Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bluenose" data-source="post: 5315525" data-attributes="member: 49017">I can't remember the exact quote, but Gary Gygax said in a thread over on Dragonsfoot that the reason clerics were only given blunt weapon proficiencies was a balance issue. He also wrote about it in his book on GMing, where I'm pretty certain he said it was more important than realism. I'm pretty confident that he and Arneson did consider balance - it might not have been the sole consideration, but it mattered. &nbsp;As for sorcerers as major players, and thieves not. How often is the sorcerer a major figure in the setting, and a thief a relative novice? It's perfectly plausible to say high level characters are major powers and low level ones aren't. And if we're taking examples from novels, well; Let's look at Conan. He gets knocked unconscious three times. Once by magic; twice by sling stones.&nbsp; Clearly, slings should be more powerful than magic. Convenient for thieves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bluenose, post: 5315525, member: 49017"] I can't remember the exact quote, but Gary Gygax said in a thread over on Dragonsfoot that the reason clerics were only given blunt weapon proficiencies was a balance issue. He also wrote about it in his book on GMing, where I'm pretty certain he said it was more important than realism. I'm pretty confident that he and Arneson did consider balance - it might not have been the sole consideration, but it mattered. As for sorcerers as major players, and thieves not. How often is the sorcerer a major figure in the setting, and a thief a relative novice? It's perfectly plausible to say high level characters are major powers and low level ones aren't. And if we're taking examples from novels, well; Let's look at Conan. He gets knocked unconscious three times. Once by magic; twice by sling stones. Clearly, slings should be more powerful than magic. Convenient for thieves. [/QUOTE]

Verification