, and 30 years of D&D history, and the people who like 3e. If you change things, you piss people off. If you change things that didn't need changing, you piss more people off. Why? Contrary to popular belief, you don't make money by pissing people off.
|
I have been reading about the changes in fourth edition and I was wondering if there were any plans to incorperate the new ideas being brought in by fourth edition to the alpha or beta tests.
For example that you don't receive a -4 to attack rolls on weapons your not profecient with. Instead you receive a bonus to your attack rolls with weapons in which your profecient. This looks very similar to the fighters weapon groups. I do have one sleight problem with this idea. If someone uses a weapon like a whip, spiked chain, nunchuku, and etc; they should probably get a minus for using these weapons when they aren't profecient with them.
I mean everyone knows how to use a sword but some are just better than others. Unlike when you pick up a whip for the first time and hurt yourself.
Tell that to someone I know who went outside to mess around with a sword and wound up cutting open his palm and requiring 15 stitches (which is hard as heck to live with when it's your primary hand). Anyone can pick up and use a sword, but if they try to use that sword against someone who knows what they are doing it's like going to a gunfight with a nerf gun. a -4 for non proficiency actually makes perfect sense.
That -4 for non proficiency is now silly, except for half elves. Since every human in the game is automatically proficient with one martial weapon, and other races are proficient with any weapon that bears their racial name... Oh and Half orcs are automatically proficient with greatswords and falchions. So, theoretically, you can always use a weapon; even if it's outside your class restrictions.
I personally think it makes sense for no penalties, considering in 4e that you're a bloody hero, and live in in appreciably dangerous world; so that everyone more or less knows how to handle a weapon of some sort. We don't live in a world like that; and for those that do, guns (which would be the setting's equivalent to a sword) is just as simple to use; it's a point and click (and don't talk about safety's, cause if you're smart and have 5 minutes at a shooting range, you'll figure out how to flip that switch).
Either way, as it seems, all characters, and thus NPCs, but half elves can use a decent weapon, regardless of actual class proficiency. I'd still like to rally that Half elves need a weapon proficiency of some sort...
|
That -4 for non proficiency is now silly, except for half elves. Since every human in the game is automatically proficient with one martial weapon, and other races are proficient with any weapon that bears their racial name...
No, they treat any weapon that bears their racial name as a martial weapon. This means that a dwarven fighter doesn't need to take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to be proficient with a dwarven waraxe. A dwarven wizard is not proficient with a dwarven waraxe.
Oh and Half orcs are automatically proficient with greatswords and falchions. So, theoretically, you can always use a weapon; even if it's outside your class restrictions.
You can use a single weapon, not any weapon.
That's what I pointing out, you can use a a weapon, as long as it falls with your racial abilities. That means, all humans can use any martial weapon, as long as they pick it to be their "human" weapon, Half-orcs are always decent with a great axes and falchion, elves are always good with those typical eleven weapons, all dwarves can use battleaxes, and halflings can always use slings. The only two races that may even have an issue with not being able to be proficient with a weapon outside their class choices, are the gnome and the half elf; at least for free. So that -4 should, if ever rarely should come up; especially for Humans. Since you know, with this, someone could be a monk, sorceror, or wizard, as a human, you can still be able to use a great sword.
I have said this in other threads, and I think it can apply here as well. Why does this need to change? (i.e. weapon non-proficiency penalty). This is not a problem in 3.5. We could come up with several good methods of how to handle weapons and which ones you're proficient with and which ones your not and add all kinds of modifiers to them. But the existing one works well. What would be the purpose of tampering with it?
As a side note, I personally am not too keen on all the free proficiencies added to the races. They seem arbitrary. It is strange to me that just because you're a human, you automatically gain one free weapon proficiency of your choice. This is not a good mechanic because it diminishes the abilty of classes such as fighters and barbarians who gain weapon proficiency in all martial weapons.
|
|
Tell that to someone I know who went outside to mess around with a sword and wound up cutting open his palm and requiring 15 stitches (which is hard as heck to live with when it's your primary hand).Ouch! I hope you've recovered.
No, it wasn't me, it really was someone I know lol. oh that quote, and learning that monte cook is part of the pathfinder team have made my day :)
|
|
I have said this in other threads, and I think it can apply here as well. Why does this need to change? (i.e. weapon non-proficiency penalty). This is not a problem in 3.5. We could come up with several good methods of how to handle weapons and which ones you're proficient with and which ones your not and add all kinds of modifiers to them. But the existing one works well. What would be the purpose of tampering with it?
That's also my position. I think that we help Jason and his team more by streamlining and tweaking the 3.5 and PF rules rather than by suggesting completely new and original ways of handling standard situations.
As a side note, I personally am not too keen on all the free proficiencies added to the races. They seem arbitrary. It is strange to me that just because you're a human, you automatically gain one free weapon proficiency of your choice. This is not a good mechanic because it diminishes the abilty of classes such as fighters and barbarians who gain weapon proficiency in all martial weapons.
