Ideal Weapon Proficiency Changes

[iceyfire]

In the interest of Rp. I would love to see a hack similar to this one:

http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Hakpaks.Detail&id=28386&id=6490

I like the idea of adding -4 attack penalty, and i would like the idea of this as i could actually show that i have learned a few things about wielding a longsword from Barion.
It would be a bit more fun to carry around something different from a Staff at times.
With a extensive penalty for equiping items your not proficient in makes sense aswell, even with a -4 i would see that as an adequate way to stop people from abusing such things.
Besides it could add a bit more depth to a few certain aspects of rp as a whole on here.
I can also see it allowing the market to grow a little as people buy maybe a few different weapons to walk around with, maybe as a form of decite "Wizard pretending to be a paladin" or as a bit of a change.
As i see it anyone could pick up a weapon and wield it around helplessly if they wanted to.

Discuss.

[LoganGrimnar]

ohh, that could be cool.

[Nyralotep]

Very nice idea.

[Eight-Bit]

It would certinally open up crafting quite a bit. Which, in some way would be very, very neat.

[iceyfire]

Looking at the implementation, i dont believe it would take much effort at all ethier

[Yosemite Sam]

Hmm, but there is a caveat.  I dont recall seeing dwarven waraxes in game, so that isnt a problem, but are there bards that use the weapons that they would lose?

[Pen N Popper]

I could see this for RP.  Personally I'd rather see the wielder have a flat +0 to attack (no attack bonuses whatsoever).  Perhaps lower their DEX a few points as well (certainly the elderly mage would end up tripping himself on the whip).  Some people take these feats and -4 isn't really that bad, imo.

[Weeblie]

Personally, I would love this "patch". It's more realistic and makes Weapon Proficiency work as in the PnP rules!

But, think this way. I bet Bioware has access to the D&D rulebooks, but still, they decided not to do this in the "correct way". Why? Balancing issue? Probably...

So, I would suggest to change the penelties to -15 or so instead. Only a -4 makes the Weapon Proficiency feats more or less useless.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Heh, a -4 can make a HUUUUUUGE difference. Otherwise, why the heck do we care about iron, or even addy weapons?

By the way...

I really, really want to see this incorporated into Layo - it opens up so many nifty, new RPing ideas, AND opens up crafting a bit in regards to proficiency (though not alignment or class).

[Weeblie]

Because... Overcomming damage reductions?

[Filatus]

This is a great idea in my opinion. -4 constitutes a 20 % less chance of actually hitting, which is quite a lot.

I'd really like to see this implemented.

EDIT: I assume this doesn't involve -4 for damage. I think it should include that as well. If a person isn't proficient in wielding a weapon, he should be unable to use the weapon to its fullest possibility, that includes the damage done with it.

For example a mage who decides to try a sword and completely wields it wrong, trying to stab more than slash.

[Eight-Bit]

Filatus - 5/14/2006 2:06 PM This is a great idea in my opinion. -4 constitutes a 20 % less chance of actually hitting, which is quite a lot. I'd really like to see this implemented. EDIT: I assume this doesn't involve -4 for damage. I think it should include that as well. If a person isn't proficient in wielding a weapon, he should be unable to use the weapon to its fullest possibility, that includes the damage done with it. For example a mage who decides to try a sword and completely wields it wrong, trying to stab more than slash.

 The penalty ought to be kept the same. To give everyone a perfect example, go without eating for an entire day in game, then try and fight. You'll notice the difference quite easily.

[Weeblie]

Filatus - 5/14/2006  8:06 PM

This is a great idea in my opinion. -4 constitutes a 20 % less chance of actually hitting, which is quite a lot.

It is a lot. But the main problem is that it's quite unfair for the people who already have chosen the feats. For them it was a "can't use" and "can use" decision, not a "20% increased hit rate" one... That's why I suggest to add an extremly harsh penalty.

Of course... If no one has chosen these feats... It's okay then.

Edit: A -4 penalty to both AB and damage could work quite well too...

[Filatus]

Yes, I agree Weebs. Just explaing to people how big -4 actually is.

And well, I think the -4 damage is important. Although I do not consider it that important in the matter of fairness to the mages who took the feat to chop wood. I do think that it shouldn't all of a sudden allow mages to get all the resources themself.

A mage with -4 to damage would have very little chance in chopping wood, which is what I prefer.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

-4 Damage? Och... That's a little overboard, now. Let's look at something... Let's say Farmer Joe picks up a Longsword. Now, he's a 1st level Commoner, and doesn't have a Martial Weapon Proficiency, but he picks the thing up. Farmer Joe could've picked up a heavy stick (effectively a Club), and done 1d6 damage. He's got Simple Weapon Proficiency, so he could do that, no penalty. However, since he's picked up a Longsword, he'll do 1d8. Why? Edges. He's swinging it effectively like a club, so his use is more than a little unwieldy (-4 to attack), but he's still got a fair set of arms behind it. Where does a -4 to attack come from?

Okay, so Farmer Joe had a STR of 11, sure. He didn't have any bonuses or penalties for STR.

So let's take a look at Seamstress Molly. Also a 1st level Commoner, she knows how to stab somebody with a knife, but give her a shortsword? Och. She's also a reasonably sedentary person, so her STR is 6 (-2). Seamstress Molly, however, is assaulted by a bumbling cutpurse on her way home, who drops his Shortsword. Thinking quickly, she scoops it up, and takes a swing at the bloke.

Let's look at the stats that are happening here. Molly doesn't have the Proficiency for a Shortsword, so she starts off with a -4 to attack. Also, she gets a -2 to attack and damage, thanks to an abominable STR. As a 1st level Commoner, she has no AB, so her attack roll is -6. Okay, so she rolls a 17 - good thing our cutpurse isn't wearing armor. She gets an 11, and hits. Now, for damage. A Shortsword deals 1d6 damage. She's already got a -2 to damage... Meaning she can get between 1 and 4 damage on the guy. Why should she have an ADDITIONAL -4 to damage? Just because you haven't been trained to use a weapon, doesn't mean you don't know that the pointy end goes into the other man.

STR modifiers handle damage well enough...

However, I would like to comment that Exotic weapons should not have this extended to them. Exotic weapons require training specific to each one... We could add another feat, perhaps, to allow all exotic weapons to be used at penalty, but I don't feel we should allow them all to be used automatically, penalty or no. Perhaps doubling the to-hit penalty?

[Makusa]

My thoughts on it are -2 to attack because the weapon will be strange to their hands
             -2 to damage because they won't know where to strike the enemy for the most effect of that weapon unlike a trained warrior.
         and -2 ac becuase having a new weapon will set them off balance.  
          (but with this whole thought the more they use a weapon the more profiecient they will become and then would their be an rp way for them to get it much like getting an ear in game?  Though I don't know if DM's can make someone profficient in a single weapon.)

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Look. The penalties have been extensively playtested in PnP for nonproficiency - they got it right. And truthfully, I have absolutely no training whatsoever with most of the Martial weapons, but if you put one in my hands, while I wouldn't be as skilled with it as someone who had become accustomed to the weapon, I'd still hit whomever pretty hard with the business end, and I'd not suffer any hampering of my agility unless perhaps it was a polearm.

Proficiency feats deal with proficiency - not knowledge of how to use a weapon. I know perfectly well that with a rapier, the pointy end goes into the other man. But am I PROFICIENT with a rapier? No, I'm afraid I'm not. So, if we were to equate this to D&D, I would get a -4 penalty to attack, because the standard attack bonuses assume proficiency with the given weapon. This isn't because I don't know how to use a rapier. It's just because I haven't been trained in proper technique.

A dull shortsword is a light metal club. A two-bladed sword is a quarterstaff with edges. How do you fire a crossbow? Point and pull the trigger. We all KNOW how to use these weapons, so we can, of course, attack with them. However, we are not all PROFICIENT with these weapons - we haven't had the training to use them to thier full extent.

