Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Wasp 11-23-03, 05:01 AM	why are barbarians proficient with all martial weapons? it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. i'll grant that it doesn't make a lot of sense for any of the martial classes, (why would all the soldiers be proficient with a trident?) but at least the fighter, pally, and ranger are all "trained" classes. Barbarian doesn't seem to require any formal arms training at all (note it has the lowest starting age) it seems pretty stupid that Joe barbarian of the nomadic horsepeople would be proficient with a ranseur, a great flail, and a pick. would it be unbalancing to require barbarians to pick 4-6 "tribal" martial weapons with which they are proficient? It will decrease their martial versatility, but thats not why people play barbarians anyways.
The Wasp 11-23-03, 05:18 PM	no takers? how dissapointing ...
Greg K 11-23-03, 09:27 PM	I would have preferred that they had gone back to 1e barbarian for weapon proficiencies: spear, axe, knife and tribal/clan weapons and then given some examples of clan/tribe weapons inspired by real world cultures. Then again, I wish they had saved the raging as a prestige class thing.
Platinum 11-23-03, 09:33 PM	Brbs should be proficient in all exotic weapons (and improvised weapons) too. The barb I play will beat you with whatever is convenient at the time. If the only thing in the room I can beat you with is a kitchen sink, guess what... you're getting beat with a kitchen sink! :fight!: :fight!:
William Coburn 11-24-03, 01:07 AM	Exactly. Barbarin fighting is much more oh, improvised. A rapier and a broad sword or concepantly the same thing. Sharp bit goes into the orcs. The Barb may not understand the grace or skill behind usage of a rapier, but he's going to use it just as well (if not better) then his good olde broadsword. With most weapons, knowing how to use one makes figureing out simmilar ones all the esayer. Oh, and tridents were more common then people think. Not during the midevil era, it was more of a clasical greek thing.
Thorak 11-24-03, 08:32 AM	I've done some martial art training (talked about it extensively in other threads, not going into it here) and most of the techiques we learn are useable regardless of the weapon. Thus, a hanbo (half staff, basically a club), a sword, a knife, all use the same movement and technique. Even full staff, spear, etc share some movements, and their motions are often applicable to the shorter weapons. Same with chain weapons, or anything. Sure, there are some tricks to learn with some weapons, but I definetly understand the 'fighter knows all martial weapons' bit. It's less "Has trained with every single one of them" than "Knows the general principles behind using the various types and can adjust quickly to the individual weapon's specific abilities". Barbs I see the same way, in a different style. They whack things with other things. It doesn't make much different what the weapon is, the barb's sheer whacking ability makes up for it. Exotic weapons to me seem to be those weapons which AREN'T similar to others. Sure, I don't agree with some choices for the exotic list, but whatever. I understand why they're there for game balance reasons (they're often better than martial weapons are)
Sensei Gith 11-24-03, 09:04 AM	IMC, all classes must choose a few weapons from their normal proficiencies. Similar weapons to ones that they are proficient in only have a -2 nonproficiency penalty. They also get a few added proficiencies as they level.
Shadowfax7 11-24-03, 09:10 AM	I agree that barbarians, and fighters IMO, should not get ALL the martial weapon proficiencies. I suggest . . . for barbarians and fighters 4 martial weapon proficiencies at 1st level (barbarians should have mandatory martial weapon proficiencies as per their clan) and then an add'l martial weapon proficiency every 2 levels for barbarians and every level for fighters. Something similar for rangers and paladins. My 2 cp.
