| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've gotten into various discussions over the years on proficiency with weapons, and how feats intended to grant proficiency, don't. I will admit this post is made in response to the discussion over Cao Phan's "rock throwing build" current you ongoing in the "Throwing builds are practically impossible" thread. So I do have an agenda in doing this, and that is to get clarification over what constitutes proficiency with weapons in Pathfinder. But also to prove I'm right, as egotistical as that is.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with simple weapons without penalty.
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: All characters except for druids, monks, and wizards are automatically proficient with all simple weapons. They need not select this feat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.
Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon. You receive a +1 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made with thrown splash weapons.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon
Benefit: When you use a tool of your trade (requiring at least 1 rank in the appropriate Craft or Profession skill) as a weapon, you do not take the improvised weapon penalty and instead receive a +1 trait bonus on your attack. This trait is commonly used with shovels, picks, blacksmith hammers, and other sturdy tools — lutes and brooms make terribly fragile weapons.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
To keep post size down, I put the above examples of feats, traits and abilities in spoilers.
So, as you can see, many of the proficiency feats have nearly identical language: they all let you attack normally, but never actually state you become "proficient" with the weapon. The improvised feats state you don't take the improvised penalty, but don't state you become proficient; Rough and Ready has similar language. The Rock Throwing abilities don't have language about attacking normally or not taking penalties, but claim you are an accomplished rock thrower. It is also worth noting that many giants and creatures with rock throwing also possess the feat Weapon Focus (rock); a feat that explicitly requires proficiency with the weapon to take.
Now, the Rules As Written here is pretty clear: you aren't proficient with the selected weapon or weapons with any of the above examples. But I believe the intended function of the abilities is to grant proficiency.
So the question is, what makes someone proficient in a weapon?
Do they need an ability, such as a feat or class feature to explicitly call out proficiency to become proficient?
Or would one of the above abilities grant proficiency, despite not having such language saying so?
Is this FAQ worthy?
If abilities such as Rock Throwing don't grant proficiency, then how do monsters with said abilities take Weapon Focus (rock) as a feat?
Now, the Rules As Written here is pretty clear: you aren't proficient with the selected weapon or weapons with any of the above examples. But I believe the intended function of the abilities is to grant proficiency.
Should I start by arguing that this isn't actually true?
1) Proficiency is not a game defined term.
1a) Sure, the text does not say "You are proficient with the selected weapon", but it does say "You understand how to use that type of [martial/simple/exotic] weapon in combat." Is this not what it means to be proficient?
One definition of proficiency reads "skillfulness in the command of fundamentals deriving from practice and familiarity". Again, this sounds like pretty much the same thing as "You understand how to use that type of X weapon in combat."
2) The first two feats both include a line similar to the following:
Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
There is a strong inference that if barbs, fighters, pallies, and rangers do not need to take this feat, because they are already proficient with said weapons, that this feat does indeed provide proficiency with said selected weapon. Any other reading is deliberately being obtuse.
Add to that the weapon focus (rock) you pointed out to lend strength to the argument. (I guess the counter argument would be that just like some classes get to skip feat pre-reqs, all creatures with weapon focus (rock) have a racial trait that allows skipping the pre-req).
The additional feats and abilities don't have anything so direct, unfortunately, so the best we can do is an inference based on the feats that do. Being proficient seems to imply that you don't take a penalty for doing a thing. Or conversely, if you are taking a penalty, it is because you are not proficient. To me, that is a pretty clear extension of logical reasoning to apply here - but of course others won't see it that way.
Many creature types, including Humanoids(Giant), are proficient with any weapon in their stat block. Rock Throwing doesn't need to grant proficiency, as all Giants with Rock Throwing are automatically proficient.
Throw Anything, Catch Off-Guard, and Rough and Ready do not, and, IMO, are not intended to grant proficiency.
The Rock Throwing Revelation does present a problem. It likely was intended to provide proficiency, or at the very least disregard the -4 non-proficiency penalty. That could maybe use a FAQ, or, better yet, just a dash of common sense if implemented in your game.
What makes a player proficient is that they don't take non-proficiency penalties to their to-hit (or in the case of a Bastard Sword and similar weapons, they can actually wield the weapon normally, in accordance to their table entry). It even says so in the Weapon Proficiency feat descriptions:
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Now, this is different from Improvised Weapons, which have their own sort of penalty and rules, so if you are using a weapon which you aren't proficient with (like an Exotic Reach weapon) and you are using it as an improvised weapon to threaten 5 feet, you would take a -8 penalty to your attack. This is because you aren't proficient with the item in question (the Exotic Reach weapon), and because you are using it to attack an adjacent enemy (which is not the conventional means to attack with it, making it an improvised attack), each of which confer a stacking -4 penalty to the attack.
