5e Weapon Proficiency

B.T. · June 09, 2012, 12:32:39 AM

From the looks of the playtest, weapon proficiency gives you a +2 bonus on attack rolls. Do you prefer this or a non-proficiency penalty?

jadrax · June 09, 2012, 12:40:06 AM

Maths wise it seems to make sense in that it brings the %chance of hitting into line with where I want it to be without having to hand out BAB. It also means weapons you are not proficient with are viable, if a bit shit - which is good for improvised attacks an the like.

So to me its OK, but its really not an issue I can get very emotional involved with one way or the other tbh.

Sacrosanct · June 09, 2012, 12:47:31 AM

I think for most people, it's more intuitive to include +'s and not -'s, so from that angle, it makes sense.

1of3 · June 09, 2012, 02:12:24 AM

Plus is nicer.

I'm probabably going to tie the attack bonus for spells to using an implement.

Bloody Stupid Johnson · June 09, 2012, 03:47:40 AM

Prefer non-proficiency penalty unless they have a good reason why not (i.e. its being used as a fudge factor to counter balance the difference between AC, which gets an armour bonus, and other defenses which don't).
Few PCs are going to use weapons they're not proficient with regularly; you minimize the math by having a penalty that rarely applies, rather than a bonus that always does. Ssomething Zeb pointed out in 2E.

GoneForGood · June 09, 2012, 05:23:50 AM

I prefer the bonus. It is tidy, intuitive, positive and a reward for being proficient.

Positive is good. When my daughter started her keyboard tuition, her tutor's invoicing included the threat of a £4 late payment penalty. I suggested to her that she up her price by £4 and change the sanction to a reward - a £4 prompt payment discount. That's what she now does.

Ladybird · June 09, 2012, 06:03:03 AM

Weapon Proficiency should give you a bonus under the game mechanics. Giving a penalty by default, which your training then cancels out, would be Weapon Averageness, under the mechanics.

Bedrockbrendan · June 09, 2012, 08:35:55 AM

Given that the bonuses are supposed to be more under control in general, a plus two sounds better.

B.T. · June 09, 2012, 10:29:01 AM

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;547262Given that the bonuses are supposed to be more under control in general, a plus two sounds better.

Quote from: Ladybird;547253Weapon Proficiency should give you a bonus under the game mechanics. Giving a penalty by default, which your training then cancels out, would be Weapon Averageness, under the mechanics.

...You do realize that the math is exactly the same, right? You could just reduce AC by two points.

Xavier Onassiss · June 09, 2012, 11:00:08 AM

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;547244Prefer non-proficiency penalty unless they have a good reason why not (i.e. its being used as a fudge factor to counter balance the difference between AC, which gets an armour bonus, and other defenses which don't).
Few PCs are going to use weapons they're not proficient with regularly; you minimize the math by having a penalty that rarely applies, rather than a bonus that always does. Ssomething Zeb pointed out in 2E.

This is a very good point, and immediately goes into my list of game design guidelines.

Bloody Stupid Johnson · June 09, 2012, 11:19:43 AM

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;547269This is a very good point, and immediately goes into my list of game design guidelines.

Thanks.
Game design guidelines you say? Wouldn't mind seeing what else is there.

StormBringer · June 09, 2012, 11:21:40 AM

Quote from: Orpheo;547251I prefer the bonus. It is tidy, intuitive, positive and a reward for being proficient.

Positive is good. When my daughter started her keyboard tuition, her tutor's invoicing included the threat of a £4 late payment penalty. I suggested to her that she up her price by £4 and change the sanction to a reward - a £4 prompt payment discount. That's what she now does.

The second paragraph is arguing that the subtraction is better than the addition.

Bedrockbrendan · June 09, 2012, 11:42:54 AM

Quote from: B.T.;547267...You do realize that the math is exactly the same, right? You could just reduce AC by two points.

Sure. But it is just more intuitive to present modifiers as bonuses instead of penalties. I was arguing for THAC0 not so long ago, so it really isn't a big issue for me. But based on what I have seen people say, I think people are more likely to embrace something presented as simple addition.

And my point was, if they are going to keep more of a lid on bonuses in general (which they seem to be striving for), that does leave some room to do WP as +2 bonuses instead of having it be a penalty for not possessing them.

It also just seems a little simpler not to have to worry about that penalty if you don't have the WP.

Sacrosanct · June 09, 2012, 12:26:47 PM

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;547269This is a very good point, and immediately goes into my list of game design guidelines.

+1. Me, a game designer always learning new things

jadrax · June 09, 2012, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;547244Few PCs are going to use weapons they're not proficient with regularly; you minimize the math by having a penalty that rarely applies, rather than a bonus that always does. Ssomething Zeb pointed out in 2E.

But on the other hand, most of the time they will have the bonuses on the sheet because it is their standard weapon. It could well be that the vast majority of the time they pick up a weapon *in play*, it is actually one they are not proficient with (i.e. improvised).