Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 3767096" data-attributes="member: 18">They'd certainly be better off having some UA-style proficiency lists (with ALL the exotic weapons somewhere in the other lists - none of them are that freakish, which the possible exception of the spiked chain, which I hope gets put in a block of concrete and sunk to the bottom of the Potomac, for 4E), and making it so if you were proficient in one weapon, you were automatically proficient in similar ones - Kama and Kukri (which may be a Martial weapon in 3.5E, I admit, but wasn't in 3E) and so on are not that different form other weapons.Similarly, it is daaaaaaaaaaaaamn silly that a Wizard can use a dagger but it is an idiot with a short sword, a functionally identical weapon in most cases. Being &quot;proficient&quot; with dagger implies the wizard has actually trained in it, professionally, as it were, and if that's what proficiency means (I don't think the designers of 3E and 3.5E really know what &quot;proficiency&quot; actually represents, and this had lead to severe idiocy), then he should certainly be proficient with a gladius or cinequeda, which are merely bigger, better daggers.Whatever they do for 4E, they need to think this stuff through, and be very certain whether proficiency means &quot;trained to use it formally&quot; or &quot;is so easy to use everyone knows how!&quot; (which is pretty nonsensical as a concept, for anything beyond clubs, axes and daggers - even a crossbow requires formal training to be &quot;proficient&quot; with, and a sling is a buggering monster of a weapon to learn how to use well!), or what and stick to that. If Druids only use certain weapons for religious reasons, that doesn't mean they're only proficient in those, because I'm sorry buddy, but if I can use a scimitar, I can use other slashing swords pretty well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 3767096, member: 18"] They'd certainly be better off having some UA-style proficiency lists (with ALL the exotic weapons somewhere in the other lists - none of them are that freakish, which the possible exception of the spiked chain, which I hope gets put in a block of concrete and sunk to the bottom of the Potomac, for 4E), and making it so if you were proficient in one weapon, you were automatically proficient in similar ones - Kama and Kukri (which may be a Martial weapon in 3.5E, I admit, but wasn't in 3E) and so on are not that different form other weapons. Similarly, it is daaaaaaaaaaaaamn silly that a Wizard can use a dagger but it is an idiot with a short sword, a functionally identical weapon in most cases. Being "proficient" with dagger implies the wizard has actually trained in it, professionally, as it were, and if that's what proficiency means (I don't think the designers of 3E and 3.5E really know what "proficiency" actually [I]represents[/I], and this had lead to severe idiocy), then he should certainly be proficient with a gladius or cinequeda, which are merely bigger, better daggers. Whatever they do for 4E, they need to think this stuff through, and be very certain whether proficiency means "trained to use it formally" or "is so easy to use everyone knows how!" (which is pretty nonsensical as a concept, for anything beyond clubs, axes and daggers - even a crossbow requires formal training to be "proficient" with, and a sling is a buggering monster of a weapon to learn how to use well!), or what and stick to that. If Druids only use certain weapons for religious reasons, that doesn't mean they're only proficient in those, because I'm sorry buddy, but if I can use a scimitar, I can use other slashing swords pretty well. [/QUOTE]

Verification