Tlartanor 11-24-03, 11:11 AM	You know that such a notion is right back form 2nd ed? Personnaly, I tend to agree with the view of Thorak as many weapons share the same basics of use and only some quirks differ from one and the others. The full mastery of those quirks is represented by the different weapons feats liker weapon focus, weapon finesse and everything else. Good day
bitnine 11-24-03, 11:12 AM	Hm. I think that if you're going to limit proficiencies, while not really necessary, it makes more sense to break weapons into related groupings than to allow a number of specific weapon picks. [Edit: Or, what I think might be better even if you want to represent this sort of thing, might be to keep the martial proficiencies, and just grant a -2 to a type of weapon that a character has never used before for a limited time. A barbarian who's used to axes and hammers picks up a greatsword, and while he doesn't need to take more major penalties or blow feats, he takes a slight penalty while learning to adapt his style to the unfamiliar weapon. /Edit]
ThorvaldHafgrimsson 11-24-03, 12:38 PM	If you go to limitted weapon proficiency you need to go for all the classes. AND you need to limit aspects of the other classes that have been boosted along the way. In 2nd ed, Fighters (+Paladins/Rangers) were the ONLY class(es) to get extra attacks for high level. And they got those attacks if they moved 5' or their maximum move in a round. Sure they had limitted weapon proficiencies, but you found fewer magical weapons (in most campaigns, I'll exclude the Monty Haul's) and these tended to be a few predictable staples. Even if you got a new weapon with which you were non-proficient, the fighters Non-Proficiency penalty was only -2 (While the Wizards was -5 for example) and there was no inherent penalty for taking the new weapon as your proficiency the next time yuo received one. Now taking a new proficiency reduces your avialable Feats for other uses. So no you don't need to reduce fighter proficiencies. Unless you want to reduce spell saves to a flat 10+Spell elvel, allowing high level fighters the ability to make their saving throws (which they could do in 2nd ed and which they find increasingly difficult to manage in 3rd) I'm far more likely to agree with Thorak than someone with no meaningful weapon skills or Historical knowledge (he knows who he is) on the ability of fighters to master a variety of weapons. How much time does it take to train in anew weapon for someone with a good basis in general combat techniques? Ask teh US military how long their traiing courses are ni weapons lik Grenade Launchers, etc. You might be surprised to find that one can be certified with them with less than 100 hours of training.
TheMightyMcClaw 11-24-03, 01:25 PM	Alright, here's why the barbarian is proficient with martial weapons. First off, not all Barbarians are Nanuk of the River People. The class represents a wide range of character archetypes, ranging from Nanuk up there to Viking Berserkers to raging warriors (like the old dwarven battlerager kit). Second, they are warriors. Even if a barbarian has never wielded a trident, he has probably wielded a spear - and their really isn't much difference between stabbing someone with a three-pronged spear and a single-pronged spear. If a person has fought many battles, then he can probably get the gist of a weapon quickly. Unless you're trying fancy maneuvers, most weapons are fairly simple. Just because barbarians are typically big angry men, that doesn't make them unskilled with arms.
The Wasp 11-24-03, 10:58 PM	First off, not all Barbarians are Nanuk of the River People. The class represents a wide range of character archetypes, ranging from Nanuk up there to Viking Berserkers to raging warriors that's actually the point of the modification - to differentiate between different barbarian cultures: Nanook would be proficient with a few bows and axes, but not with polearms, most swords, or picks Bjorn the viking would be proficient with most swords and axes, but not bows or polearms. Sublai the mongol would be proficient with the shortbow, the lance, and maybe a few swords. martial weapons cannot be proficiently used by just hitting something with something else - otherwise, anyone could do it! if knowing that the sharp bit goes into the orcs is enough to usee a sword, then call me proficient... (as opposed to, say, a gun or a rocket launcher, which are far easier to become proficient with. half the training is aiming, the other half is safety. there aren't any special techniques.) being able to reliably transfer weapon techniques to other weapons requires formal arms training - and if you can get that, you're not really a barbarian anyways.
ThorvaldHafgrimsson 11-25-03, 12:54 AM	Originally posted by The Wasp Bjorn the viking would be proficient with most swords and axes, but not bows or polearms. Sublai the mongol would be proficient with the shortbow, the lance, and maybe a few swords. Except Vikings used Bows for hunting and warfare. The Spear was used more than the sword OR Axe. And Harald Hadradda had a subordinate (whose name I cannot recall) who fought with a Glaive when they marched against Godwinson - the polearm not the sword by the same name. Mongols also used Maces and Axes of several varieties. Nice to know you've trained with a grenade launcher. Do you recall how hard it was to get used to their parabolic trajectory? Nowhere near as easy as firing a 5.56 round was it?
