Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 03-29-04, 06:04 PM	A part of me considers starting armor and starting weapon proficiencies to be pretty much one and the same; they both take an amount of training. Now, suposidly, armor proficiency feats are suposed to actually be worth a feat, but characters are pretty much given all the armor proficiency feats they could ever want (a low dex barbarian may want heavy armor proficiency for mithril full plate, and a medeocre dex ranger may want medium for mithril breastplate, I'll give you that much). First off, I'm considering rebalancing armors to grant higher total AC (dex + armor bonus) for the medium and heavy armors, because they cost a feat to use and give big penalties, so part of them should be better. But, back to the weapon groups. First off, I dislike the fact that there is little to no reason to select the simple weapon groups (maces and clubs, spears and lances, crossbows, slings and thrown weapons, monk weapons for non-monks) and almost every reason to select the martial groups. So first off, I propose that to select a martial group, one must select an appropriate simple group. Or, I propose that martial groups would have a +1 BAB requirement to select, and martial classes would have all the simple weapons. Problem solved. Secondly, I propose that characters gain a few more proficiancy feats at first level, in return for loosing out on all starting armor proficiencies. Additionally, one could use one's starting proficiancy feats to gain more skill points (up to a max of using two proficiancies for such purpose), and possibly just purchasing certain combat feats in general. Fighters would get 6 and simple weapons (or 8 if one requires an appropriate simple weapon to be selected before selecting a martial weapon). Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers would get 5 and simple weapons (or 6 if one requires an appropriate simple weapon to be selected before gaining a martial weapon). Clerics, Druids, Rogues, and Monks would get 4, not including simple weapons. Sorcerers would get 2, not including simple weapons. Wizards would get 1, not including simple weapons. This does two things that I find to be important: It allows for a high dex fighter to be competative against a low dex fighter (high dex fighter will have more weapon proficiencies, or perhaps more skill points, low dex fighter will have a higher AC), and it even allows for unarmed, light armored fighters to have an edge (more skill points, probably will buy a few new feats). Additionally, certain "feats" could be classified as proficiancy feats. The weapon, armor, and shield proficiancy feats are definately such. Weapon Focus-Specialization chain could be considered as such also. Also, part of me thinks that characters could gain additional proficiancy feats as they increase in level, determined by BAB. This way, a high level fighter could learn more and more weapons, or focus on their single weapon, like back in 2nd edition. It would also allow the fighter to no longer have to spend their fighter feats on their focus/specialization, since those feats are arguably better placed as class abilities.
Thelon Fairblade 11-17-04, 03:11 PM	And how did this work out, Xeviat? I'm starting a new campaign soon, and weapon groups will be used... I'm gathering info! Are you suggesting that armor profs be rolled into "weapon groups", and that you could trade a grouping for skill points? I could have a fighter with Light Armor and 7 weapon groups, or a barbarian with heavy armor, axes, and +1 skill point/level? Oh, and how to require a "related simple weapon" before taking a martial weapon group? I'm considering that a weapon group can be traded for Weapon Focus instead....
Krynus Ogrebane 11-17-04, 06:12 PM	But, back to the weapon groups. First off, I dislike the fact that there is little to no reason to select the simple weapon groups (maces and clubs, spears and lances, crossbows, slings and thrown weapons, monk weapons for non-monks) and almost every reason to select the martial groups. So first off, I propose that to select a martial group, one must select an appropriate simple group. Or, I propose that martial groups would have a +1 BAB requirement to select, and martial classes would have all the simple weapons. Problem solved. I agree that it's an issue. I've customized the weapon groups into fifteen proficiency feats: Maces and Clubs - - Axes - - Flails and Chains - - Picks and Hammers (picks, hammers, maul, scythe) - - Monk Weapons (must also have Slings and Thrown Weapons) Crossbows - - Bows