Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6723358" data-attributes="member: 4937">While broadly true, this is not true in detail.  In 1e AD&D, you had a weapon proficiency list.  These were the weapons you could use without penalty.  They represented your specialties.  You might be proficient in spetums and crossbows, but not footman's flails and blowguns.  A 1st level ranger only had a list of 3 weapons.  A 1st level rogue I think had 2 weapons he was actually proficient in, and a M-U but one.  The very first 'feat' was the idea of 'weapon specialization'.  You traded in two (or more) proficiencies for being exceptionally good at one thing.  This was generally a very good trade, so if you could do it, you did.But even more than that, even without weapon specialization, very quickly your equipment became your specialization.   If you found a halberd +3, you were effectively without your choice in the matter a pole arm expert and it was always in your interest to maximize using that weapon.  If you found a flametongue greatsword, then you were a two-handed sword expert.  That was how you'd be known.   And if you found a +2 longbow, it would tend to go to the character that could wield it most effectively (that high DEX character without a good weapon) - and likely if you already had that halberd, it wouldn't go to you.  What feats and weapon specialization the like did that pertained to a certain combat style was not so much make a fighter less specialized, as they did constrain the character from being able to use random treasure.   Prior to weapon specialization, if you found a +3 morningstar, that was a good find and you'd be known as the fighter with the +3 morningstar.  After weapon specialization, the +3 morningstar was only a good find if you had weapon specialization.  You are still known as the fighter that wields morningstars (or doesn't) but its not determined by what you find.This has good and bad points.And yet, solo adventures were published even way "back in the day".</blockquote>

Verification