Reworking proficiency and removing categories of weapons and armor.

[Igor Horvat]

In this suggestion base untrained modifier for weapons and armor is +0, and for skills and saves also, but it does not matter for this discussion.

All characters begin with untrained with all weapons and armor(+0) and some classes will start with weapons and/or armor trained.

Also there will be more levels of proficiency that can be acquired.
By various degree, depending on the class/feats/ancestry

Untrained: +0
trained: +1
Expert:+2 (can spend two starting skill proficiencies to get one skill to expert)
Master:+3(minimum level for skills: 7)
Grandmaster: +4(minimum level for skills: 11)
Epic: +5(minimum level for skills: 15)
Legendary: +6(minimum level for skills: 19)

All weapons should be in the same category. No more simple/martial/rare/exotic, and rebalanced with that in mind.

Armor should be balanced around AC bonus, touch AC bonus, max dex, ACP and speed penalty. And cost to a degree(later is a non issue)

I.E.

padded armor(gambeson): +1 AC,+0 TAC, max dex +7, ACP 0, speed -0ft
leather armor: +2 AC, +1 TAC, max dex +6, ACP -1, speed -0ft
hide armor: +3 AC, +1 TAC, max dex +5, ACP -1, speed -0ft
Chain shirt: +4 AC, +2 TAC, max dex +4, ACP -2, speed -0ft
Scale mail: +5 AC, +2 TAC, max dex +3, ACP -2, speed -5ft
Chain mail: +6 AC, +3 TAC, max dex +2, ACP -3, speed -5ft
Halfplate: +7 AC, +3 TAC, max dex +1, ACP -3, speed -10ft
Fullplate: +8 AC, +4 TAC, max dex +0, ACP -4, speed -10ft

*Max dex limits AC bonus, ref save bonus and init
Note: to balance spellcasters, spell attacks and DCs suffer ACP.

Also true caster will not advance far in proficiency level for weapons and armor, maybe expert with class and Master with feat invested.

I.E. wizard trained in weapons and armor at lvl 6, expert at lvl 14.
optional feat for master level training on 15+

Fighter would get by default trained(+1) in armor and weapons at level 1
then either expert at lvl 2 for weapons or armor.
Master lvl 6
Gr master lvl 10
Epic lvl 14
Legendary lvl 18

other proficiency would be one category lower.

[oholoko]

Just one question. Why? I mean i can understand that you made something and wanted to share but how is this any better than the current proef system? What does it add? Because to me this just make it so the numbers get a bit weird and TEML look even more complicated.

[RazarTuk]

Weapons

I agree with reworking proficiency, but I'm not sure that this is much better. To me, the big problem is that there are actually three different proficiency systems. Martial characters and (Martial) Weapon Proficiency get all martial weapons at once. Non-martial characters and (Exotic) Weapon Proficiency get individual weapons. And fighters advancing beyond Trained get weapon groups.

Additionally, the only real reason I can see to still have Exotic as opposed to Uncommon is guns, to prevent fighters and similar from automatically knowing how to use them.

What I think makes more sense is sticking with TEML, but having everything use weapon groups as the base unit of proficiency. For example, bards would no longer have a specific list of bardic weapons, but get something like their choice of 5 weapon groups. Weapon Proficiency lets you pick a group and advance it as far as Expert. And Critical Specializations are unlocked for anyone who's hit Expert with a weapon group.

Armor

Half and full plate are the same thing. I know some tropes, like two-handed falchions and padded being a joke option aren't going away any time soon, but this one was actually fixed in 5e. Long story short, historical full plate was masterwork half plate.

Also, I would remove Hide as an option and replace it with more leather options, like Leather Scale vs Leather Plate. I can't be the only one who thinks it's odd that, no matter the natural armor of a creature, hide armor is always exactly +4 in 1e, right?

[Igor Horvat]

oholoko wrote:

Just one question. Why? I mean i can understand that you made something and wanted to share but how is this any better than the current proef system? What does it add? Because to me this just make it so the numbers get a bit weird and TEML look even more complicated.

Because I think that your skill with arms should be described only by your training and experience(proficiency bonus and leveling), not some arbitrary selection of weapons based on class.

Even if wizards take some time to train with weapons(and they do, they have some proficiency) they would waste that time away from books to train with best weapons available not worst(they are kind of smart) and most wizard guilds are richer that grunt boot camp so price is not a problem.

Why on earth would you train in a world filled with orc, dragons and undead with a stick instead of a sword??

A stick is used when you lose your sword, not your go to weapon.

[oholoko]

Ahh you meant to remove the the level bonus from TEML... I dont think it's a good idea to do it like this specially adding more steps and making it more confusing.
But well you did put some thought into it.

[Vic Ferrari]

I would like them to ditch the EML thing. Untrained, Trained and level should cover it, the EML thing has no traction, and Expert and Master are direct synonyms of one another.

[LordVanya]

I wouldn't say they are direct synonyms, they can be considered similar depending on the exact definition used.

That aside, Not limiting classes to specific weapon training does indeed make sense.
Not for nothin', but Gandolf was running around with a staff AND a magic sword.

This is not from a TTRPG, but my all time favorite weapon proficiency system in the Final Fantasy Series was in the original FF2 for the NES.
Any character in the game could use any weapon at any time.
Characters basically gain weapon experience for the weapons they use and level up their proficiency.
Higher proficiency level grants higher bonuses to damage.

If I were going to adapt that to the playtest rules I'd probably start by letting all characters gain training in one weapon group independent of everything else.
Then I would give them 6 weapon increases that work just like skill increases.
Martials would gain more weapon groups and increases.
Fighters would get the most, of course.
Weapon categories other than exotic would likely be removed.

I'd probably do the same for armor.
Since there are far fewer armor types, I'd keep the armor categories as armor groups.

[Vic Ferrari]

LordVanya wrote:

I wouldn't say they are direct synonyms,

Well, they are; one of the first synonyms to come up for one another; also, Adept, Ace, Skilled, Specialist, Outstanding, etc.

The UTEMIL thing just seems out of the blue, and doesn't really accomplish much, I do like the idea of Legendary opening up for some epic action for non-casters, but that hasn't really happened, so far.

[Bardarok]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I would like them to ditch the EML thing. Untrained, Trained and level should cover it, the EML thing has no traction, and Expert and Master are direct synonyms of one another.

Hard disagree. That's basically the way 5e does it (tough proficiency is more like lvl/4+2) and I hate how binary it is. We need some sort of granularity.

[Vic Ferrari]

Bardarok wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I would like them to ditch the EML thing. Untrained, Trained and level should cover it, the EML thing has no traction, and Expert and Master are direct synonyms of one another.

Hard disagree. That's basically the way 5e does it (tough proficiency is more like lvl/4+2) and I hate how binary it is. We need some sort of granularity.

Well, we don't have 5 degrees of proficiency in 3rd Ed/PF1, either, so why the sudden need?

Also, 5th Ed has 1/2 proficiency bonus and Expertise (double bonus), so it's not always that binary.

[RazarTuk]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I would like them to ditch the EML thing. Untrained, Trained and level should cover it, the EML thing has no traction, and Expert and Master are direct synonyms of one another.

Hard disagree. That's basically the way 5e does it (tough proficiency is more like lvl/4+2) and I hate how binary it is. We need some sort of granularity.

Well, we don't have 5 degrees of proficiency in 3rd Ed/PF1, either, so why the sudden need?

Right. We had 20. TEML is saying most people maximize skills anyway, so let's simplify proficiency to being a handful of points above that.

[Vic Ferrari]

RazarTuk wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I would like them to ditch the EML thing. Untrained, Trained and level should cover it, the EML thing has no traction, and Expert and Master are direct synonyms of one another.

Hard disagree. That's basically the way 5e does it (tough proficiency is more like lvl/4+2) and I hate how binary it is. We need some sort of granularity.

Well, we don't have 5 degrees of proficiency in 3rd Ed/PF1, either, so why the sudden need?

Right. We had 20.

Not really, you are trained in armour or a weapon, or not.

[Bardarok]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I would like them to ditch the EML thing. Untrained, Trained and level should cover it, the EML thing has no traction, and Expert and Master are direct synonyms of one another.

Hard disagree. That's basically the way 5e does it (tough proficiency is more like lvl/4+2) and I hate how binary it is. We need some sort of granularity.

Well, we don't have 5 degrees of proficiency in 3rd Ed/PF1, either, so why the sudden need?

Also, 5th Ed has 1/2 proficiency bonus and Expertise (double bonus), so it's not always that binary.

Expertise breaks the math of the game so it is limited only to skills for specific characters. so binary for most things for most characters.

Unified proficiency is taking the place of both base progression as well as features and feats which granted small bonuses so we do in fact need multiples steps.