Spears (minus lance) - - Polearms (plus lance) Slings and Thrown Weapons - - Monk Weapons (must also have Maces and Clubs) Light Blades (dagger, punching dagger, shortsword, sickle) - - Moderate Blades (longsword, rapier, scimitar) - - - - Heavy Blades (greatsword, falchion, bastard sword, scythe) Exotic Single Weapons (prereq +1 BAB) Exotic Double Weapons (prereq +1 BAB) As an example, [Maces and Clubs] is a prerequisite for each of the four feats below it, indicated by '- -'. [Heavy Blades] has two prerequisites, [Light Blades] and [Moderate Blades]. Now, suposidly, armor proficiency feats are suposed to actually be worth a feat, but characters are pretty much given all the armor proficiency feats they could ever want (a low dex barbarian may want heavy armor proficiency for mithril full plate, and a medeocre dex ranger may want medium for mithril breastplate, I'll give you that much). First off, I'm considering rebalancing armors to grant higher total AC (dex + armor bonus) for the medium and heavy armors, because they cost a feat to use and give big penalties, so part of them should be better. For our group's games, we've ditched the last two columns of the armor listings (i.e.- speed reduction) and use the encumbrance rules (light, medium, or heavy load) when determining if base/run speed is reduced. The check penalties still apply (whichever is worse, encumbrance or armor). Secondly, I propose that characters gain a few more proficiancy feats at first level, in return for loosing out on all starting armor proficiencies. Additionally, one could use one's starting proficiancy feats to gain more skill points (up to a max of using two proficiancies for such purpose), and possibly just purchasing certain combat feats in general. I don't go quite that route (skill point/proficiency swapping), but I did create a feat for allowing characters to improve the number of skill points they can gain each level: Skill Aptitude You have developed and broadened your skill capabilities. Prerequisite: Skill Focus. Benefit: You immediately gain four skill points. You also gain one additional skill point at each character level hereafter. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times, provided that you meet the prerequisite of having another Skill Focus feat (in order to have the Skill Aptitude feat twice, you must have at least two Skill Focus feats, and so on). Its effects stack. Side-note: we also allow rogues to choose between Sneak Attack and Skill Focus at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17, and to choose between Sneak Attack and the +2/+2 feats at levels 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19. As a nice side-effect, this creates the option to play a PC Expert class.
Xeviat-DM 11-18-04, 01:25 AM	And how did this work out, Xeviat? I'm starting a new campaign soon, and weapon groups will be used... I'm gathering info! Are you suggesting that armor profs be rolled into "weapon groups", and that you could trade a grouping for skill points? I could have a fighter with Light Armor and 7 weapon groups, or a barbarian with heavy armor, axes, and +1 skill point/level? Oh, and how to require a "related simple weapon" before taking a martial weapon group? I'm considering that a weapon group can be traded for Weapon Focus instead.... It is actually working out quite great. You've got the general idea, but the armor proficiencies still have prerequisite feats. You need to take light and medium armor before taking heavy armor, and you need to take shields before taking tower shields. All martial classes (classes who start with a +1 BAB) get all simple weapons for free, and other classes get all basic weapons for free (club, dagger (no throwing), quarterstaff, greatclub). Looks back over his original post Wow, this is an older version of the system. Here's what I have now. Proficiency Feats at 1st Level Fighter: Simple Weapons, plus any other 8 (The fighter, and only the fighter, can choose to give up 2 proficency feats at 1st level to increase their skill points to 4. As a DM, I am lenient on Fighter class skills) Barbarian, Psychic Warrior, Paladin, Ranger: Simple Weapons, plus any other 6 Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Monk, Bard: Any 4 Sorcerer: Any 2 Wizard, Psion: Any 1 Proficiency Feats Armor Proficiency (light) -Armor Proficiency (medium) --Armor Proficiency (heavy) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (axes) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (curved blades) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (flail) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (heavy