Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Weapon masteries should really be linked to weapon properties, not to specific weapons!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9601723" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>It would be that edition, yes. And I will not lie, I have had some schadenfreude in the past at seeing someone tie themselves in painful logical knots in order to justify how their hatred of something 4e did, but their <em>love</em> of the same thing done by a different game they adore, totally isn't ridiculous. (E.g., the post from <em>The Alexandrian</em> where its author had to explain how no no no, mechanical dissociation isn't bad <em>if you do it for a good reason</em>, and Numenera totally does that guys, it's great, don't hate it because it's dissociated, love it because it's good and useful dissociation.)</p><p></p><p>But I don't think that will happen here. There are some meaningful differences between how PF1e does this. As far as I can tell, for example, weapon groups are only mechanically relevant to the Fighter class, and only refer to (more or less) an extended notion of weapon proficiency. That is, generic hit bonuses and the like, that apply to weapons that have a shared nature or function. By comparison, I was more referring to both the actual weapon-groups themselves, and the feats and features which hooked into those things, adding depth without much complexity. That said, this is a reasonable response since I wasn't as clear as I could've been.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9601723, member: 6790260"] It would be that edition, yes. And I will not lie, I have had some schadenfreude in the past at seeing someone tie themselves in painful logical knots in order to justify how their hatred of something 4e did, but their [I]love[/I] of the same thing done by a different game they adore, totally isn't ridiculous. (E.g., the post from [I]The Alexandrian[/I] where its author had to explain how no no no, mechanical dissociation isn't bad [I]if you do it for a good reason[/I], and Numenera totally does that guys, it's great, don't hate it because it's dissociated, love it because it's good and useful dissociation.) But I don't think that will happen here. There are some meaningful differences between how PF1e does this. As far as I can tell, for example, weapon groups are only mechanically relevant to the Fighter class, and only refer to (more or less) an extended notion of weapon proficiency. That is, generic hit bonuses and the like, that apply to weapons that have a shared nature or function. By comparison, I was more referring to both the actual weapon-groups themselves, and the feats and features which hooked into those things, adding depth without much complexity. That said, this is a reasonable response since I wasn't as clear as I could've been. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Weapon masteries should really be linked to weapon properties, not to specific weapons!
Top