Sensei Gith 11-25-03, 08:22 AM	I gave fighters every simple weapon (until I could find a reasonable workaround) and four martials, plus one per six levels. They could decide to gain the proficiency whenever they wanted, not necessarily at that level (like after the fighter finds the +5 keen speed greataxe). Martial Weapon Proficiency granted use of an entire proficiency group. Yes, Thorvald is a troll. Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.
ThorvaldHafgrimsson 11-25-03, 03:22 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith I gave fighters every simple weapon (until I could find a reasonable workaround) and four martials, plus one per six levels. They could decide to gain the proficiency whenever they wanted, not necessarily at that level (like after the fighter finds the +5 keen speed greataxe). Which just encourages MC'ing. Take a level of Paladin, Ranger, or Barbarian to get extra Martial Proficiencies. And You still need a "Workaround" for Simple Weapon Proficiencies. And it entails more bookkeeping as you now must track where the proficiences go and hwether you have a free one open. Three definite problems to solve one possible problem. I think the cure is worse than the ailment. Originally posted by Sensei Gith Martial Weapon Proficiency granted use of an entire proficiency group.[/B] Which begs the question of what constitutes a group. Chaeck the confusion of the Old 2nd ed "Skills and Powers" or "Combat and Tactics" about them and you might get the idea.
Sensei Gith 11-25-03, 05:05 PM	I just dug up the proficiency groups. Martial Weapon Proficiency Groups If you have proficiency in one weapon in a proficiency group, then you only suffer a -2 penalty to using another weapon in the same group. The feat Martial Weapon Proficiency grants full proficiency in one proficiency group. Axes and Picks Throwing Axe Handaxe Battleaxe Greataxe Light Pick Heavy Pick Scythe Dwarven Waraxe, two-handed Hammers and Flails Light Hammer Warhammer Maul Light Flail Heavy Flail Lances and Spears Heavy Lance Trident Halfspear Shortspear Longspear Javelin Swords Shortsword Longsword Rapier Scimitar Falchion Greatsword Bastard Sword, 2-handed Heavy Weapons Greataxe Greatsword Greatclub Scythe Maul Polearms Glaive Guisare Halberd Longspear Ranseur Bows Shortbow (and composite) Longbow (and composite)
ThorvaldHafgrimsson 11-25-03, 07:18 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Hammers and Flails Light Hammer Warhammer Maul Light Flail Heavy Flail Flails AND hammers? despite my reservations about the other groupings, this one is clearly ludicrous. How is a 1 handed hammer wielded in any way similarly to a two handed flail?
Kronk LaSworda 11-26-03, 11:55 AM	I have no problem with Barbarians being able to use any martial weapon. After all, in the wild, you make do with what you have. A barb has learned to live fast and die hard. He should be a formidable opponent with the simple and martial weapons. Originally posted by The Wasp no takers? how dissapointing ... You only waited 17 minutes on a Sunday afternoon. Don't be so hasty.
Fromost the Grimm 11-26-03, 06:03 PM	. . . I'm with Thorak. Irrespective of what specific weapon(s) a fighter-type learned to fight with during their formative years, methinks it's *that* they learned to fight that gives them the generic martial proficiency. In this sense, it's more experiencing the heat of combat, knowing how to defend yourself, knowing how to close/open an opponent, how to balance yourself, learning to identify possible feints and/or an opponent's rhythm, etc.; it's more 'how to fight', and less how to use a specific weapon in a fight. With this knowledge, simply grab random weapon/stick/kitchen sink, and hit bad thing with it whilst applying said knowledge. As a warrior gains experience in combat, his ability to read the battle, to do all these things so as to be more effective in combat increases, characterised by an increase in BAB, which is irrespective of weapon and/or weapon type. Gaining proficiency with a specific weapon on top of this foundation then enters the realm of Weapon Focus and Specialisation, etc. And in this sense, I agree with specific proficiency needed for exotic weapons, as these bad-boys are too unique in and of themselves, requiring 'tricks' beyond that basic foundation - and that may even contradict said foundation - to even wield them effectively. So whilst young Nanook should - in my opinion - be proficient in any martial weapon he can lay his hands on due to years of experience as a battle-hardy tribal warrior, further proficiency with a specific weapon should be restricted to something he is locally familiar with. Fromost ( . . . currently playing a Large 6th level half-orc/half-minotaur Barbarian )