blades) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (picks and hammers) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (polearms) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (thrown weapons) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (whips) Improved Critical Martial Weapon Proficiency (axes) Martial Weapon Proficiency (bows) Martial Weapon Proficiency (curved blades) Martial Weapon Proficiency (flails) Martial Weapon Proficiency (hammers and picks) Martial Weapon Proficiency (heavy blades) Martial Weapon Proficiency (light blades) Martial Weapon Proficiency (polearms) Martial Weapon Proficiency (whips) Power Critical Shield Proficiency -Tower Shield Proficiency Simple Weapon Proficiency (claws and fists) Simple Weapon Proficiency (crossbows) Simple Weapon Proficiency (maces and clubs) Simple Weapon Proficiency (simple blades) Simple Weapon Proficiency (spears) Simple Weapon Proficiency (thrown weapons) Weapon Focus -Weapon Specialization -Greater Weapon Focus --Greater Weapon Specialization Weapon Proficiency Feats Simple Basic (cannot take weapon group specific feats for the basic weapon category): Club, dagger, greatclub, quarterstaff Claws and Fists: Punching dagger (Katar), spiked gauntlet Crossbows: Hand crossbow, heavy crossbow, light crossbow Maces and Clubs: Club, light mace, heavy mace, greatclub, quarterstaff, sap, morningstar, light flail (nunchaku) Simple Blades: Sickle (Kama), Machete, dagger (non-throwing), sai Spears: Javelin, longspear, shortspear, trident, light spear (siangham) Thrown Weapons: Dart, shuriken, sling Martial Axes: Handaxe, battleaxe, greataxe, waraxe (2-h) Curved Blades: Falchion, (katana) (2-h), kukri, scimitar Bows: Shortbow, longbow Flails and Chains: Flail, heavy flail Heavy Blades: Longsword, greatsword, bastard sword (2-h) Light Blades: Dagger (with throwing), rapier, short sword Picks and Hammers: Light pick, heavy pick, light hammer, warhammer, scythe Polearms: Glaive, guisarm, halberd, ranseur, lance, trident Whips: Whip Exotic Axe: Double axe, urgrosh (must also have polearms), Waraxe (1-h) Curved Blades: (Katana) Flail: Dire flail Heavy Blades: Two-bladed sword, Bastard Sword (1-h) Picks and Hammers: Hooked hammer Polearms: Urgrosh (must also have axes) Thrown Weapons: Bolas, Net Whips: Spiked Chain Remember, Martial Weapons require a BAB of +1, so non-martial classes cannot start out with them. In order to feel like the core version, the Psychic Warrior will need to be allowed Martial weapons at first level as a class ability. Additionally, every time a character's BAB reaches a multiple of 4, they get a proficiency feat for free. If a character so chooses, they can spend a regular feat on a proficiency feat as well, but this has not happened much. Truth be told, my changes do increase the potency of warrior oriented characters, especially fighters who now have the feats to burn on weapon specialization. Almost every character picks up weapon focus, power critical, and improved critical in their favorite weapon. I'm okay with this, because non-caster combat oriented characters do need some help late game compared to the casters. I am running two campaigns using these rules, and I have found it to be quite fitting.
Ao 11-18-04, 11:38 PM	And how did this work out, Xeviat? I'm starting a new campaign soon, and weapon groups will be used... I'm gathering info! Are you suggesting that armor profs be rolled into "weapon groups", and that you could trade a grouping for skill points? I could have a fighter with Light Armor and 7 weapon groups, or a barbarian with heavy armor, axes, and +1 skill point/level? Oh, and how to require a "related simple weapon" before taking a martial weapon group? I'm considering that a weapon group can be traded for Weapon Focus instead.... I've been using this idea for awhile now. I allow my player's to swap-out inherent feats (armor proficiencies, shield proficiencies, weapon group proficiencies) for feats at level 1. there is certain criteria for doing so however, such as qualifying for the feat and not "chaining" feats. Not all my players wanted thier fighters to be proficient with certain feats that they were never going to use. A character created to be a specialist may not want 4 weapon groups, an archer fighter may not want heavy armor proficiency, not all fighters will want to use a tower shield. Why not trade these feats out for others that make sense to the design of the character? And this works for all classes. It's balanced because theoretically, your simply trading one feat for another.
