Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 3768356" data-attributes="member: 29398">Didn't 3e already simplify weapon proficiencies enough?In 1e, you were proficient with a few specific weapons (sometimes rectricted by class) and that was it.  One of the things that made fighters different from each other, in fact, was their choices in weaponry.3e made it so any fighter could use anything (with a few exceptions), and greatly expanded what other classes could use without penalty.  Now, it sounds like some would do away with proficiencies entirely, leading to the obvious assumption that every adventurer regardless of class knows how to use every weapon out there.  Ridiculous.I'd rather see 4e tighten weapon proficiencies right back down for all non-warrior classes.  So many people are saying elsewhere that spellcasters are too powerful...well, here's an obvious and easy way to give something back to the warriors.As for armour, I don't think that ever needed a proficiency system...as long as the obvious classes get penalized harshly for wearing armour when they shouldn't (e.g. sneaking thieves, casting wizards, etc.) the armour proficiency rules can disappear and nobody would notice.Lanefan</blockquote>