Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AllisterH" data-source="post: 4066511" data-attributes="member: 51325">I don't think weapon/armour proficiency means the same thing it did in AD&amp;D/3.x. I state this given the fact that Sneak Attack references LIGHT Weapons (as does other powers) yet the rogue isn't proficient in LIGHT weapons but has specific weapon categories.What I suspect is that EVERYONE has the same ATK bonus (1/2 level) and that being proficient in a weapon allows you to use &quot;special options&quot; for said weapon. You can see some of this in the Rogue Weapon Talent tree where the special option is an increased damage die or a small bonus to atk.Same thing probably applies to armour where being proficient in Leather armour grants a bonus and being non-proficient simply grants nothing.I think this goes well with WOTC's mentioning of wanting to make weapon choice more substantial/important other than damage die (especially given we no longer have critical hit ranges)Personally, I do wonder why WOTC insisted on having Stealth and Thievery be non-optional. If Trained gives the same +5 bonus as it does in SWSE (and I imagine it does if the Pit Fiend was anything to go by), there must be a reason why WOTC simply stated all rogues must have stealth and thievery.The difference is that these little bonuses don't change from what I see. For shuriken for example, you always use the same die and for daggers, you always have +1 to atk. My impression was that WOTC was trying to lessen (not &quot;eliminate entirely&quot; as some people have inferred) the effect of non-static bonuses that can potentially change round by roundAs for every rogue being better with a dagger, um, every rogue is already better with a dagger, dont see the change in this one.EDIT: SpacesYeah, I do wonder how D&amp;D plays without the use of minis.&nbsp; but this might simply be a cost of trying to make non-spellcasters actually have more options than &quot;I swing, do I hit?&quot; every round.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AllisterH, post: 4066511, member: 51325"] I don't think weapon/armour proficiency means the same thing it did in AD&D/3.x. I state this given the fact that Sneak Attack references LIGHT Weapons (as does other powers) yet the rogue isn't proficient in LIGHT weapons but has specific weapon categories. What I suspect is that EVERYONE has the same ATK bonus (1/2 level) and that being proficient in a weapon allows you to use "special options" for said weapon. You can see some of this in the Rogue Weapon Talent tree where the special option is an increased damage die or a small bonus to atk. Same thing probably applies to armour where being proficient in Leather armour grants a bonus and being non-proficient simply grants nothing. I think this goes well with WOTC's mentioning of wanting to make weapon choice more substantial/important other than damage die (especially given we no longer have critical hit ranges) Personally, I do wonder why WOTC insisted on having Stealth and Thievery be non-optional. If Trained gives the same +5 bonus as it does in SWSE (and I imagine it does if the Pit Fiend was anything to go by), there must be a reason why WOTC simply stated all rogues must have stealth and thievery. The difference is that these little bonuses don't change from what I see. For shuriken for example, you always use the same die and for daggers, you always have +1 to atk. My impression was that WOTC was trying to lessen (not "eliminate entirely" as some people have inferred) the effect of non-static bonuses that can potentially change round by round As for every rogue being better with a dagger, um, every rogue is already better with a dagger, dont see the change in this one. EDIT: Spaces Yeah, I do wonder how D&D plays without the use of minis. but this might simply be a cost of trying to make non-spellcasters actually have more options than "I swing, do I hit?" every round. [/QUOTE]

Verification