airwalkrr
Adventurer
Elven weapon proficiency is simply that, proficiency. It comes up less in 5e than in some other D&D systems. The big key here is looking at the difference between classes that do NOT have proficiency in the longsword and compare a dwarf/half-orc/whatever of the same class to an elf and look at their attack bonus. At 1st-level, there is not much of a difference between an elf wizard and a dwarf wizard if the dwarf has a slightly higher Strength. Let us say the elf began with 15 and the dwarf with 16. The dwarf is -1 to hit/+1 to damage relative to the elf. Assuming their Strength scores stay equal to each other and the dwarf wizard does not gain proficiency in the longsword (e.g. via a feat), by 10th-level, there will be a bigger disparity in to-hit numbers. The 10th-level dwarf wizard will be -3 to hit/+1 to damage relative to the elf. By 20th-level this is -5 to hit/+1 to damage relative to the elf. So the dwarf wizard is better off in the long run using a weapon with which he is proficient while the elf still has a reasonable chance to hit. (Of course by 20th-level both will probably prefer spells in most situations, but that is a little beside the point.)
Now if both are members of a class that already grants proficiency with longswords, let us say fighter, then the elf is at a disadvantage. But I do imagine most iconic elf fighters (e.g. Legolas) as archers, and with their bonus to Dexterity elves are generally better archers, so this makes sense to me. In 1e the elf fighter would have had a +1 to hit with the longsword relative to the dwarf fighter, but this is a different edition after all. And in 5e elf fighters by default are no better with longswords than 3e elf fighters, 3e being an edition with which 5e shares many characteristics; a 3e elf fighter had no advantage when using a longsword relative to a 3e dwarf fighter. You have to go all the way back to 2e to find a difference when comparing classes that already have proficiency with the longsword. But let us also consider that in previous editions, typical dwarf player characters did not get a bonus to Strength. So the comparison there is unfair. The half-orc comparison is more appropriate, but then the half-orc in previous editions was generally better with all melee weapons as the half-orc in previous editions usually had a bonus to Strength, making for a more versatile melee character. The same is true in 5e. So I say, for the most part, the spirit of previous editions holds true.
It is interesting to note that Elf Weapon Training grants the exact benefits of the Weapon Master feat, with the caveat that the four weapons are already selected. A DM who wishes to simulate better the 2e and previous versions of elves could grant elves of a class already proficient with those four weapons a bonus feat in place of it, so long as that feat only applies to the Elf Weapon Training weapons. For example, elf fighters (and any other elf in a class already proficient with all four Elf Weapon Training weapons) could be given the benefits of the Savage Attacker feat only when using weapons listed under Elf Weapon Training. That would certainly make elves superior with those weapons. But I would exercise such a house rule with care, as it might make elves too powerful for some campaigns.
Now if both are members of a class that already grants proficiency with longswords, let us say fighter, then the elf is at a disadvantage. But I do imagine most iconic elf fighters (e.g. Legolas) as archers, and with their bonus to Dexterity elves are generally better archers, so this makes sense to me. In 1e the elf fighter would have had a +1 to hit with the longsword relative to the dwarf fighter, but this is a different edition after all. And in 5e elf fighters by default are no better with longswords than 3e elf fighters, 3e being an edition with which 5e shares many characteristics; a 3e elf fighter had no advantage when using a longsword relative to a 3e dwarf fighter. You have to go all the way back to 2e to find a difference when comparing classes that already have proficiency with the longsword. But let us also consider that in previous editions, typical dwarf player characters did not get a bonus to Strength. So the comparison there is unfair. The half-orc comparison is more appropriate, but then the half-orc in previous editions was generally better with all melee weapons as the half-orc in previous editions usually had a bonus to Strength, making for a more versatile melee character. The same is true in 5e. So I say, for the most part, the spirit of previous editions holds true.
It is interesting to note that Elf Weapon Training grants the exact benefits of the Weapon Master feat, with the caveat that the four weapons are already selected. A DM who wishes to simulate better the 2e and previous versions of elves could grant elves of a class already proficient with those four weapons a bonus feat in place of it, so long as that feat only applies to the Elf Weapon Training weapons. For example, elf fighters (and any other elf in a class already proficient with all four Elf Weapon Training weapons) could be given the benefits of the Savage Attacker feat only when using weapons listed under Elf Weapon Training. That would certainly make elves superior with those weapons. But I would exercise such a house rule with care, as it might make elves too powerful for some campaigns.
