Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1274547" data-attributes="member: 707">Problem is, hong, all the customers who didn't bitch because they were happy with the way Perform was in 3.0.  The designers listened to some of their customers, who I doubt are the majority.And all the fighter needs is a longsword, but he gets a lot more options, doesn't he?  And at the end of the day, IME, a lot of bard players want their bards to be proficient in at least a couple different perform styles.  In 3.0 that was simple.  In 3.5 it means an extra skill point cost.Actually, my DM created the same broad categories regarding weapons.Large SwordsHammers/PicksAxesSmall SwordsMaces/MorningstarsBowsSpearsNot sure if these are the exact ones, but you get the idea.  Paladins and Rangers only get proficiency in three.  It's an attempt to limit the amount of weaponry a single person could reasonably master.  But (as I stated above) what annoys me is that he still allows the fighter to be proficient in all of them, even after admitting that such is unrealistic (hence the new proficiency system in the first place.)  And yet the bard, the archtypical musician and master performer, is unbearably unrealistic knowing how to play all instruments.In my mind, the new Perform is basically a result of non-bard players wanting realism in their games, but not too close to home.  They actually play fighters, clerics, paladins, rangers, and barbarians, so they don't want any realistic weapon proficiencies, but since they don't play bards, it's a fine place to make the game more realistic.</blockquote>

Verification