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

[Hussar]

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.

Except that because the weapons are written the way they are, every fighter uses exactly the same weapons. Specs in longsword, two weapon fighting and shortsword with longbow coming up, typically from the bonus from a 9 Int.

It resulted in far less differentiation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And if the background features actually affected your world in any way, I'd understand. But they don't. All they require is a slight justification--and they certainly require less of a justification than the majority of plot hooks.

Read the noble feature for example. You don't think that doesn't make pretty drastic assumptions about the nature of nobility and how the nobles are viewed in the setting?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Fighters are already masters of every weapon. They're just a bit better at certain weapons because of the weapon styles.

Honestly, if martials had limited weapon proficiencies (which we already know they won't), then I can easily see both archetypes and feats granting additional proficiencies. We already have feats that allow for armor proficiency. It certainly wouldn't be OP to have a feat (possibly with a minimum level prerequisite) grant proficiency in all weapons.

i wish martials collected way way more fighting styles, letting them really diversify their combat capabilities rather than locking them into a single choice, but then also add a 'weapon specialisation' fighting style that lets you really hone in on a single weapon.

IIRC there's already a weapon proficiency feat but it only gives four weapon profs rather than full martial.

 

[Oofta]

And if the background features actually affected your world in any way, I'd understand. But they don't. All they require is a slight justification--and they certainly require less of a justification than the majority of plot hooks.

This blind refusal to accept any other way of viewing world building is getting tiresome. It matters to me. My players have told me that they appreciate the thought I've put into and consistency I have in my world so it matters to them as well.

There is no reasonable justification as to why someone can, any time they want, get passage on a boat anywhere in the world or the multiverse.

 

[nevin]

But in practice it means they only use those weapons they're better at. You're pigeonholed.

I want the fighters to switch between two-hander and shield plus one hander depending on whether they want more offence or defence in a given situation. With fighting styles this doesn't happen, as you just pick the loadout that goes with the style and stick to that. You might switch between melee and ranged, but that's it, and even there the fighting styles dictate which you should use if both are possible.


Which is how I changed the weapon master feat to work and it still is terrible. Additional weapon proficiencies once you already have some good ones are basically worthless. They're flavour options. If you can use a longsword, being able to use battle-axe too gives you nothing, except in the extremely rare situation that you're deprived of your sword but happen to have an axe available.

Only think i've ever seen like that , was the damage types tables in 1st or 2nd edition. If you were stabbing a guy in chain mail you wanted piercing, if you were beating a guy in plate mail you wanted bludgeoning, ( i think). etc it had the affect you are going for but was more fiddly. but if you played that kind of game a fighter might carry multiple weapons or suits of armor. It did have the benefit of making special weapons useful instead of everyone going for the one with the biggest damage. I seem to recall weapons speed being a thing as well. Big two handed weapons hurt you in initiative. It's why all d&D rogues used daggers or darts. They were faster you got to attack first.

 

[Oofta]

The problem with differentiating weapons and giving them all special effects is that you end up looking like this guy

 

[nevin]

it is true there were downsides. But now we arguments over the downsides of making it simpler. and so the Wheel Turns.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem with differentiating weapons and giving them all special effects is that you end up looking like this guy
View attachment 362818

You say that like it's a bad thing!

But yeah, seriously, I don't think we really need to differentiate between Bohemian earspoon and glaive-guisarme. Hell, I'd be fine with combining some of the current weapons. But I think there should be some meaningful choices that would make different weapons preferable in different situations.

 

[Oofta]

You say that like it's a bad thing!

But yeah, seriously, I don't think we really need to differentiate between Bohemian earspoon and glaive-guisarme. Hell, I'd be fine with combining some of the current weapons. But I think there should be some meaningful choices that would make different weapons preferable in different situations.

I agree with more flexibility on fighting styles if it's something you want to invest in.

 

[Cadence]

I love the scene in Crouching Tiger where she keeps switching weapons...