I like this suggestion!

[Diilicious]

Weapon / Armour Proficiency
Link to thread

Give all PC's weapon and armour proficiency feats on their hides

Add severe penalties for using weapons / armour when not proficient in them (When the PC doesn't have the feats naturally)

E.G.

Weapon penalties outside of 'actual' proficiency : -10 AB, -10 Damage.
Full Plate penalties outside of 'actual' proficiency: -8 AC

Etc!

I think this would be a really great idea, it would make things much more natural in the game, having the abitrary reasons people could literally not even touch a weapon were suddenly not abitrary anymore.

Everyone can equip everything and anything they want! because it makes sense that you should be able to pick up any item in the game and put it on/hold it in your hand regardless of whether you have trained in its use or not, however you should not expect to be able to use said items to any great effect.

I think this would be great to have. what do other people think of this?

[HindianaJones]

I don't like it.

I feel like the choices you make in the creation of a character should be represented by both advantages AND limitations. Proficiency represents the very base amount of required training to use something. For weapons, shields and armour, it adds a massive elemental to choices that people make about their characters. It would be the same as suggesting that everyone gets UMD, or that everyone gets to learn spells.

[theCountofMonteCristo]

It would be great for smiths who make a weapon. They could then equip it and set the appearance before giving/selling it.

For carpenters it allows the same with bows, magic staves etc.

When I played an enchanter, I often wished I could equip things to alter their appearances for the fancy ones that I gave elaborate descriptions to.

[Mr_Rieper]

Would confuse newbies. It's a lot simpler to understand why you can't do something, rather than why you shouldn't.

I can see why you'd want something like this implemented, Icewind Dale 2 had something similar, if I'm remembering correctly. You could give your characters items they weren't proficient in, or let anybody dual wield, but it would be a terrible idea. Your mage might look badass with a battleaxe but god forbid he tries to swing it.

And you know what? I screwed up there too. Didn't realise I was playing with a severely unoptimised party and had missed several important feats.

It would be cool to use any item, but have penalties. But is it worth it? Is the problem we're fixing worth more than the problem we gain?

[Cortex]

If the problem are noobies, that can be fixed by implementing a message in the lines of "You don't have X proficiency required for this weapon. Applying X penalty." in the combat log. Similarly to the +2 AB bonus from 2h.

[gilescorey]

I think from a strictly mechanical standpoint this is absolutely pointless.

That said, it's not really about the mechanics all the time - the OP has a point in that people who can't wear/equip certain items based on proficiency class is a little arbitrary.

The only point of trepidation I have is certain artefacts (say, a +4 intelligence handaxe for example) that might not have been usable by a wizard without feat cost would be usable now with no downside - after all, what good mage is going to be waving a weapon around as anything but a statstick, anyway?

[Iceborn]

The stars align. I agree with Cortex.
And even for that matter, newbies are gonna noob. EVERYBODY screws up their first character. Nothing will prevent that short of having somebody hold your hand all the way, and that usually does more harm than good.

On the topic note:
I've always found extremely silly that you cannot even HOLD a weapon that you aren't proficient with.
Maybe add a discipline penalty with untrained equipment, as well?

[If Valor Were Inches]

I'm not sure of the suggestion because it would be difficult to balance from what I see. I lean against it for that.

I do think that from a crafting station you should be able to change an item's look.

[Commissar]

I'm all in favor. Slap me with whatever penalty you like, just let my nefarious rogue disguise properly as a cordor guardsman.

[Stath]

certain artefacts (say, a +4 intelligence handaxe for example) that might not have been usable by a wizard without feat cost would be usable now with no downside - after all, what good mage is going to be waving a weapon around as anything but a statstick, anyway?

This tbh.

[Dr_Hazard89]

I like this suggestion! As long as the penalties are severe enough. It would just be fun for RP to be able to hold any weapon and equip any kind of armor. Could have some fun with costumes!

[Durvayas]

I think from a strictly mechanical standpoint this is absolutely pointless.

That said, it's not really about the mechanics all the time - the OP has a point in that people who can't wear/equip certain items based on proficiency class is a little arbitrary.

The only point of trepidation I have is certain artefacts (say, a +4 intelligence handaxe for example) that might not have been usable by a wizard without feat cost would be usable now with no downside - after all, what good mage is going to be waving a weapon around as anything but a statstick, anyway?

While as the player of a blacksmith I'd love to be able to edit the appearances of exotic weapons so I could desc them better and like the intent of the suggestion, I'm with giles here.

Unless there were some way to mechanically suppress items that fit into the 'you shouldn't be able to use this' catagory, this is going to be abused used to equip artefacts purely for stats.

[miesny_jez]

I agree with gilescorey and I think he hit the nail on this subject.

This would have been a lot of coding that would need to be introduced without any serious benefits beside allowing equipping artifacts for purely mechanical advantages to Your character.

[Nitro]

How about adding some rings with Martial and exotic weapon focus on them into the loot matrix (with the above penalties).

Then people can use any weapon for RP purposes, but have to sacrifice a ring slot for it, so artefacts still have a trade-off associated with them.

[Midnight In A Perfect World]

How about adding some rings with Martial and exotic weapon focus on them into the loot matrix (with the above penalties).

Then people can use any weapon for RP purposes, but have to sacrifice a ring slot for it, so artefacts still have a trade-off associated with them.

That is actually a great idea.

[Sockss]

I understand that this will make it slightly easier for caster classes to have a higher chance to get favourable artefact weapons, but I don't feel this is a balance issue in of itself as you can obtain the items anyway.

If there's a balance issue at all, it's in the artefact system itself. (Though I don't necessarily agree there is!)

The artefact system could also be adjusted to offset the slight increase in caster artefact choice, though personally I don't think it's necessary.

[Prestige]

How about adding some rings with Martial and exotic weapon focus on them into the loot matrix (with the above penalties).

Then people can use any weapon for RP purposes, but have to sacrifice a ring slot for it, so artefacts still have a trade-off associated with them.

Because you can equip the ring, then the weapon, then un-equip the ring and the weapon won't un-equip unless you log out or switch servers, at which point you can lather, rinse, and repeat.

[Cerk Evermoore]

Just add an in game ring that lets you wield exotic weapons. Wouldn't be the first item that had a minor feat on it.

[Miaou]

Oh hecks yes. Give me your penalties, I just want to hold a sword if I want to.

[One Two Three Five]

50 forging could give you martial proficiency, or exotic if you have it already. Lets people who have dedicated their crafting existence to it hold whatever.

[kittenblackfriends]

Oh hecks yes. Give me your penalties, I just want to hold a sword of I want to.

[JediMindTrix]

Oh hecks yes. Give me your penalties, I just want to hold a sword of I want to.