Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
An attack with a weapon you are not proficient with has disadvantage in addition to not having your proficiency bonus. Probably unintentional.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Bug Reporting Thread
- Thread starter GX.Sigma
- Start date
It seems very intentional for me. Why you suppose the other way?
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
Because proficiency is now a unifying mechanic for expressing skill in something. If you have it, you get a bonus. Otherwise you just get your ability modifier. I'm assuming that this one exception to that rule was an oversight because it's no longer necessary.
I understand your point and agree with it to some point. But I suspect the intention here is "if you are not proficient with a weapon, you are really bad with it". Not just non-proficient, but really bad.
Yup, still here. I was concentrating on survey feedback these last few weeks - 1000's of comments - so a lot of these bugs haven't been dealt with yet.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Nope, it's gotta be intentional. Otherwise, we're talking about a difference of +1 to +2 at low levels. You want the mage wielding a bastard sword with only an extremely minor difference having spent nothing at all to get it? I don't, nor does it make sense. You need training in many weapons to be able to use them well.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
The same could be said for many skills. Everywhere else in the system, +0 means you have no skill beyond what your ability scores can achieve. A mage wielding a bastard sword is no different than a Fighter using Arcana. At low levels, the primary difference between the two characters is their relative ability scores.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
And I think the entire weight of history of D&D, all our combined experiences, tell us pretty universally that "ability to use any weapon without penalty" is a more useful thing than "being able to make an untrained skill check without penalty".
Anyway, I don't think this is a bug or an accident. Being untrained in an advanced type of weapon has always imposed some sort of penalty beyond simply "you don't get a relatively small bonus", and it's being done with this edition as well.
tuxgeo
Adventurer
Something that I think is a bug in the final packet, though others may not:
The "Spare the Dying" cantrip is listed as being of the "Necromancy" school, despite the obvious facts that (1) it only works on the living, and (2) it allows the living target to regain hit points, which it has in common with "Cure Wounds" (Evocation) and "Mass Cure Wounds" (Conjuration).
What, the developers couldn't make up their minds about which school the Healing spells belongs to?
Oh, and "Lesser Restoration" is of the "Abjuration" school? Dangit, those Clerics are all over the school-yard in this packet, aren't they?
The "Spare the Dying" cantrip is listed as being of the "Necromancy" school, despite the obvious facts that (1) it only works on the living, and (2) it allows the living target to regain hit points, which it has in common with "Cure Wounds" (Evocation) and "Mass Cure Wounds" (Conjuration).
What, the developers couldn't make up their minds about which school the Healing spells belongs to?
Oh, and "Lesser Restoration" is of the "Abjuration" school? Dangit, those Clerics are all over the school-yard in this packet, aren't they?
Similar Threads
