Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5814244" data-attributes="member: 22779">I would argue that this started in 1e with the Unearthed Arcana and the specialization rules.&nbsp; Switching weapons could net you a -3 to hit, -3 to damage and 33 % of your attacks (double weapon specs granted you these bonuses).&nbsp; Even single weapon specs meant that you gave up +1 to hit +2 to damage and 33% of your attacks by switching from a sword to a mace.So, no, I rarely, if ever, saw characters switch weapons.&nbsp; By 3e it became even less common because you had such huge penalties for trying to switch.&nbsp; Pick up a dagger?&nbsp; In 3e?&nbsp; Are you kidding me?&nbsp; -4 to hit with primary weapon, -8 with secondary?&nbsp; Unless, of course, you've burned a feat and had a 15 Dex.&nbsp; Which, if you've already set yourself up as a two weapon fighter, why in heck are you using a shield in the first place?Lance on horseback.&nbsp; Sure, I can see that.&nbsp; The automatic double damage is pretty sweet and means that you can switch over pretty easily.&nbsp; Now, how often mounted combat actually occurs is going to vary pretty wildly between campaigns, but, it is an option.However, IME, once fighters had taken specialization and whatnot, they picked their primary weapon typically a sword because that was the most likely found magic item, probably had a bow for those pesky flying creatures, and that was that.No, it certainly wasn't in 3e.&nbsp; Not with feat trees.&nbsp; You specialized with a particular weapon and you focused on that throughout your career if you wanted to play in the big leagues.&nbsp; The generalist was back in the background with the rogue, watching in envy while the specialist dished out punishment that the generalist could only dream of.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5814244, member: 22779"] I would argue that this started in 1e with the Unearthed Arcana and the specialization rules. Switching weapons could net you a -3 to hit, -3 to damage and 33 % of your attacks (double weapon specs granted you these bonuses). Even single weapon specs meant that you gave up +1 to hit +2 to damage and 33% of your attacks by switching from a sword to a mace. So, no, I rarely, if ever, saw characters switch weapons. By 3e it became even less common because you had such huge penalties for trying to switch. Pick up a dagger? In 3e? Are you kidding me? -4 to hit with primary weapon, -8 with secondary? Unless, of course, you've burned a feat and had a 15 Dex. Which, if you've already set yourself up as a two weapon fighter, why in heck are you using a shield in the first place? Lance on horseback. Sure, I can see that. The automatic double damage is pretty sweet and means that you can switch over pretty easily. Now, how often mounted combat actually occurs is going to vary pretty wildly between campaigns, but, it is an option. However, IME, once fighters had taken specialization and whatnot, they picked their primary weapon typically a sword because that was the most likely found magic item, probably had a bow for those pesky flying creatures, and that was that. No, it certainly wasn't in 3e. Not with feat trees. You specialized with a particular weapon and you focused on that throughout your career if you wanted to play in the big leagues. The generalist was back in the background with the rogue, watching in envy while the specialist dished out punishment that the generalist could only dream of. [/QUOTE]

Verification