No Sense Proficiencies

Remove all ads!

Is it just me or do some of the proficiency combinations seem to make no sense at all?

For example, why is there a separate listing for short bows and long bows? Other than the strength required to use them, is the technique of using a short bow all that different from a long bow? You would think that aiming, notching arrow, and releasing string would be pretty standard things regardless of the type of bow. Light crossbows aren't a different proficiency than heavy crossbows, and it seems like the same should apply to bow and arrows.

The one that makes the LEAST sense to combine is flails and morning stars. A flail is a very complex weapon. To use it effectively, you rely on centrifugal motion, and always have to keep the flail head spinning (which is why a three headed flail like the FotA isn't realistic). A morning star on the other hand is basically a spiked club. Other than being spiked, these weapons have nothing in common with the technique employed to use them.

Another one that should be together is mace and club. Come on, how different could these things be to wield?

Finally on swords, I'll look at long sword, bastard sword and two-handed sword together. There seems to be a great deal of difference between a two handed sword and a long sword, but it seems that a bastard sword should really have the same technique as one of the other two - most likely a long sword.

Other smaller beefs - why can you get an AC bonus for using a single melee weapon (single weapon style), but not for using two weapons (two weapon style)? And don't even get me started about there not being a "missile weapon" fighting style.

What are other people's biggest beefs with the proficiency charts?

 

Quite a bit of them are unrealistic. Most of the diferences are probably for balancing reasons, eventough, as you said, difference between a club and a mace is minimal other than weight.
There's this difference between heavy and light crossbow. Heavy crossbow's string needs to be pulled back by a winch, where a light crossbow doesnt need one.

What i dont like is the minimal benefit of the sword&shield style. I just dont see how can you can greatly increase protection only against missile weapons and not melee attacks. It's not balanced either.

Agreed with flail/morningstar totaly. There's way too much difference. If anything morningstar should rather be placed under maces, since it isnt that much difference save for the spikes.

For dual-wielding AC bonuses, it's best to look at 3ed D&D. There are feats there that you can pick, which increase your AC and sacrificing your off-hand attack. Then there's also parry skill. It cannot be used for both things though, parrying and attacking in the same round, unless you're sacrificing an attack for the parry. It simply takes too much time to block an attack and then riposte to be combined into one action. I've heard there's a feat that does both, but i doubt it's official, since it's really unbalancing. Too off-tupic by now
Other than these, it's pretty much OK.

 

I can understand how a bastard sword and a longsword aren't different proficiencies; since bastard swords tend to be longer and have longer handles (thus their being used for use with one or two hands).

I agree that there shouldn't be a difference in the bow proficiencies though. Same with morning stars and flails; these two really shouldn't be grouped together.

My biggest beef though isn't so much with the proficiencies, as with not being able to use a bastard sword both ways. It says in the description that they're used with either one or two hands...so why can't I use them like that?

I also find it ridiculous that slings and throwing weapons are grouped together under "missile weapons". I'm sure using a sling is significantly different than throwing an axe, a dagger or a dart (not to mention that there are differences in how each of these throwing weapons are thrown...)

Oh well...I'm sure there's reasons for things having been done the way they were done...

 

I agree that some of the proficiencies don't make sense.

What bugs me, though, is that, besides two-handed swords, there aren't any decent two-handed melee weapons. IMO, there should be 2H Axes, and some 2H blunt weapon besides staves, which I've always considered to be somewhat wimpy. It's actually the lack of 2H weapons that usually has me going for dual-wielding.

 

I agree with most of what you all have said, exept for one thing:

You don't need to keep a flail spinning. You can just make a real big swing and it will work too. The Flail of Ages isn't particularly unrealistic, because of this. Besides, I've seen real multi-headed flails in musea.

 

Mace and club is the one that got to me. A mace is a glorified club. You swing it, you hit. With a club, you also swing, and you hit.

Scimitar shouldn't go with wakizashi/ninja-to. They are wielded and used in a different manner.

 

@Splunge I'd say theres a fair few decent 2 handed weapons other than swords, theres several good halberds, and a few good spears. If you can work it in staff of the ram is quite fun to use too.

 

About the bows: I think that might have to do with thieves not being allowed to equip long bows. But no, it doesn't make sense for long bow users to become a complete klutz when they pick up a short bow.

I thought wakisashi and ninjito used katana proficiencies since they all sounded like Japanese samurai weapons.

 

I'm with Tassadar; the biggest gripe is the scimitar/wakizashi/ninja-to grouping. All three are wielded differently from one another. (edit: And from katanas as well. Wakizashis and katanas are traditionally samurai weapons, though they require different skills to use effectively.)

For those of you who want to wield katanas or bastard swords with one or two hands at will, go grab the G3 Tweak Pack. It has separate components for both.

 

As it has been said, having to choose between long bows and short bows is ridiculous, as is placing clubs, maces and morning stars (and maybe warhammers?) in different categories.

When played the BG series for the first time, I was very disappointed with the way in which polearms are treated. You cannot hurl spears in the first place, which I find ludicruous. Also, I think a character wielding a polearm or quarterstaff should have some AC (if not THAC0) advantage against foes that use shorter weapons, as their attack range is longer.

 

Maces and clubs are different weapons as far as I am concerned. Both are used in the same manner, yes, but the mace has more weight towards its heads making it slightly harder to keep in balance then the club. It's basicly a sort of warhammer but with a very flat heads.

The swords are al different weapons because of the difference in reach, a two handed sword has greater reach then a longsword. Where you would gut an opponent when wielding a two-handed sword, a longsword would miss in the same swing.