In just PF1 core we already had a lot of different bonuses

Saves had two base progressions plus the boosting feats.

BAB had three base progressiosn plus wepaon focus and fighter abilities

Skills had 0-20 ranks plus class skill plus skill focus for a huge variety of bonuses.

So we had granularity in PF1. The range for skills is reduced which is fine since mostly ranks were either 1, maxed or set to hit a specific DC. The granularity for saves has increased a bit but no one is actually untrained in a save. Weapon proficiency has stays about the same variety of bonuses though all the numbers are closer due to the tighter math of the game. So going down to just two levels of trained and untrained would be a step backwards in customization which is one of the reasons I don't like it in 5e.

EDIT: I deleted an earlier post and expanded on the idea here.

[Vic Ferrari]

Bardarok wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I would like them to ditch the EML thing. Untrained, Trained and level should cover it, the EML thing has no traction, and Expert and Master are direct synonyms of one another.

Hard disagree. That's basically the way 5e does it (tough proficiency is more like lvl/4+2) and I hate how binary it is. We need some sort of granularity.

Well, we don't have 5 degrees of proficiency in 3rd Ed/PF1, either, so why the sudden need?

Also, 5th Ed has 1/2 proficiency bonus and Expertise (double bonus), so it's not always that binary.

Expertise breaks the math of the game so it is limited only to skills for specific characters. so binary for most things for most characters.

Unified proficiency is taking the place of both base progression as well as features and feats which granted small bonuses so we do in fact need multiples steps.

In just PF1 core we already had a lot of different bonuses

Saves had two base progressions plus the boosting feats.

BAB had three base progressiosn plus wepaon focus and fighter abilities

Skills had 0-20 ranks plus class skill plus skill focus for a huge variety of bonuses.

So we had granularity in PF1. The range for skills is reduced which is fine since mostly ranks were either 1, maxed or set to hit a specific DC. The granularity for saves has increased a bit but no one is actually untrained in a save. Weapon proficiency has stays about the same variety of bonuses though all the numbers are closer due to the tighter math of the game. So going down to just two levels of trained and untrained would be a step backwards in customization which is one of the reasons I don't like it in 5e.

Different subsystems within the game is neither here nor there. I was talking about Proficiency, and the Playtest's universal +Level deal is close to 5th Ed's proficiency bonus system. Especially if you rip it (+Level) out (+1 to +3, instead of +2 to +6).

[Bardarok]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

I would like them to ditch the EML thing. Untrained, Trained and level should cover it, the EML thing has no traction, and Expert and Master are direct synonyms of one another.

Hard disagree. That's basically the way 5e does it (tough proficiency is more like lvl/4+2) and I hate how binary it is. We need some sort of granularity.

Well, we don't have 5 degrees of proficiency in 3rd Ed/PF1, either, so why the sudden need?

Also, 5th Ed has 1/2 proficiency bonus and Expertise (double bonus), so it's not always that binary.

Expertise breaks the math of the game so it is limited only to skills for specific characters. so binary for most things for most characters.

Unified proficiency is taking the place of both base progression as well as features and feats which granted small bonuses so we do in fact need multiples steps.

In just PF1 core we already had a lot of different bonuses

Saves had two base progressions plus the boosting feats.

BAB had three base progressiosn plus wepaon focus and fighter abilities

Skills had 0-20 ranks plus class skill plus skill focus for a huge variety of bonuses.

So we had granularity in PF1. The range for skills is reduced which is fine since mostly ranks were either 1, maxed or set to hit a specific DC. The granularity for saves has increased a bit but no one is actually untrained in a save. Weapon proficiency has stays about the same variety of bonuses though all the numbers are closer due to the tighter math of the game. So going down to just two levels of trained and untrained would be a step backwards in customization which is one of the reasons I don't like it in 5e.

Different subsystems within the game is neither here nor there. I was talking about Proficiency, and the Playtest's universal +Level deal is close to 5th Ed's proficiency bonus system. Especially if you rip it (+Level) out (+1 to +3, instead of +2 to +6).

Well now you are changing your argument all together so I have nothing more to contribute. Have a nice day Vic.

[Vic Ferrari]

Bardarok wrote:

Well now you are changing your argument all together so I have nothing more to contribute. Have a nice day Vic.

Wow, not at all; that's not cool. I was talking about proficiency, from the start, I have no idea why you started talking about BAB and skill points and what-not. Anyway, unfortunately I think it's pretty obvious what is going on here...