Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8080337" data-attributes="member: 12731">I see your point. And as someone who himself keeps a look-out for vestigial rules that D&amp;D could shed with few repercussions, I congratulate you for starting this discussion.The divide was initially a codification of the advantage offered to &quot;real fighters&quot; over other classes with weapons.But I can agree it no longer serves the purpose of balancing classes against each other.The reason a Cleric or Sorcerer is weaker in martial combat than a Ranger or Paladin is only to a non-significant degree due to access to weapon categories. By the same token, getting racial access to martial weapons might in some theoretical scenario be a big deal. But really it isn't. By far the biggest differentiator is your class. A Bard or Rogue or Druid or Cleric - even one that can use a Greataxe - will never stand a chance in straight-up melee combat against a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger. AC, hp, armor and Strength allotment sees to that.So it's not about the martial or simple weapons, except, possibly, at level 1.Spelling out the restrictions in weapons training for Clerics or Sorcerers without the shorthand of &quot;simple weapons only&quot; wouldn't be unreasonable.---All this said, I must note that the hassle isn't really all that heavy a burden. So to me it would be a perfectly acceptable end to the discussion to conclude &quot;no it doesn't do much, but it isn't hurting either, so we could keep it even with a weak justification&quot;.On the other hand, let's nip the natural follow-up idea in the bud, the &quot;if we keep it let us at least make it more significant&quot;. No, that does not necessarily follow. It is entirely okay for Level Up to keep a 5E rule that isn't too much of a bother, even if the only reason is because it was in 5E.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8080337, member: 12731"] I see your point. And as someone who himself keeps a look-out for vestigial rules that D&D could shed with few repercussions, I congratulate you for starting this discussion. The divide was initially a codification of the advantage offered to "real fighters" over other classes with weapons. But I can agree it no longer serves the purpose of balancing classes against each other. The reason a Cleric or Sorcerer is weaker in martial combat than a Ranger or Paladin is only to a non-significant degree due to access to weapon categories. By the same token, getting racial access to martial weapons might in some theoretical scenario be a big deal. But really it isn't. By far the biggest differentiator is your class. A Bard or Rogue or Druid or Cleric - even one that can use a Greataxe - will never stand a chance in straight-up melee combat against a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger. AC, hp, armor and Strength allotment sees to that. So it's not about the martial or simple weapons, except, possibly, at level 1. Spelling out the restrictions in weapons training for Clerics or Sorcerers without the shorthand of "simple weapons only" wouldn't be unreasonable. --- All this said, I must note that the hassle isn't really all that heavy a burden. So to me it would be a perfectly acceptable end to the discussion to conclude "no it doesn't do much, but it isn't hurting either, so we could keep it even with a weak justification". On the other hand, let's nip the natural follow-up idea in the bud, the "if we keep it let us at least make it more significant". No, that does not necessarily follow. It is entirely okay for Level Up to keep a 5E rule that isn't too much of a bother, even if the only reason is because it was in 5E. [/QUOTE]

Verification