Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3770868" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think every sentence after the first in this paragraph shows that the first sentence is false. There is nothing elegant about the way that D&D handles weapon proficiencies. Compare these, for example, to the way that it handles spoken and written language proficiency - now there's elegance for you!Excellent suggestion. And entirely fitting for a system which treats spoken language acquisition as a simple binary, and handwaves literacy altogether. D&D doesn't support the level of granularity necessary for a workable proficiency system.There are all sorts of ways of preventing this outcome. Sneak attack, for example, can require a sneaky weapon. Armour can interfere with sneaking, or spell casting, or whatever. Palace guards can forbid the carrying of guisarmes into audience with the Baron. In short, there is a tremendous range of solutions - mechanical, plot-driven or both - to this problem other than proficiencies.Not for those of us who remember Moldvay Basic D&D, in which Thieves were permitted to wield any weapon, but forbidden to use shields, and (using the optional damage rules) two-handed swords did 1d10 hits (doubled on a successful backstab!).</blockquote>