Goodman Games

I'm a little confused about weapon training and zero-level characters.

Here's what the rules say (page 24):

"All 0-level characters are trained in the one weapon they possess from their former occupation. If a 0-level character handles multiple weapons over his career, he is considered trained in the last weapon he fought with. At 1st level, a character gains training in additional weapons, based on the class he chooses.

Generally, using a weapon without training imposes an attack penalty. However, this penalty is waived for 0-level characters. It is assumed that their naturally poor combat abilities reflect equal incompetence with the martial use of all weapons."

Some options from my confusion:

1) So, if my character is Squire at 0-level, he is trained in a longsword. He then keeps that proficiency when he becomes level-1, even if he became a class that didn't have longsword as a trained weapon. Right?
2) During the first adventure, he picks up a battleaxe from a dead foe and uses it. Is he untrained in it? (The rules say the untrained penalty is waived for all 0-level characters. But they also say that he is considered trained in the last weapon he fought with. When he first picks up the axe, is he trained in it, since he hasn't yet fought with it?) When he hits 1st-level, is he now trained in both longsword and battleaxe?
3) During the adventure, this same dude fights with a mace, a staff, darts, and finally a lance. He hits first level. He is now proficient in longsword and lance, but not the other weapons?

Thanks for any thoughts,
Berc

Bercilak wrote: 1) So, if my character is Squire at 0-level, he is trained in a longsword. He then keeps that proficiency when he becomes level-1, even if he became a class that didn't have longsword as a trained weapon. Right?
2) During the first adventure, he picks up a battleaxe from a dead foe and uses it. Is he untrained in it? (The rules say the untrained penalty is waived for all 0-level characters. But they also say that he is considered trained in the last weapon he fought with. When he first picks up the axe, is he trained in it, since he hasn't yet fought with it?) When he hits 1st-level, is he now trained in both longsword and battleaxe?
3) During the adventure, this same dude fights with a mace, a staff, darts, and finally a lance. He hits first level. He is now proficient in longsword and lance, but not the other weapons?
Berc

How I would rule these:
1. Yes. So wizard with long sword? Fine.
2. No. He is not trained in battleaxe, the penalty was just waived for 0-lvl play. He is still proficient with long sword.
3. No, just the last weapon he fought with.

In actual play, I just said they could have a proficiency with any one weapon they fought with during 0-level play.

The answers above are correct. This is one of those cases where you can have a rule that sounds logical, or have one that plays well. Early on, I gave the -4 untrained penalty to all 0-level characters because, well, they are untrained. But giving a -4 penalty to literally every attack roll not only makes combat even more difficult for PCs that are extremely weak to begin with, but it also makes the game a lot less fun for the players. So then I tried making 0-level characters proficient in the weapon they started with (pitchfork, knife, etc.). Seems logical. But the process of "wealth by attrition" at low levels means very few 0-level PCs end the adventure with the same weapon they started with, and any PC who tried to upgrade to a better weapon got hit with a penalty. So that is how I ended up with the final rule, which is "proficient with last weapon wielded." I think the alternate rule suggested above, "proficient with one of the weapons wielded," would probably work just as well. The 0-level rule doesn't seem entirely logical from a strictly "rules cohesion" perspective. But it plays well.

Who needs rule cohesion! Sounds like something an accountant firm taking over the running of an rpg company would be bery veen on or character balance at every single step...boring. Sound familiar?

PeelSeel2 wrote: How I would rule these:
1. Yes. So wizard with long sword? Fine.

Wizard already has the long sword proficiency.

ragboy wrote:
Wizard already has the long sword proficiency.

Damn! I had to double check! I actually just looked at the paragraph and saw dagger and assumed "standard wizards crap proficiencies." Now looking at it again, that is a real reasonable list! Thanks! Now I'll actually have to read all the proficiencies.

My players are sneaky. They would know that wizards get longswords and claim they used the battle axe during their 0 level funnel. I would then say thats nice but you still are proficent in pitchforks and longsword, then I would hear them moan.

Does their sneakiness really matter in the long run? Wizards still only have d4 hit dice. If they want to jump into the front rank and dance with something it will inevitably tear them in half. Remind them of their mortality, then remind them they can still shoot death beams from their eyes.

grinnock wrote:Does their sneakiness really matter in the long run? Wizards still only have d4 hit dice. If they want to jump into the front rank and dance with something it will inevitably tear them in half. Remind them of their mortality, then remind them they can still shoot death beams from their eyes.

And shoot fireballs from their arse (patron tainted taint).

ragboy wrote:And shoot fireballs from their arse (patron tainted taint).

Oh, that isn't that strange after playing a game for months, where the characters fart healing.