About the weapons being classed under missile weapons that is the same clssification as the rest of the weapons being melee. Missile only points to the means of attack, being it close combat or range.

Why you should gain an AC bonus when taking the one handed weapon skill, think of this. Would you be able to dodge an attack more easily when you don't have a lot of weight (be it a shield or a weapon) on the other hand?

I think the diffirence between the long and short bow is because of the size difference. It's an other weapon if you have the bottom touching your boots or your pelvis, when firing.

Just my little thoughts

 

@Blog
It's just like saying medival swords are the same stuff. They're all straight and heavy, whats the difference?
Anyway Katanas are a bit like bastard swords, since they're usualy wielded in two hands (if you've watched any japanese movies, they always use them as two handed). Ninja-to and Wakizashi are more like short swords, made more for piercing than slashing and that's the big difference. Ninja-to is also straight IIRC.


@thunder
Might be the difference in reach. But there are also very different longswords. To someone of small figure wielding a shorter longsword trying to wield one of the bigger longswords is like trying to fight with a bastard sword. Especialy if he's of lesser strenght. But they're still considered longswords all.
Maces, Morningstars and clubs... IMO there's certainly not enough difference between them. True, club balance is quite different to mace's one, but comparing morningstar and a mace? What IS the big difference here?

Agreed with the single weapon style AC. No doubt it's strikes are more precise and it's sword better used, since one can focus solely on that one weapon (no shield to hinder you and no off-hand weapon). But up to -2 to AC is too much. It's like having a large shield on your other hand.

[ June 22, 2004, 11:29: Message edited by: Gothmog• ]

 

@Splunge: Agreed. There are 2H swords, staves, spears and halberds... and that would be it. Two-handed axes should be there. Perhaps some giant 2H clubs. I've never seen a 2H mace per se, but some cultures used staves with mace heads on each end (I would so like to own such a weapon...).

@Aldeth:

Bows: There's a difference in longbow and shortbow technique. Long is the weapon of those notorious English archers and short is more Mongol style, for cavalry use, shot-on-the-run tactics and some such. While the basic idea is the same, there are still some things that you can do with one and can't with the other.

Swords: On 1H vs 2H we all agree. Good. We probably all agree that short swords are a different story from longswords or daggers. So we only have bastard swords to consider. It's true you can use them like generic 1H or 2H swords, but there's a catch: bastard swords are shorter than classic 2H ones (the most standard bastard sword would have a 2H handle and a 1H blade). Also, they're substantially heavier than longswords and require lots of strength or training for 1H use, especially with a shield. Plus, the handle is different, changing your hold on it somehow and thus your technique.

Flails: Multiple heads are viable, but that would require more precision than one head.

Morningstars: Agreed, totally not the same proficiency as flail. Depending on your particular morningstar, it may be closer to mace or club.

Maces vs clubs: There is a difference. Neither is necessarily heavier than the other: the mace has a metal head but the pole may well be wooden, while the club is all wooden, but the "head" part is bigger. At any rate, the club is simply a "strong argument", while the mace is more crafty, concentrating on the metal head. Maces often have a spike on top of the head as well, to be able to pierce through armour.

All those differences seem largely insignificant on proficiency level, but the situation changes radically on let's say, grand mastery level when you're supposed to know the weapon better than anyone.

As for one-handed style, increased threat range (19-20) isn't canonical. The AC bonus stands for facilitated parrying once you don't have a shield to care for. If you take a second weapon and use it only for parrying you can't use it to attack the enemy, so it would be quite pointless to implement that in the game engine.

My own beef is with scimitar/wakizashi/ninjato proficiency. It's beyond me how they begat the idea.

Also, agreed already, flail and morningstar aren't the same story, either.

 

@ Dow:

Listen, pal, just who do you think you are coming here and ruining a good rant with something as mundane as facts?

Seriously though, you're right of course. For some reason, I never really consider spears or halberds - maybe it's because I only have SoA, and there aren't particularly good weapons of these types until later in the game. I guess what I was really lamenting was the lack of 2H axes or blunts (besides staves).

 

What sort of blunt weapons, besides staves, are used two handed?

 

In reality or in BG2?

 

In reality.

About the only one I can think of is a two handed hammer.

 

Just about any weapon comes in a two-handed version. Clubs, war hammers, maces etc. (some of these items are collectively referred to as mauls), but I always pictured a maul as a large, wooden, two-handed mallet, but I'm not sure if that's an exact description either.

 

A flail could be two-handed and it doesn't have to have spikes. In fact, it often doesn't.

Also, a mace could be two-handed, though I've never seen one.

A staff with a mace head on each end, though it's very exotic.

The blunt side of an axe was used often as well. I can see a reason with a one-handed axe, but I'm not really sure it would be all so great with a two-handed one.

Definitely two-handed club.

 

@Aldeth: yes they are known as Mauls. These are massive two-handed warhammers, some are just for pummeling the enemy and some have nice big spikes on them as well.

Bastard swords are more like two-handed swords, although you can use them one-handed you are more than likely going to use it two-handed for more damage. It would be good if you had a different damage rating whether it was used one or two handed.

With scimitar/wakizashi/ninja-to they are used differently from longswords, shortswords, daggers, etc. It would be impractical game-wise to have a different proficiency for each weapon (although in PnP D&D you would have to) and they have at least made it so a fighter doesn't used his longsword proficiency to pick-up a scimitar or ninja-to and just start wielding it. Although they are different from a fighting style, the weapons aren't that discimilar - wakizashi and scimitar are both single handed and single edged weapons and would both be used in a slicing/chopping action. I reckon someone proficient with a wakizashi could easily use a scimitar.