Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6603195" data-attributes="member: 6787503">Thanks for all of your thoughtful responses. There are just a few comments I'd like to address in the order they came in. I wasn't talking about adventurers when I said, "most people." I was referring to the "most people" in this quote from the Basic Rules: I was interpreting this to mean that the usual commoner is expected to be proficient with all simple weapons, but I now realize that this could just mean that the individual weapons commoners are proficient with typically fall into the simple weapons category, which I'm fine with.Personally, I think it enhances the mystique of a magic weapon if it isn't of immediate use to every fighter-class character that finds it. Finding such a weapon could direct choices about which proficiencies to pick up in the future. Also, having the fighter-classes not be automatically proficient in every weapon opens up the possibility that the magic weapon may be more suitable to a character of another class. Why should the fighters get to have all the fun? Other have addressed the fact that the DM decides which magic weapons to give out anyway, so I don't see this as a huge problem.No, I would keep weapon proficiency tied to specific classes. You can only choose those proficiencies which are available to your class, or that you get from racial weapon training. I would do it like in 1E, where a fighter, for example, had four weapons at first level, and could add another proficiency every three levels. Acquisition of the new proficiency would be considered part of the training to level up.The only exception to all of this would be when a character is 0 level and hasn't chosen a class yet. I would let them spend some kind of aptitude points picking up proficiencies in whatever weapons or skills that instruction is available to them in. To qualify for a class, they would have to meet the basic requirements for that class, including all of that class's weapon proficiencies. This is why I began to question the large number of proficiencies which some classes have. Like why would a Wizard need to be proficient in five separate weapons? It seems like it sets a high entry fee for some classes when approached from the perspective of training from 0.Uh-oh, I said "realistic," didn't I?<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" /> Now, in the world I live in, there isn't a lot of magic being used out in the open, so when I'm playing a game that involves magic I can accept that there are special rules for how it operates that may not be entirely intuitive. That's kind of the whole idea of magic, right? On the other hand, weapons and armor aren't presented as being materially different in the game from their real-world counterparts, at least not the non-magical kind. So I'd expect that the amount of training and familiarity it would take to be "proficient" with such items would generally mirror the possibilities that are to be found in the realm of reality. I'm not saying that the game-as-written doesn't already do this well enough. I'm not a medieval weapons expert after all. I'm just questioning some of the assumptions.</blockquote>

Verification