Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 3767696" data-attributes="member: 8439">So, all the people arguing for the weapon proficiency rules which allow a wizard to use a daggar but take -4 on a shortsword or a kama are also opposed to the full simple and martial proficiency for fighters, right? Because if the weapons are so different from each other that a wizard or bard needs to spend a feat on each new weapon, it would be impossible for any human or half orc to have gained proficiency in 33 separate martial weapons (36 of you count the throwing function of 3 of them, 38 if you also count composites seperately) by age 15 to 21. Plus all the simple ones, all but one of which a commoner takes -4 with.... The way I see it, the system as it stands in 3x doesn't work either way you look at it. If weapons are so different and difficult to train in, then fighters should be restricted to a dozen or so martial proficiencies (and less if they don't start at first level) and if it's OK for a 15 year old barbarian with weapon focus club to pick up a glaive and use it perfectly, then the -4 unless you take each individual feat is silly for the non "all martial" classes.Hrm, while it would add more bookkeeping, perhaps a proficiency point system similar to the skill point system would work. Weapon points per level per class with a multiplication at first level. (Or maybe a set number at first level and only the "all martial" continue to add them.) Simple weapons cost 1 point, martial 2 and exotic 5? Picking up a level of fighter later won't give you everything you could have gotten at 1st, and players could pick their proficiencies to match their character, not a narrow stereotype.</blockquote>

Verification