Bad weapon proficiency system

Remove all ads!

Anyone else find it annoying that there are separate skills for katana, long sword, etc.?

There are small differences among those weapons, but based on the martial arts training I've had I'd say that the moves are so similar as to make no difference until you get pretty advanced.

Maybe a better solution would be to have a proficiency in swords that you could dump 2-3 slots into. Beyond that you should be forced to specialize in the specific weapon type.

Let's call Wizards otC and get the ball rolling.

 

Great idea Shralp! Too bad that it's not implented into the 3edition dungeons and dragons, so there is no way to insert in the computer games

 

Yeah, they where clever enough to completely removed the darn proficiency slots. Now you can take feats to get better in a certain weapon (or ignore that and focus on different attack modes).

 

Eh? In BG2? Or are you talking about DnD Third Edition rules?

 

They should have left it as it was in BG1. Where they was small swords big swords etc. Grouped by type not specific weapons.

 

The way it's done in AD&D with nearly weapon having it's own proficency rarther than being grouped together did make you think about what weapon slots to take. I think that both ways in the BG games have merits, but i definately prefer the very broad groups under the 3rd ed rules.

 

I don't think so. The art of using katana, Kendo, it's not the same with the techniques of long swords. It's about styles, from Europe or Asia. In Kendo it's a whole philosophy (I hope I spell corectly), but I am too tired now to say more about.

About the topic, there are some annomalies about the proficiency system. The thief, for example, is not allowed to be more than proficient in a weapon, but he should be grand master in dagger and perhaps in short swords (or at least expert or master).

 

True, the manner of using a sword does differ a bit from East to West. I'm speaking, however, of the actual physical difference between weapons. There's actually a greater difference between a sabre and a rapier (both of which would be considered long swords under AD&D/BG2 rules) than between a sabre and a katana. A kendo-trained fighter would be able to pick up most English longswords and execute the same moves with it as with a katana, and a French fencer should be able to handle a katana as well.

Kendo does indeed a philosophy behind it, but that's not necessary for learning the use of the sword. (I would argue that the mumbo jumbo shinto schtick actually makes learning to fight more difficult.)

Edited to add: Ok, I just re-read my post above and I was indeed talking about the moves made instead of the physical weapon. Oops. I think the more salient point is that about the weapon itself.


[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited August 17, 2001).]

 

Maybe 4rd edition???

I already started this discussion a few months ago. Exact the same discussion... Read it here: http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002029.html

a quote from there that stopped the discussion:

I disagree with that, don't say that here.... AD&D isn't realistic for 1 part, for it's fantasy, all imagination, magic isn't realistic etc. But there are also many parts in the game that are realistic and maybe some can get even more realistic, like profiencies. However there are many differences between the weapons, there are also things the same, when you fight with it. Maybe there should be for example be a profiency for Swords, with that you for example don't get no penalty for fighting with a swords, no matter what one. (however a two handed sword is indeed very different for ma short sword) The same can be done for example with Axe and Warhammer and more weapons. I know it's all just an idea and very hard to realize it also gives some problems but it's always good to think about improvements...

 

I would also like to see the big swords cover all the catanas, scimitars, long, bastard swords and such.

I thought of exactly the same thing when I saw this new system with the only difference in being able to place rather 3-4 prof slots and only gran mastery or if need be also high mastery would be picked for specific weapon types. This could be balanced by the fact that you could gain gran mastery in no more than let's say 3 specific weapons types.

BTW what do you think about the fact that gran mastery doesn't add an extra attack?

 

Well, advancing in proficiency in RL does mean learning to attack more quickly, but not so mch as gaining an extra, unpenalized attack every round. I'm content with grand mastery adding a bonus to hit.

 

Well in truth a longsword (european at least) is more of a bludgeoning weapon than an edged one, Its used to bash through heavy armor. Whilst a katana is used to stab and cut with its razor sharp point/edge. There is a -large- difference. even in the weight length and the way you hold em. So I can see why they're different proficiencies, What pisses me off is the fact that they changed the bonuses of grandmastery, Whats the point now?

