Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stormonu" data-source="post: 5869816" data-attributes="member: 52734">Hmmm... well, I got along well enough without proficiencies in B/X D&D, so they aren't necessary.I think the problem with them is they attempt to model the idea that a peasant farmer just can't pick up a sword and start swinging it like a master swordsman.  Thing is, the ascending THAC0/BAB bonus pretty much models this already so weapon proficiencies really aren't needed if we keep a form of THAC0/BAB.Likewise, proficiencies are also used as a tool to "lightly" ban certain weapons or armor from characters using them - unless they're willing to multiclass or give up other special abilities (such as feats) to gain access to them.  Giving wizards only proficiency with dagger and dart is meant to give a soft limit to that class, as is the lack of armor proficiency.  If we could find a better way to enforce these stereotype limitations, I'd be all for it, otherwise we'll looking at the likes of wizards running around in plate or wielding two-handed swords, for good or for ill.  For the most part, I think the "chance of spell failure" and "skill check penalty" coded into armors was sufficient for keeping wizards (and rogues) in genre without needing a proficiency system stacked on top of it.  And I doubt many wizards would want to run around with two-handed swords as the implication they would be wading (unarmored) into melee combat and is probably inferior compared to what their spell ability is*.* This isn't to say the wizard's spell should be better than a fighter armed with a two-handed sword, but that the fighter ought to be better with the sword while the wizard ought to be better at spells - in other words, you don't see a computer programmer fixing code with a monkey wrench and you don't see a car mechanic disassembling a transmission with a flash drive.</blockquote>

Verification