We could extrapolate that example even further for a -12 penalty total, to include attacking non-lethal applying its own unique -4 penalty (and symbolizing that even that penalty is separate from the other two), but that is its own ridiculousness.
I wouldn't say a FAQ on this thread would be warranted, because it's clear what proficiency means, how it applies, and what happens when you are not proficient with a weapon. The only ones that aren't obvious are Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons, but we already have a FAQ that says everything is proficient with Unarmed Strikes (so no -4 non-proficiency penalty), and Natural Weapons (assuming they possess any, otherwise they get Unarmed Strikes).
Now, what does need a FAQ, would be if having normal proficiency in a weapon (through class proficiencies, racial proficiencies and so on,) means you do not need to have a proficiency feat in order to meet the pre-requisites of other feats.
Now, the Rules As Written here is pretty clear: you aren't proficient with the selected weapon or weapons with any of the above examples. But I believe the intended function of the abilities is to grant proficiency.Should I start by arguing that this isn't actually true?
1) Proficiency is not a game defined term.
1a) Sure, the text does not say "You are proficient with the selected weapon", but it does say "You understand how to use that type of [martial/simple/exotic] weapon in combat." Is this not what it means to be proficient?One definition of proficiency reads "skillfulness in the command of fundamentals deriving from practice and familiarity". Again, this sounds like pretty much the same thing as "You understand how to use that type of X weapon in combat."
2) The first two feats both include a line similar to the following:
Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
There is a strong inference that if barbs, fighters, pallies, and rangers do not need to take this feat, because they are already proficient with said weapons, that this feat does indeed provide proficiency with said selected weapon. Any other reading is deliberately being obtuse.
Add to that the weapon focus (rock) you pointed out to lend strength to the argument. (I guess the counter argument would be that just like some classes get to skip feat pre-reqs, all creatures with weapon focus (rock) have a racial trait that allows skipping the pre-req).
The additional feats and abilities don't have anything so direct, unfortunately, so the best we can do is an inference based on the feats that do. Being proficient seems to imply that you don't take a penalty for doing a thing. Or conversely, if you are taking a penalty, it is because you are not proficient. To me, that is a pretty clear extension of logical reasoning to apply here - but of course others won't see it that way.
"Wield" is not a game defined term and yet it governs aspects if the rules. Likewise, "proficiency" is not a game defined term, and yet it governs access to various feats and class abilities by being proficient with certain weapons.
Also, are we letting fest titles and fluff descriptions determine rules now? Because that's not how this game works. What a feat does is outlined in the Benefit and possibly Special section of the feat. The weapon proficiency feats, oddly enough, don't even let you ignored the non-proficiency penalty. In fact, all they do is say, "you can attack normally" and then outlines that, normally, you take a -4 penalty for attacking with a weapon you aren't proficient with. So this means, per the rules, taking a weapon proficiency feat does nothing at all.
If you think the rules should say otherwise, hit the RAW button so future errata can fix this. Or make a thread with each individual question for ask so each one can be FAQ'd.
You don't think something called simple weapon proficiency gives weapon proficiency in simple weapons?
Huh.
Odd how the rules work, isn't it?
The rules also don't say if you die that you can no longer take actions. Of course, that was FAQ'd, but this argument seems just as vaporous.
In that, Simple Weapon Proficiency doesn't give you proficiency, when the fear is called as much.
Logic and some careful reading of the rules is needed, and since the feat dies everything that proficiency does, in that you wield at no penalty, it grants it.
What the argument actually is is the follows (for the people missing it):
The proficiency feats do not specifically state proficiency, so we must assume that what they do say is equivalent to saying "you are proficient."
This means that removing the penalty to attacks for non proficiency IS proficiency.
From that it follows throw anything and catch off guard provide proficiency in their respective improvised weapons.
The rock throwing feat has similar language in part and is being argued as providing proficiency, or stating that rocks are something everyone is proficient in and this person is better (+1)
What makes a player proficient is that they don't take non-proficiency penalties to their to-hit (or in the case of a Bastard Sword and similar weapons, they can actually wield the weapon normally, in accordance to their table entry). It even says so in the Weapon Proficiency feat descriptions:
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Actually, that's not true. Proficiency is what grants proficiency. Notice, that the weapon proficiency feats don't allow you to ignore the penalty. In fact, they do nothing. They just state you are able to attack with the weapon normally, and the they tell you that normally, you attack with a -4 penalty, because you aren't proficient. So, per the rules, if you take a weapon proficiency feat, it literally does nothing; like the old prone shooter.
I'll grant you, the -4 for non-proficiency and -4 for improvised could be 2 separate penalties. If so, it makes you wonder, then, what the hell is going on with class options line Monk of the Empty Hand, who can only use unarmed strikes and improvised weapons to flurry, but isn't proficient in any weapon other than unarmed strikes and shrunken.
It still doesn't change the fact that weapon proficiency feats don't grant proficiency.
The rules also don't say if you die that you can no longer take actions. Of course, that was FAQ'd, but this argument seems just as vaporous.
In that, Simple Weapon Proficiency doesn't give you proficiency, when the fear is called as much.
Logic and some careful reading of the rules is needed, and since the feat dies everything that proficiency does, in that you wield at no penalty, it grants it.
Actually, logic and careful reading of the rules dictates the feats don't do anything. If you claim that they make you proficient, that is an interpretation of what you believe the rules to say.
I believe the feats and abilities above were intended to grant proficiency with the weapons. However, that is not what the actual rules for the feats state. I'd like to find out what the designers say in the matter.
Tels, read those abilities again. It is only the exotic weapon proficiency and rock throwing abilities that have the bad language, the rest of them get rid of non-proficiency penalties (although they still dont actually say they grant proficiency).
What makes a player proficient is that they don't take non-proficiency penalties to their to-hit (or in the case of a Bastard Sword and similar weapons, they can actually wield the weapon normally, in accordance to their table entry). It even says so in the Weapon Proficiency feat descriptions:
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.Actually, that's not true. Proficiency is what grants proficiency. Notice, that the weapon proficiency feats don't allow you to ignore the penalty. In fact, they do nothing. They just state you are able to attack with the weapon normally, and the they tell you that normally, you attack with a -4 penalty, because you aren't proficient. So, per the rules, if you take a weapon proficiency feat, it literally does nothing; like the old prone shooter.
I'll grant you, the -4 for non-proficiency and -4 for improvised could be 2 separate penalties. If so, it makes you wonder, then, what the hell is going on with class options line Monk of the Empty Hand, who can only use unarmed strikes and improvised weapons to flurry, but isn't proficient in any weapon other than unarmed strikes and shrunken.
It still doesn't change the fact that weapon proficiency feats don't grant proficiency.
According to your quotes both Simple and Martial do state without penalty. Martial says with out the non-prof. penalty but Simple says just without penalty. So we if want to continue the Pedantic RaW reading then Simple weapons never have penalties because the feat says they attack without them.
You did not refute the fact that the rules don't cover actions following death, in any of the rulebooks. They also don't mention that humans are corporeal creatures, so are all non-incorporeal creatures something else.
You are making a silly semantic argument. The rules don't cover everything, a designer specifically stated that the rules are sometimes implicit.
You also did not contest that the feats act as giving proficiency, logically therefore, they do. Yet, you continue to make a pedantic argument about them not doing anything.
"Wield" is not a game defined term and yet it governs aspects if the rules. Likewise, "proficiency" is not a game defined term, and yet it governs access to various feats and class abilities by being proficient with certain weapons.
"Wield" is a whole different can of worms, upon which developers have commented in these forums (can't recall off the top of my head if there have also been any FAQs on it).
But I wouldn't anymore say "Because 'wield' has some rules aspects that are wonky that 'proficiency' likewise does" anymore then I would say "Because 'wield' has some rules aspects that are wonky that 'cast'ing a spell does too'.
There simply isn't any evidence that wonkiness with wield correlates to wonkiness with any other rules aspects.
Also, are we letting fe[a]t titles and fluff descriptions determine rules now?
No. But fluff can often tell us what the correct reading of the rules is when there are two otherwise possible readings with equal plausibility. (Not that I consider the idea that the feats don't actually grant proficiency a plausible reading of the rules - its a reading that strains the fine details of the words themselves that would impress the devil himself - IMO).
If you think the rules should say otherwise, hit the RAW button so future errata can fix this. Or make a thread with each individual question for ask so each one can be FAQ'd.
Sorry. The rules are clear. The intent is clear. Does anyone actually play that these feats don't actually do anything at all? (Do you play that way?) Does anyone play that all the feats reliant on "proficiency in a weapon" can't be taken by characters that are not granted proficiency by their class? This isn't the "prone shooter" feat - the feats do actually do something. No FAQ required.
Tels, read those abilities again. It is only the exotic weapon proficiency and rock throwing abilities that have the bad language, the rest of them get rid of non-proficiency penalties (although they still dont actually say they grant proficiency).
Oops, yup, my bad. I've gotten so used to using Exotic as an example for this argument, I've just started lumping them all together.
You did not refute the fact that the rules don't cover actions following death, in any of the rulebooks. They also don't mention that humans are corporeal creatures, so are all non-incorporeal creatures something else.
You are making a silly semantic argument. The rules don't cover everything, a designer specifically stated that the rules are sometimes implicit.
You also did not contest that the feats act as giving proficiency, logically therefore, they do. Yet, you continue to make a pedantic argument about them not doing anything.
Actually, Pathfinder is a permissive system, it typucally tells you what you can do, not what you can't. Exceptions exist, however, the rules don't state that humans have the incorporeal quality, nor that you can continue taking actions after death. Since the rules don't give you permission to do the above, then you don't have the permission to do it.
But you are right, this is a semantics argument, largely because I've had this same argument dozens of times over the years and I'm annoyed to death with doing so. So I want it settled once and for all.
I like to give advice to people, and I like to point them to neat and interesting builds some of those builds, like Cao Phan's rock Throwing build, use oddball weapons. I've gotten tired of having to argue whether or not someone is, or is not proficient with a rock, or playing cards, or whatever weapon is used in whatever build I have in mind.
If Paizo says some, or all, of these abilities don't make someone proficient, fine. I'll ignore it for my own games and stop recommending them for other people. At least, without them being contingent on GM houserules. But, at least it will be done and over with.
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo says some, or all, of these abilities don't make someone proficient, fine. I'll ignore it for my own games and stop recommending them for other people. At least, without them being contingent on GM houserules. But, at least it will be done and over with.
Ah. So really what should be asked in a FAQ is something akin to:
Does catch off guard, throw anything, monster rock throwing abilities, rough and ready, and other similar abilities count as granting the character proficiency with those weapons for purposes of feats and other abilities that require weapon proficiency?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odd how the rules work, isn't it?You don't think something called simple weapon proficiency gives weapon proficiency in simple weapons?
Huh.
Only when you intentionally try to read the rule in a way to make it nonfunctional
Surprise Weapon adds +2 hit with improvised, doesn't ignore penalty from improvised without adding Catch off Guard, Throw anything, Rough and Ready, etc.
Just though that should be included.
This is from the section on weapons:
Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon's use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon's usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large).
|
Only when you intentionally try to read the rule in a way to make it nonfunctionalYou don't think something called simple weapon proficiency gives weapon proficiency in simple weapons?Odd how the rules work, isn't it?
I find myself in the middle on this issue, and from past discussions I've seen many veterans in the same predicament.
Obviously, by virtue of its name alone, the "Simple Weapon Proficiency" feat should grant you proficiency with simple weapons.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue otherwise.
But improvised weapons as a category are a mess. And needlessly so, due to their incredibly varied nature. Leave it to a gamer to ask whether it's possible to use a Tower Shield as an improvised weapon, since you can't Shield Bash with it. There are several threads asking that very question.
"Rocks" are the best defined improvised weapons of them all, and Giants with Weapon Focus (Rock) make you question the difference between Manufactured Weapons and Improvised Weapons. Paizo decided that Oracles and Giants could flavorfully take advantage of such an iconic trope, but failed to explain how they actually do so. The result is the gaming community trying to piece together an interconnected web of logic that isn't really reinforced anywhere.
The question that this FAQ request asks is unclear, but I clicked it anyways. It brushes against so many rules elements that I don't think a single, clear question could ever achieve any results for the entire system.
Let's not belittle the OP. Let's try to help the PDT develop an answer that benefits the game and the community.
I really don't like some of the ways 'improvised' weapons work. What's the difference between an improvised club and the off-the-rack d6 masher from Bloodbath and Beyond? If nothing else, they both cost the same, 0gp. Which means that if you have a GM who's willing to tolerate blatant system abuse (and bad math), you can make infinite clubs in no time. (0 gp = 0 sp. DC 12 to make it. Pay 0/3=0 gp for materials. Assuming you just make the check, you make 144 sp of progress. You can make 144/0 clubs in a week. And no profit to show for it as you can only sell them at half price; 0/2 = 0.)
Which reminds me ... if something's to be treated as, say, an improvised dagger, would Weapon Focus (dagger) help?
So here's a post I just put on Mark Seifter's Facebook wall that runs eeriely along this thread's lines. I don't expect an answer from Mark there, but hopefully this'll keep getting put in the PDT's limelight and ultimately get clarified.
Now, side note—this is clearly not how it works RAW, but my preference would be for improvised weapons to count as weapons of their intended type if you are "proficient" with them (aka don't have the non-proficiency penalty). For example, if you have Weapon Focus rapier and take no non-proficiency penalty when using improvised weapons, then you should be able to apply your Weapon Focus (rapier) feat to attack rolls made with, say, a broom that you wield like a rapier.
Because that would HILARIOUS while simultaneously making sense realistically (to an extent) and more importantly, cinematically.