Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 2342607" data-attributes="member: 2067">Right, but IMHO, the JOB of the designer is to apply common sense to the rules. The DM has enough to deal with without having to re-write the rules, too.Okay, why have different weapons? Why have different weapon proficiencies? If you're advocating simplification and abstraction to that degree, why bother with different statistics for the weapons?In reality, a person who knows fencing is going ot have a hard time applying the same principles to a spear or throwing a punch or getting in a knife-fight. The weapon rules emulate this reality by using different weapon proficiencies: unarmed strike, rapier, and dagger are all seperate weapons. Real life gets even more grainy than this, in that someone who knows a fencing rapier will need more training before they can know how to use a real one. Someone who knows how to punch a man won't nessecarily know how to use a glaive, even though it's all the same kind of motion. The game rules, which want to simplify reality, but value the diverse differenses between punching a man and putting a spear in him, reflect this with different weapons. I value this too, so I think the rules make the game better. If you don't value this, why accept even the 3.0 weapon rules?Anyway, a trained halfling fighter doesn't have any problem applying these to a similar weapon. But a dagger and a longsword are no more similar weapons than a fist and a rapier. In other words, it would be an oversimiplification that I wouldn't enjoy in the game.Maybe you would, and that's fine, but certainly that means that the 3.0 rules were off for you, too, and that the 3.5 rules moved the game farther from that abstraction to a more concrete representation of the differences between weapons. That may be a problem for you, but certainly you can understand that people like the aspect of the game that shows the difference between an axe and a sword just like they like the apsect of the game that shows the difference between a druid and a cleric, or a sorcerer and a wizard. Well, that's one interpretation, but it definately doesn't have to be the only.I'd argue that no, they did spend the same about of time with each weapon. While wizards learned to break the laws of time and space, fighters could certainly educate themselves on the subtle differences between a greatsword and a longsword. This is why they have a higher attack bonus than wizards -- they know the weapons and the difference between them to such an extent that they can use the weapons better to hit enemies better. The weapons in the PHB are all available in any town with a high enough GP limit, and even the smallest towns have enough GP to accomodate the vast majority of the weapons. So unless you're using DM fiat, no, fighters have seen the vast majority of the weapons in the PHB, and have trained with them, learning the ins and outs of these weapons as they learn the ins and outs of heavy armors and shield use. The Fighter class, like any other class, represents a lifetime of skill in their first level. The weapons they learn are not just swung around in two different ways, but are tools used for their appropriate tasks. You don't use a longsword for the same thing you use a hammer for. The abstraction that you recommend would equalize the two, and that's a level of abstraction that would remove some of the strategic fun of the game, and some of the verismilitude inherent in the rules.</blockquote>

Verification