Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thorvald Kviksverd" data-source="post: 871672" data-attributes="member: 1495">Re: Re: Changes you'd like to see made to 3.5/4E?Might be a bit off-topic, but I thought I'd comment on this. . .I think one of the main reasons the proficiency slot system has gotten a bad rap, is more due to an unfortunate choice of words.&nbsp; If they had instead been called &quot;weapon preference slots&quot;, or some such, there would be a better appreciation of them.Take your typical upper-level Fighter, he might have a THAC0 of 10 when using a weapon with which he is proficient, but a THAC0 of 12 when using one with which he is non-proficient.&nbsp; The thing is, his &quot;non-proficient&quot; THAC0 is considerably better than that of a lower level Fighter who is &quot;proficient&quot; with the same weapon, yet may only have a THAC0 of 19 with it.&nbsp; Would one say that the higher level Fighter is less proficient than the lower in such cases?&nbsp; ...Of course not.&nbsp; The higher level Fighter is certainly proficient with this weapon, he just isn't as skilled with it as he is with his preferred weapons.3e, rather than changing the terminology and keeping the power level the same, instead chose to increase the power level by the inclusion of weapon related FEATS.&nbsp; Where general weapons familiarity for Fighters once was the Base THAC0 minus the Non-Proficiency Penalty, now the BASE THAC0 (BAB) is the baseline, with preferences and specializations adding to this value.&nbsp; In other words, think of the THAC0 for proficient weapons before as actually being the THAC0 for those weapons with which the Fighter had a weapon focus FEAT.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with 3e's system, it's just another way of approaching things.BTW, in BASIC D&amp;D (if not using the optional weapon mastery rules--which I don't) a PC is proficient with all allowed weapons.&nbsp; So it hasn't always been the case that D&amp;D has had weapon proficiency slots. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thorvald Kviksverd, post: 871672, member: 1495"] [b]Re: Re: Changes you'd like to see made to 3.5/4E?[/b] Might be a bit off-topic, but I thought I'd comment on this. . . I think one of the main reasons the proficiency slot system has gotten a bad rap, is more due to an unfortunate choice of words. If they had instead been called "weapon preference slots", or some such, there would be a better appreciation of them. Take your typical upper-level Fighter, he might have a THAC0 of 10 when using a weapon with which he is proficient, but a THAC0 of 12 when using one with which he is non-proficient. The thing is, his "non-proficient" THAC0 is considerably better than that of a lower level Fighter who is "proficient" with the same weapon, yet may only have a THAC0 of 19 with it. Would one say that the higher level Fighter is less proficient than the lower in such cases? ...Of course not. The higher level Fighter is certainly proficient with this weapon, he just isn't as skilled with it as he is with his preferred weapons. 3e, rather than changing the terminology and keeping the power level the same, instead chose to increase the power level by the inclusion of weapon related FEATS. Where general weapons familiarity for Fighters once was the Base THAC0 minus the Non-Proficiency Penalty, now the BASE THAC0 (BAB) is the baseline, with preferences and specializations adding to this value. In other words, think of the THAC0 for proficient weapons before as actually being the THAC0 for those weapons with which the Fighter had a weapon focus FEAT. There's nothing wrong with 3e's system, it's just another way of approaching things. BTW, in BASIC D&D (if not using the optional weapon mastery rules--which I don't) a PC is proficient with all allowed weapons. So it hasn't always been the case that D&D has had weapon proficiency slots. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification