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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8459776" data-attributes="member: 87792">In 2e as a fighter you started out as proficient in three weapons if you wanted to specialise. The problem is that they were decidedly not equal; a battle axe did 1-8 damage against small or medium creatures and 1-8 against large, while a longsword did 1-8 against medium creatures and 1-12 against large ones. And there were more swords on the loot tables than axes. So although fighters could choose to be proficient in battle axes and give up the chance for longswords they almost never did.When this was changed in 3.0 so roughly equivalent seeming weapons were balanced and the only meaningful split became simple/martial I'm not aware that anyone raised their voice to defend this tradition. (I'm sure someone did somewhere).But to me the parts of tradition that are important are those that make it easier to get on the same page and understand each other without having to explain nearly as much. Having different weapon stats is good because it encourages people to pick from those weapons. Having some almost strictly better than others means people won't take them.And a big part of getting people, especially outsiders, on the same page that no one mentions is just how video gamey D&D is. Most of that is stuff that computer RPGs took from D&D (and have been taking from D&D right back to Colossal Cave Adventure and early MUDs in the mid 70s). Keeping these elements makes it far easier both for longstanding D&D players and for newbies to play together comfortably - and that's the part of tradition I find important.</blockquote>

Verification