D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Oofta]

I agree. Hence, the IMO better approach is how 1e (and 2e?) do it, where everyone - even Fighters - is proficient in just a few weapons (number of prioiciencies and available list vary by class) and players can use weapon proficiencies as a character differentiator - well, other than MU, but who cares what weapons they use anyway?

Good point. We really need the 20-some-odd versions of a halberd. Bring back glaive, glaive-guisarme, guisarme, guisarme-voulge, halberd and all the others! The heck with this namby-pamby generic halberd in name only! We need bardiche's, bec de corbins and bill-guisarmes! Totally lame to not have at least a dozen weapons that have effectively the same use.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hah. No, you didn't answer it at all.

So go on, explain why you are willing to accept 99.99~% of illogical D&D rules and tropes but not this one.

I fight against illogical rules in D&D all the time, for my part.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Good point. We really need the 20-some-odd versions of a halberd. Bring back glaive, glaive-guisarme, guisarme, guisarme-voulge, halberd and all the others! The heck with this namby-pamby generic halberd in name only! We need bardiche's, bec de corbins and bill-guisarmes! Totally lame to not have at least a dozen weapons that have effectively the same use.

I've decided to presume you're not being sarcastic here, and simply applaud your good sense. Bring on that Lucerne hammer!

 

[Lanefan]

Good point. We really need the 20-some-odd versions of a halberd. Bring back glaive, glaive-guisarme, guisarme, guisarme-voulge, halberd and all the others! The heck with this namby-pamby generic halberd in name only! We need bardiche's, bec de corbins and bill-guisarmes! Totally lame to not have at least a dozen weapons that have effectively the same use.

Sarcasm aside, that one Fighter can start out only proficient in, say, longsword, crossbow, mace, and dagger while another starts out only proficient in 2-handed axe, spear, sling, and hammer is IMO excellent for character differentiation. It also forces the choice of, when a fine magic weapon is found that nobody is proficient in, whether or not to use it anyway at a non-proficient to-hit penalty.

 

[soviet]

Sarcasm aside, that one Fighter can start out only proficient in, say, longsword, crossbow, mace, and dagger while another starts out only proficient in 2-handed axe, spear, sling, and hammer is IMO excellent for character differentiation. It also forces the choice of, when a fine magic weapon is found that nobody is proficient in, whether or not to use it anyway at a non-proficient to-hit penalty.

I agree, it's a character choice that neatly expresses things about the PC's background and personality. 'Oh you can use everything' is just lazy design.

 

[tetrasodium]

Working in an industry where 99% is far from the expected standard, I think that it's noteworthy that there seems to be only one position that keeps throwing out quantified values like " "significantly more" several days ago or the more recent step up to "99.99%" when it comes to the last few hundred pages of "discussion" over why background features working don't always make sense & why the GM is awful for not taking it upon themselves to find a solution to "i use my [background feature]" when it doesn't make sense. At this rate it looks like the thread will be up to an expectation of five nines reliability with a set of terribly written half implemented/half cut features as the compromise position needed for a gm to qualifu as "working with" their players by the time onednd comes out

 

[Oofta]

Sarcasm aside, that one Fighter can start out only proficient in, say, longsword, crossbow, mace, and dagger while another starts out only proficient in 2-handed axe, spear, sling, and hammer is IMO excellent for character differentiation. It also forces the choice of, when a fine magic weapon is found that nobody is proficient in, whether or not to use it anyway at a non-proficient to-hit penalty.

Eh, it's no worse than any of the other simplifications they've done for the rules. There aren't nearly as many weapons as there used to be. Again, I think someone trained in modern personal firearms could pick up just about any firearm and use it effectively, perhaps with a day or so of training. Certainly with less trouble than someone who never picked up a weapon before. It's also a common trope, action hero grabs a weapon (even a sci-fi alien weapon) and automatically starts blasting away.

Now, if you want to talk about stupid weapon design, how the heck do you not need to be strong to use a longbow? Traditional longbows had a pull strength of up to 180 pounds!

 

[soviet]

Sigh...

Look, I asked the question, which you very deliberately chose to not answer. Why, out of all the illogical things in D&D, do you care so much about the perceived lack of logic in a couple of backgrounds?

Which is why I brought up fighters and weapons. It's illogical that every single fighter, ranger, paladin, and barbarian should all happen to know how to use every single weapon with equal proficiency, regardless of the characters' wealth, training, access to materials, and any differences in the societies where they grew up.

By the rules, you could have a character have been a penniless urchin who never wielded anything bigger than a knife and who came from a society where only the military was allowed to wield swords and yet not only know how to use a broadsword, but probably be better at using it than a soldier (soldiers in the MM only get a +3 attack bonus). And you would allow it without blinking an eye.

Yet the idea that an NPC might travel and end up in the same place as a PC is just too far, even though it might only happen once in a multi-year campaign, if that much?

The things I like are necessary and understandable abstractions that make the game more fun. The things you like are ridiculous absurdities that make the game ultimately hollow and unenjoyable.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sarcasm aside, that one Fighter can start out only proficient in, say, longsword, crossbow, mace, and dagger while another starts out only proficient in 2-handed axe, spear, sling, and hammer is IMO excellent for character differentiation. It also forces the choice of, when a fine magic weapon is found that nobody is proficient in, whether or not to use it anyway at a non-proficient to-hit penalty.

i agree but also personally think that full martial weapon proficiency or 'all the martial weapons you'd ever want to use with your class', (looking at you rogue and bard with your additional rapier, shortsword and longsword proficiencies) is way too liberally handed out.

curating class weapon lists would also make it more significant of a boon when you gain a weapon proficiency from elsewhere.

tangentially i do think the weapons list has a few holes in it and some of the existing entries could be distinguished a little better between each other.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I already dislike how fighters get pigeonholed to specific weapons by fighting styles and would like to get rid of that.
I definitely wouldn't want to make this pigeonholing even worse. I want the fighter to be a master of weapons that can grab any weapon and be effective and switch loadouts based on the situation. If specialisation needs to exists, then it should be via feats and not something that's forced on you.