Goals:
1. Make weapon choices matter, or at least interesting.
2. Keep classes distinguishable.
3. Support or improve and fun but challenging attack probability.
In AD&D, classes can select from a distinct list of weapons to become proficient in. Having the proficiency allows you to attack without penalty. The non-proficiency penalty is determined by class.
In 4th Edition D&D, each class grants you proficiency in a group of weapons. Using a weapon you're proficient in allows gives you a bonus specified by that weapon. A wizard can use a two-handed sword, but doesn't get the bonus that all fighters (automatically being proficient) would have.
Tactical Simulation Ruleset proposes:
1. Classes get the number of weapon proficiencies and can select from the same list of weapons as in AD&D.
2. Using a weapon you are proficient in grants a flat bonus based on your class, for example:
Fighter: +2
Cleric: +1
Thief: +1
Magic-user: +0
3. Use of weapons not on the class' proficiency options invokes the non proficiency. penalty as listed in AD&D.
Example:
* A fighter, proficient in long sword, using a long sword: +2
* A fighter, not proficient in long sword, using a long sword: +0
* A thief, proficient in long sword, using a long sword: +1
* A thief, not proficient in long sword, using a long sword: +0
* A magic-user, unable to be proficient in long sword, using a long sword: -4
I, too, share the goal of making weapon choice interesting. I think it ends up feeling fiddly and complicated if you try to apply the idea too generally though. So I came up with the idea of using weapon vs. armor, but only for the fighter (essentially, make it a class ability). More musings here.
ReplyDeleteBrendan, that's great stuff. I had condensed the armor categories and changed terminology, but I like your method a lot!
ReplyDelete