You say that we should take damage penalties, Makua. I disagree for the following reason: Base Attack Bonus and automatic Proficiencies have already taken the idea of general combat capability into account. A person is as strong as they are strong, period. All the training in the world, (assuming they don't get stronger,) won't make that person stronger, or thier attacks do any more damage unless they learn special techniques (represented by feats such as Weapon Specialization) to cause greater injury. A trained warrior learns these techniques... A layman does not, and so does the base damage, modified by his strength.

[Talan Va'lash]

@ Makusa - It doesn't work like that at all, and I don't think it could be made to.  Proficiencies aren't handled on a per weapon basis in NWN.

The penalties for non-proficiency is a -4 to attack rolls.

The comments in this thread and some recent discussions in the IRC channel leads me to believe that people don't understand the importance of AB.

-4 AB is massive.  The difference in BAB between a level 20 Fighter and a level 20 Rogue is only 5.  Yet I think everyone knows how much better at hitting stuff a fighter is than a rogue.

This would not make proficiencies useless.  -4 is a larger difference in AB than weapon focus and epic weapon focus combined, anyone that chooses to fight regularly with a weapon they aren't proficient with is.. well, seriously harming their combat abilities.

Combat isn't a balance issue with this, the only thing that might be a balance snag is wizards and such mining with heavy picks after buffing their str and such.  I think we can (almost) all agree that any joe can pick up an axe and chop down a tree.  I mean, I've done it, and I'm just an average joe.  I don't have martial weapons proficiency.  However mining might be another issue, and wizards being able to do everything themselves without having to pay for it at all (with feats) might be an issue we want to avoid.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

TV... What's to stop a wizard from picking up a pick and hitting a rock with it? Ore-rich rocks are just that - rocks. Smelting the ore into workable metal involves heating the rock so that the metal melts out of it. If the wizard can cast a spell that improves thier strength in a manner to carry more junk, why can't they smack a rock with a pointy stick?

[Makusa]

@TV - I didn't know wether it would work so mentioned it.  I thought that perhaps a dm could make up a feat with each items profficency (EDIT: and now that i think more put that feat on an item and put that in your inventory approved like ears.  i thought that feat could be made because of things like monk proficiency feat and elf feat ect.)

as for AC decreasement when a person is trained in how to use a weapon they are trained in the offensive and deffensive points of it.  a way to swing that sword so that you can block when your opponent swings in case you don't hit as well.  lets say i am used to a club and have a short sword the reason i may be off balanced is because of my attacks or because i may simply not be good at blocking with that type of weapon.  its longer than a dagger and thinner than a club.

as for the -2 to AB its because i think ab is extremely valuable.  I chose an iron weapon over bronze because the iron gave me +1 to AB even though the bronze gave me +2 to slashing damage.  AB is consiquential in any and every fight.  1 point in AB increases your chances of hitting 5% which can make a significant change in a battle.  -20% (the negative 4 proposed) i think is a bit to harsh

now onto the damage
Stephen Zuckerman said "...I know perfectly well that with a rapier, the pointy end goes into the other man..."
That part I'm not argueing with that's common knowledge, but the knowledge that isn't always out there is where to poke it on the man.  sure the heart's a very easy comeback for that but most of the time the heart is well protected.  there are spots on the torso though that hurt more than others.  Also with the comparison to clubs v.s. swords.  Clubs you're trying to break bones swords your trying to avoid them to deal damage to the organs muscles tendons and other fragle inner parts on a person.  hitting someones shield with a club can immobilize that arm completely with less strength than it would take with a sword.  certain weapons are ment to just plain pound hard.  Others are ment to just put someones insides on the outside.  As for the mining there are more effective spots to hit on a rock to break it apart.  You may think any old joe can hit that rock right but go out there and try sometime.  rocks have weakpoints and picks can be held and swung in slightly different ways to maximize damage.  these slight differences that most otside observers wouldn't notice can be crucial. (and would explain the -2 damage for an average joe mining on that rock)

in conclusion: When you become profficient in a weapon your learning the BASIC tecniques on how and where to hit.  future feats like focus & specializations improve on the basic skills that you would need to know, to show you how to hit more devistating spots easier and quicker.