 

Hehe, not meant as a personal flame on any of you, but is patently obvious that most of you posting here don't anything about swords or katanas either....a sword a bludgeoning instrument? oh thats rich...like an axe too right? hehe An edged weapon has a greater mass not to bludgeon, but to SLASH through harder materials....even materials harder than the weapon itself (mostly due the wedge shape of the cutting edge)...a long blade gives a greater reach, more massive blade gives more momentum and the edge gives penetration through harder materials.

Lighter "finesse" type weapons such as katanas are not meant for the direct choping of the more massive blades. A katana is meant to find the seam in the armor and cut through it, or to allow the wielder to wear out his/her opponent since it is lighter and able to deflect the direct approach of many other types of weapons. They are forged into harder, sharper blades and are used as often to parry as to cut, whereas a heavy longsword is virtually useless as a parrying blade, but could chop through a vambrace or greave to the bone.

 

It is true perhaps that someone who has katana training could wield a longsword to some effect, yet the training that accompanies a weapon can be pretty specified. What they should have done is given a bonus on all swords that would fall in the "large" catagory when one gets katana proficiency, merely at a much reduced effect. Training in longsword, rapier, sabre, and katana are quite different in the way they are wielded. This is due to shape, wieght, length, and balance. The parries and strikes a quite a bit different when using a katana than when using a longsword or sabre. Anyone who has had fencing experience should know how different it is to weild a rapier and then a sabre. It is true that another of these swords could be used with the style intended for another, and this could be shown using the system I mentioned above.

 

In the 2nd Edition Player's Option set of rules you not only have the choise of specializing in single weapons, but also large groups ie. swords, axes
Maybe someone could be proficient in all swords since you can learn to use a longsword then pick up another type of sword wave it around a little to get the feel of it and then you can use the same tactics for the new one
sure you probably couldn't use it to the best it could be used, but you can use it

 

Maybe adifferent approach!
If you have a certain proficiency in any specific weapon, you should get a corresponding minimal proficiency in all similar weapons. e.g:
You reach high mastery in katanas. This should get you a basic proficiency in all long swords plus mastery in all eastern swords.
You reach grand mastery in halbers. This gets you high mastery in spears plus mastery in all pole weapons.
You reach grand mastery in any weapon. This gives you minimal proficiency in all weapons.

I think this system allows for all the differences in weapons, and still acknowledges that a grandmaster fighter should know any weapon and be good in weapons similar to his speciality.

 

Not meant as a personal flame, but, Subra, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

There are more types of longswords than just the heavy edged weapons you're thinking of. Watch the Tim Roth - Liam Neeson fight in "Rob Roy" to see a good contrast of two weapons that would certainly be considered long swords under AD&D rules. And note the heavy use of parrying for those blades.

Also note that the Japanese didn't have plate or hard metal armor. The most durable they invented was splint. So "finding the seam in armor" wasn't too hard.

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited August 24, 2001).]

 

Shralp -- you read my mind!

Asia never developed the heavy (and I mean *heavy*) armours that existed in Europe. Even in Europe, the use of swords in warfare changed drastically over time. By the 16th and 17th centuries, most swords were almost useless in armoured combat. Even the heaviest of broad swords did little more than dent and scratch an armoured opponent. Swords became more decorative pieces (which you can readily see by the design changes) and limited to duals. They were largely replaced in war with maces and pole axes that specialized in crushing and piercing through armour.

And if realism is your goal, in almost any feudal society, only land-holding lords and knights had the right to bear arms -- anyone else would be arrested on the spot.

But I digress...one thing I like about the proficiency system used in SOA (the 2E AD&D rules) is that you can still gain useful proficiencies at high levels. If the more general system used in BG1 were used in SOA, by the middle of the game every fighter would be specialized or even master-class in nearly ever single weapon! It's not perfect, but it works well enough for a role-playing game.

[This message has been edited by Gnolyn Lochbreaker (edited August 24, 2001).]

 

Didn't know there are turns in real life. How do you pause


Anyway after I got to know that fighter gains 1prof slot/3lvls I now place thse better hence this system doesn't look so bad anymore. I realized also that gaining 4 prof slots in a broad cathegory as I earlier claimed would be good would be too much. Right now I consider 3slots in a broad cathegory would be just fine. Two might be just too little.