When 3.5 introduced Weapon Familiarity, I was delighted.
Alpha 2 has gone much further, including granting specific weapon proficiencies for half-breeds, which I queried here
I'm not happy about the extension, as it has an impact on NPC classes and creates strange situations for PCs who grew up in identical conditions.
|
Keep the penalties, I agree!
Assuming everyone knows how to use a sword (or any other weapon) is a bit much. The Commoner class (the default NPC class) receives one Simple Weapon, which is fairly accurate - this is the weapon they learned to use to hunt wolves or defend the house from burglars. In the case of the humans, I can see the single Martial Weapon working as well (fantasy is full of human heroes who are gifted a sword and learn to use it quickly).
As for growing up "outside the norm" and the various racial proficiencies, I would throw in a bunch of others (that have been in the game for some time) that races would lose if they didn't grow up in the right culture:
Dwarven Racial Training (AC and Attack)
Halfling Thrown Weapons
Half-Elf Skill Bonuses
I'm sure there are others, but anything that isn't biological would not come into play - and this is the pervue of the DM (who can adjust such abilities on the fly). The DM can alter these as she sees fit, but these exceptions should not be the standard. Hence, I argue that although the racial weapons appear inappropriate at times, overall they are a slight improvement and any inconsistencies that come up in character creation can be settled at the table.
No, they treat any weapon that bears their racial name as a martial weapon. This means that a dwarven fighter doesn't need to take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to be proficient with a dwarven waraxe. A dwarven wizard is not proficient with a dwarven waraxe.
In addition to the exomartial think, they're also proficient with battleaxes, heavy picks, and warhammers.
That -4 for non proficiency is now silly, except for half elves. Since every human in the game is automatically proficient with one martial weapon, and other races are proficient with any weapon that bears their racial name... Oh and Half orcs are automatically proficient with greatswords and falchions. So, theoretically, you can always use a weapon; even if it's outside your class restrictions.
Yeah, they can usually use some nice weapon even if it's not covered by their class. But they won't all get every weapon. The difference is that if they find themselves minus their normal gear, they can't just grab anything and start using it.
I personally think it makes sense for no penalties, considering in 4e that you're a bloody hero, and live in in appreciably dangerous world; so that everyone more or less knows how to handle a weapon of some sort.
A weapon. Not all weapons. In fact, I think 3e's proficiencly lists, and class abilities tied to weapons, are way more liberal than 4e's.
We don't live in a world like that; and for those that do, guns (which would be the setting's equivalent to a sword) is just as simple to use; it's a point and click (and don't talk about safety's, cause if you're smart and have 5 minutes at a shooting range, you'll figure out how to flip that switch).Either way, as it seems, all characters, and thus NPCs, but half elves can use a decent weapon, regardless of actual class proficiency. I'd still like to rally that Half elves need a weapon proficiency of some sort...
The point is not that they can't use any weapon. Most will be able to handle some kind of weapon. The point is that not everyone can use everything. And if they use something they're not proficient with, they'll get penalties.
Part of the reason I am for keeping the current mechanic is that it generally doesn't hamper people: With the generous class-based proficiencies and racial bonuses, you usually can avoid the -4. It won't hurt many. It will prevent people just picking up whatever lies around.
No, it wasn't me, it really was someone I know lol.
Of course it was "your friend". How did "your friend" manage to cut "him"self? Did a lot of people ridicule "your friend" for it? Has "your friend" any other embarassing things to talk about?
;-P
|
|
Keep the penalties, I agree!
Assuming everyone knows how to use a sword (or any other weapon) is a bit much. The Commoner class (the default NPC class) receives one Simple Weapon, which is fairly accurate - this is the weapon they learned to use to hunt wolves or defend the house from burglars. In the case of the humans, I can see the single Martial Weapon working as well (fantasy is full of human heroes who are gifted a sword and learn to use it quickly).
If I read the rules correctly, there is no difference between a PC human and an NPC human. Therefore, a human commoner will be proficient with a martial weapon. All these commoners are not heroes.
I agree with your point about the "doesn't need to change", but this above I want to mention something - if you assume the setting is "especially violent" (that is to say, just like most D&D settings), then it would make sense that most people would have some weapon training ("common weapon proficiency", anyone?). The additional proficiency of the Human is with a single, specific weapon, just like if they took Martial Weapon Proficiency as a Feat (you have to be a member of certain classes to get universal proficiency in martial weapons). It represents the Human's improved learning curve - they picked up weapon training well enough to know an advanced weapon.
As for the racial proficiencies, that much I don't know about. If you assume that members of a given race are raised in the same culture, and/or that the weapons given are particularly complimentary to the physical characteristics of the race, then sure, I'll buy that for a nickel.