Xeviat-DM 11-19-04, 11:40 AM	Well, with the number of starting proficiencies I've granted, if a player were to try to design their character's armor proficiencies like the classes have now, here's how many weapons the characters would be able to select: Barbarian: Light, Medium, Shields, Simple Weapons, and 3 martial or exotic groups (remember that exotic groups can only be taken for a group you already possess). Bard: Light, Shields, Basic Weapons, and 2 simple groups (looses out on longsword, rapier, shortsword, shortbow, and whip proficiencies which were possible in 3.5 rules). Cleric: Light, Medium, Heavy, Shields, and Basic Weapons. If a cleric wants to be armored from head to toe, they're going to be stuck with very basic weaponry. Druid: Light, Medium, Shields, Basic Weapons, and one simple group (looses out on possible access to scimitar). Fighter: Light, Medium, Heavy, Shields, Tower Shields, Simple Weapons, and 3 martial or exotic groups. Monk: Basic Weapons, and 4 simple weapon groups. Considering the Monk does not need that many weapons, I am tempted to reduce them to 2 weapon groups. Paladin: Light, Medium, Heavy, Shields, Simple Weapons, and 2 martial or exotic weapon groups. Ranger: Light, Shields, Simple Weapons, and 4 martial or exotic weapon groups. Rogue: Light, Basic Weapons, and 3 simple weapon groups. Rogue players may complain, because the rapier, shortbow, and shortsword fall off their list of weapons (though they can pick one up at level 6, BAB +4, for free). Sorcerer: Basic Weapons, and 2 simple weapon groups. Wizard: Basic Weapons, and 1 simple weapon group (I am almost positive most wizards will select crossbows or thrown weapons). I am continuing my quest to make heavy armor better. In my games, I have never seen the PCs use heavy armor (except the mithril full plate that a half-dragon fighter is commisioning, but that doesn't quite count). This might be because my group favors dexterity (lowest dexterity I've seen in a warrior is a 12, but to be fair, that character is a wearwolf who wears breastplate in his hybrid form (Dex 16)), because I use 32 point buy (but also give 32 point buy to all important NPCs, and 25 point buy to all monsters), the class selection for my games (ranger, barbarian, sorcerer/fighter, rogue, and fighter/rogue, monk, rogue, cleric (with a low strength score), psion, and fighter). I'm considering possibly using the armor as damage conversion rules, the armor as damage reduction rules, or simply boosting the efficient AC of medium and heavy armors (Max Dex plus Armor bonus is efficient AC).
Dunelord 11-21-04, 06:07 PM	... Now, suposidly, armor proficiency feats are suposed to actually be worth a feat, but characters are pretty much given all the armor proficiency feats they could ever want (a low dex barbarian may want heavy armor proficiency for mithril full plate, and a medeocre dex ranger may want medium for mithril breastplate, I'll give you that much)... Mithril full plate is medium armor, which barbarians are proficent with. And Krynus Ogrebane this is just my two cents but as someone who has used crossbows and bows you should have bows first. I belive they are far simpler to use and someone being trained in both would learn bows first.
Xeviat-DM 11-22-04, 09:54 AM	Mithril full plate is medium armor, which barbarians are proficent with.[quote] *Buzz!* Wrong. [quote=SRD - Special Materials]Mithral: Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than iron but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by 3 (to a minimum of 0). An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals. In the case of weapons, this lighter weight does not change a weapon’s size category or the ease with which it can be wielded (whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed). Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a mithral weapon, while a scythe cannot be.)[quote] Emphasis mine. It does not state that it takes a lower armor proficiency to wear mithril armor. The armor is still as big and as covering as it was before, thus it takes different training to wear. [quote=Dunelord]And Krynus Ogrebane this is just my two cents but as someone who has used crossbows and bows you should have bows first. I belive they are far simpler to use and someone being trained in both would learn bows first. That's quite entertaining actually. It took years to adiquately train a longbowman in England during the late middle ages. When the crossbow came into use in Europe, anyone could pick one up and use it with relative ease. It is learning how to load one quickly enough, and properly, that takes any training time what so ever. That's why the weapon is a simple weapon. Maybe you were a bowman in a previous life or something, but crossbows are much easier to use than bows; from my experience, and from the general logic of the makers of 3rd edition D&D.
Krynus Ogrebane 11-22-04, 12:29 PM	And Krynus Ogrebane this is just my two cents but as someone who has used crossbows and bows you should have bows first. I belive they are far simpler to use and someone being trained in both would learn bows first. Xeviat-DM hit the nail on the head. Crossbows are easier to shoot (just point and click), while being more time-consuming to load without a lot of practice (which is probably a good justification for requiring a feat to get a full-attack action with one).
Dunelord 11-22-04, 12:50 PM	As to the Mithril armor my mistake, I should have read the more carefully. As to the crossbow/bow debate that is just what I think. The English Longbow men took years to train not because the bow is harder or easier to use BUT because it took lots of conditioning to get someone in shape to be able to do the more physcially demanding act of useing a Longbow (which I think might be closer to the exotic weapon Greatbow out of Complete Warrior then your standard D and D longbow) then the less physcially demanding act of useing a crossbow. I do think it should be note that useing a midevil crossbow is not the easist thing in the world to do even if you are of the mindset that it simpler then a Longbow. I'm not an experct archer and what is easier to use is just my opion, but I don't know anyone archers to ask their two cents. As to which is faster to reload in real life is neither here nor there since that is already detereminded in game by the rules.