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="fuindordm" data-source="post: 3768827" data-attributes="member: 5435">Actually, I think the AD&D method worked pretty well. It was maybe a shade too restrictive, but giving each class its own non-proficiency penalty makes sense.  It could easily be adapated as follows:The standard classes have a non-proficiency penalty as follows:Wizard (as commoner): -4 to hit, start with 2 simple weaponsThief (as expert): -3 to hit, start with 3 simple and 1 martialCleric (as warrior): -2 to hit, start with 3 simple, 1 (blunt) martial, and deity's weaponFighter: -1 to hit, start with all simple and 3 martialThe penalty represents a class' level of general training. A fighter can adjust the lessons learned for one weapon to other, similar weapons on the fly.   A wizard or commoner does not have enough experience or training to do so--the best they can do is learn the moves associated with a given weapon by rote, and they are relatively helpless with another.For an extra layer of complexity, impose an additional -2 penaty if there is no similarity between the weapon used and any of the character's proficiencies.I don't advocate granting new proficiencies AD&D style, though. Buying more with skill points would make sense in 3e, but skill points might not exist in 4th ed.  Since additional weapon proficiencies don't significantly increase a character's power, however, perhaps it could be handled in-game through finding a trainer or simply practicing with a weapon for X combats.I do like the idea of spreading the acquisition of proficiencies out so that dipping into a martial class doesn't grant a slew of new weapons all at once.</blockquote>

Verification