I prefer to look at it from a different point of view. Is it in harmony with existing rules? The free martial weapon feature given to humans doesn't really do much for them first off. Let's look at classes. The ability becomes pointless if you are a Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger. The fact that these classes get proficiency with all martial weapons renders this racial feature useless. The Cleric has access to the favored weapon of his/her deity and as well can take the war domain. These class features also diminish the value of said racial feature. The Bard has access to 5 martial weapons as well as 1 exotic weapon. The Druid has a unique selection of weapons most of which are simple. The weapon training human racial feature may have some benefit to these classes. The Monk would rather fight unarmed or with monk weapons to make use of the flurry of blows class feature. Weapon training does little for the monk. The Rogue has proficiency in 4 martial weapons. He could diversify his selection with weapon training. And finally, the Sorcerer and the Wizard. I would do them little good for obvious reasons (low BAB).
I feel that the human weapon training racial feature really only has real benefits for only 3 of the 11 core classes. For any of the others, it is either useless, or it's flavor. For flavor, there is already the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat. Weapon Training would diminish the value of this already undervalued feat. Humans already get a feat for free at 1st level. Why not spend it here with Martial Weapon Proficiency?
And finally, there are simple weapons. I think that martial training tampers with the value of these weapons as well as nearly all classes have access to all of them (only the Wizard, Monk, and Druid have restrictions). I would be concerned that almost no characters would bother using them anymore.
Weapon Training should go IMHO, and something more relavent put in its place.
|
|
If I read the rules correctly, there is no difference between a PC human and an NPC human. Therefore, a human commoner will be proficient with a martial weapon. All these commoners are not heroes.
This is true. I was referencing the standard 3.5 rules set. However, in PRPG it would mean that a human commoner would get a martial weapon. However, one martial weapon does not make an NPC Commoner the equivalent to a PC (even one with few proficiencies such as a wizard). I don't mind the extra proficiency, it is small enough to not change much, but meaningful enough to provide a story element...I remember I once fought tooth and nail with my DM to allow my Orc Ranger to use a katana just because of the flavour (not exactly the same problem, but it was the motivation behind it) - I can see such importance for a human player in Pathfinder ("Cool! My wizard knows how to use a greataxe!")
|
|
However, one martial weapon does not make an NPC Commoner the equivalent to a PC (even one with few proficiencies such as a wizard). I don't mind the extra proficiency, it is small enough to not change much, but meaningful enough to provide a story element...I remember I once fought tooth and nail with my DM to allow my Orc Ranger to use a katana just because of the flavour (not exactly the same problem, but it was the motivation behind it) - I can see such importance for a human player in Pathfinder ("Cool! My wizard knows how to use a greataxe!")
My beef is not that a commoner would be equivalent to a PC. My beef is that it's highly unusual for *every single human* to have training with weapons reserved to professional combatants.
For a PC, the extra proficiency doesn't change much (as Anthony pointed out above). The hundreds of thousands of greatsword-trained commoners are not a small change.
The hundreds of thousands of greatsword-trained commoners are not a small change.
Only if you're a DM who wants hundreds of thousands of greatsword-trained commoners. And then you can come up with some in-game reason for it, which no one can argue with.
Realistically, I think a handaxe, light hammer, short sword, and shortbow would be more common for commoner martial proficiency, and more rational.
I personally prefer the -4 nonproficiency penalty. I know for a fact I'd have a hard time hitting anything with a slingshot, especially something I'm aiming at. The penalty is a good way of representing that.
The hundreds of thousands of greatsword-trained commoners are not a small change.
Talking about not being (a) small change: That's true for something else - a greatsword's market price.
Personally, I like the human automatic weapon proficiency if only for one thing it fixes: a commoner can now hunt with a bow *gasp*! No more are the days of commoner hunters who struggled to grasp the complexity of wielding a hunting bow, now all commoners can use one without fear (if it fits the character of course). Traders can be commoners who are trained in the use of a sword to protect themselves, or a farmer with a scythe in case he needs to riot.
As for the weapon penalty, the removal of all penalties from 4e is one of the biggest turn offs for me and the removal of weapon penalties is just stupid. I could never pick up a sword and use it with basic ability, I just don't know how, I would easily harm myself.
Personally, I like the human automatic weapon proficiency if only for one thing it fixes: a commoner can now hunt with a bow *gasp*! No more are the days of commoner hunters who struggled to grasp the complexity of wielding a hunting bow, now all commoners can use one without fear (if it fits the character of course). Traders can be commoners who are trained in the use of a sword to protect themselves, or a farmer with a scythe in case he needs to riot.
As for the weapon penalty, the removal of all penalties from 4e is one of the biggest turn offs for me and the removal of weapon penalties is just stupid. I could never pick up a sword and use it with basic ability, I just don't know how, I would easily harm myself.
I still don't buy into human weapon training... especially for a commoner. Even a commoner gets a feat for being first level. If it's a human commoner, it gets an extra feat for a total of 2. Why not use one of those feat choices on Martial Weapon Proficiency, Longbow? There you have it. It's already accomodated by the current rules.
I agree with your second point. 4E seems to have a lot of "feel-good-math."