* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : "Optional" Classes Started at 12-19-03 12:47 AM by DM Zoc Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=150995 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : DM Zoc Date : 12-19-03 12:47 AM Thread Title : "Optional" Classes Out of curiosity, is there anyone out there playing in a game of AD&D 2nd who does not use any of the optional classes (bard, paladin, ranger, specialist wizard, druid)? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Hiryu Date : 12-19-03 01:08 AM Actually those are core classes, not optional... but yeah, I know what you mean, and my answer has to be...... NO. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : DM Zoc Date : 12-19-03 01:29 AM I wish I had my books on hand, but I'm fairly certain that they're all officially optional (which is why I asked). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Sildatorak Date : 12-19-03 04:10 AM Yep, they're all officially optional in 2nd ed. The only ones I'm not playing with is druid and specialist wizard because it's an al-qadim campaign and I don't want to have outlanders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : migo Date : 12-19-03 04:49 AM Nope, never done that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Malaug Date : 12-19-03 04:57 AM Thread Title : I am In the game that I'm playing in at the moment, We have a party of four, they are Dwarven Fighter/Cleric, Human Fighter, Elven Wizard and a Halfling Theif pretty standard sort of party. Usually i don't have a party this pland, there is always an Archer or a Cavalier or Specialist Mage, but we went rules easy. Why do you ask? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : DM Zoc Date : 12-19-03 05:20 AM A lot of people think that AD&D 2E is over-ruled, with supplements upon supplements creating a mass of rules that allows pretty much anything if you know where to look for it; I was wondering if anyone only used the basics. Now I must ask, do you make use of proficiencies? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : migo Date : 12-19-03 09:05 AM Yes, I can't imagine not using them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Sildatorak Date : 12-19-03 02:10 PM I think the non-weapon proficiencies are absolutely essential to the 2e experience. Having played a little bit of 3e (which gives you automatic proficiency with your class weapons list, basically) I don't think the weapon proficiencies are as essential, but I've never played 2e without them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Hiryu Date : 12-19-03 03:45 PM Well, damn. I just checked my PHB, and sir, I stand corrected. That just goes to show you how much those classes are used–they are thought of as core classes. As for the proficiencies, I always wondered why they are "Optional" when I have not seen a single player or DM who doesn't use them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : DM Zoc Date : 12-19-03 06:42 PM One thing I dislike about 2nd edition is that the vast majority of supplements make use of the proficiency slot system, but not the point-based system put forth in Skills & Powers. Thoughts? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Sildatorak Date : 12-19-03 07:22 PM Originally posted by DM Zoc One thing I dislike about 2nd edition is that the vast majority of supplements make use of the proficiency slot system, but not the point-based system put forth in Skills & Powers. Thoughts? I think it was a timing issue. I can't recall dates of publication off the top of my head, but the whole Players Option series was one of the last things that got published in 2e, IIRC. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : imayb1 Date : 12-20-03 01:38 AM One thing I dislike about 2nd edition is that the vast majority of supplements make use of the proficiency slot system, but not the point-based system put forth in Skills & Powers. Thoughts? It's not a big deal to convert. Standard prof. slot=2 CP. More difficult skills cost 4 or 5 CP. Base skill=7. If nwp base= Int-2, for example, then by skills & powers rules it becomes a 5. Do you use the Core Rules software, DM Zoc? Once you have those puppies typed into the database, you never have to worry again. :behold: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : DM Zoc Date : 12-20-03 05:02 AM All of my files are in .dtf (dead tree format). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Ars Loqui Date : 12-20-03 08:24 AM Well, I use neither NWP's nor WP's... I do my best to stay away from optional classes like the druid and specialist wizards... in fact, we have pretty much the loosest use of rules than any other game I've read about. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Hiryu Date : 12-20-03 08:06 PM I think they never printed anything with the rules of S&P or any of the Player's Option books because of TSR's old printing policy. Back then, they didn't print anything that forced you to buy anything beyond the basic rulebooks (PHB, DMG) or the related campaign setting. As it was back then, this used to be considered unfair to the customers. Now WotC goes out of their way to make sure the opposite is true with 3E. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : imayb1 Date : 12-21-03 09:26 PM DM Zoc, I think I still have NWP lists for S&P rules in .doc format-- if you have a printer, I can e-mail you the .doc s and you can have them in .dtf :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : DM Zoc Date : 12-21-03 09:30 PM Thanks, but are these official conversion rules? I don't deal with house rules, no matter how well-done. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Stormcrow Date : 12-23-03 04:32 PM I once proposed an idea which seems perfectly logical on paper, but is simply never used: play AD&D 2nd Edition with absolutely none of the optional bits. You've got the ability scores, six races, four classes (fighter, mage, cleric, thief), 37 combinations (including multi-classing) of character type, alignment, equipment (no encumbrance), combat (d10 per side for initiative, no falsely realistic weapon type categories), spells (no components) (and no skills or nonweapon proficiencies!) . . . . There's plenty there to construct a full compaign. You might even take optionless AD&D 2nd Edition as your base and expand the rules yourself the way you want. Make up your own optional classes and combat rules and so on. Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition strikes me as greatly resembling the original D&D and AD&D, though with some obvious changes (like elven fighter/magi not able to cast spells in armor, which they can do in AD&D). Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition removes most of the stuff I dislike about AD&D 2nd Edition. You can then build the stuff you do like. If anybody were to run such a game sincerely, I'd play in it. David Stardate 3977.8 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : The WarOverlord Date : 12-29-03 12:36 AM Thread Title : Re: "Optional" Classes Originally posted by DM Zoc Out of curiosity, is there anyone out there playing in a game of AD&D 2nd who does not use any of the optional classes (bard, paladin, ranger, specialist wizard, druid)? Can'y say Yes cause I prefer 1) Death Slayer 2) Demon Hunter 3) Artifist (Specialist Mage that specializes in making and using magic items) 4) Alchemist (Mage that specializes in "chemical magic" ) 5) Mentalist ( Specialist Mage that basically is what 3rd eddition Psionist are now, mages that tap into the self and mind to cast spells) 6) Tinkerer (Specialist Mage that builds techno-magic machines) 7) Techno-Mage (Mage that uses techno-magic devices to cast magic ) 8) Preserver/Defiler (Known in Darksun, these are Mages that use lifeforce and a "magic medium" mostly from plants at low levels but can use living beings at really high levels. Slow Preserver method allows life to continue and only borrows what power is needed, fast method creates "death" to power source but gives the Defiler a "power fix" like a drug addict) 9) 2nd addition Psionist. This is considered a optional class as under normal circumstances only NPCs like "Mind Flayers" are allowed to be this type of "True Psionist" and most DMs won't allow it as without experience the Psi combat system can be considered complex in its standard form -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Warhead Date : 01-01-04 05:33 AM Originally posted by Stormcrow Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition removes most of the stuff I dislike about AD&D 2nd Edition. You can then build the stuff you do like. If anybody were to run such a game sincerely, I'd play in it. Can't help but think that's a bit of an arse-about-face way of looking at it...to put words in your mouth, aren't you really saying that you do like AD&D 2nd Edition as it's presented, because it's a coherent, workable system "out of the box"? The optional stuff is, well, optional, so I can't really see how you can criticise it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-01-04 12:19 PM Originally posted by Warhead Can't help but think that's a bit of an arse-about-face way of looking at it...to put words in your mouth, aren't you really saying that you do like AD&D 2nd Edition as it's presented, because it's a coherent, workable system "out of the box"? The optional stuff is, well, optional, so I can't really see how you can criticise it. It's not a matter of how it's presented. It's a matter of how it's played. I have never, ever . . . ever! . . . seen someone play AD&D 2nd Edition without all of the options in play. Even when I ran an AD&D 2nd Edition game, I used most of the options (which is really when I learned to dislike them). If most people played AD&D 2nd Edition without most of the options, then yes, I'd be wrong to think poorly of it. But that's not the way it works. David Stardate 4001.9 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : ElFenrir Date : 01-01-04 09:13 PM ) Alchemist (Mage that specializes in "chemical magic" ) that has me curious. I like the idea. When I played 2E, we would mix it up, I played in a couple of games that used all the options; I tried it varied ways, with all or some. Never tried it with none, but I havn't played 2e for a very long time now. Might be nice, though! Though I'm a big 1e fan, and that was pretty basic if you only used the core rules(there wasn't a whole lot of optional stuff in the original books that I can remember.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Cybertooth Date : 01-04-04 11:00 PM Originally posted by DM Zoc All of my files are in .dtf (dead tree format). LOL!!!:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Cybertooth Date : 01-04-04 11:08 PM Originally posted by Stormcrow I once proposed an idea which seems perfectly logical on paper, but is simply never used: play AD&D 2nd Edition with absolutely none of the optional bits. You've got the ability scores, six races, four classes (fighter, mage, cleric, thief), 37 combinations (including multi-classing) of character type, alignment, equipment (no encumbrance), combat (d10 per side for initiative, no falsely realistic weapon type categories), spells (no components) (and no skills or nonweapon proficiencies!) . . . . There's plenty there to construct a full compaign. You might even take optionless AD&D 2nd Edition as your base and expand the rules yourself the way you want. Make up your own optional classes and combat rules and so on. Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition strikes me as greatly resembling the original D&D and AD&D, though with some obvious changes (like elven fighter/magi not able to cast spells in armor, which they can do in AD&D). Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition removes most of the stuff I dislike about AD&D 2nd Edition. You can then build the stuff you do like. If anybody were to run such a game sincerely, I'd play in it. David Stardate 3977.8 This really is basically what I played back in the day. IIRC, we didn't use skill, proficiencies, or encumbrance rules. Although, mulit-classing wasn't restricted we simply didn't make any multi-class characters. The games moved hard and fast, and made for some really fun hack & slash adventures. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : ironfang Date : 01-05-04 08:02 AM Optionless 2e could be fun for a single campaign run, or at max two. I have been in optionless games (no dual or multiclass), no encumbrance, no spell components, initiative was unmodified 6 sider, no nwp, no wp, just straight characters aloud to use what weapons that were not restricted to their class. A far cry from 3e where even wizards can use platemail. Tyranus -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Malaug Date : 01-06-04 11:19 AM Thread Title : Sorry It took so long, I've been away. Of course you have to use the proficiency slots, and the Fighter gets the ability to use the specilist proficiencies for their weapon of choice to inflict more damage. It just has to be. Many was the time in 1st edition where a character lands in the water and just swims because they know how with a strength check! Proficiences make it a bit more in depth. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-06-04 11:58 AM Thread Title : Re: Sorry Originally posted by Malaug Of course you have to use the proficiency slots, and the Fighter gets the ability to use the specilist proficiencies for their weapon of choice to inflict more damage. It just has to be. It certainly does not have to be. The game is quite playable without weapon proficiencies and specialization. In this form it resembles the original Dungeons & Dragons and the Basic-Master game. Many was the time in 1st edition where a character lands in the water and just swims because they know how with a strength check! Proficiences make it a bit more in depth. No pun intended, eh? You don't need to make a strength check to swim. In Advanced D&D (without the later supplements like the Survival Guides) and in Advanced D&D 2nd Edition without options, all characters can swim unless the player or the Dungeon Master declares otherwise. If there's any question as to a character's ability to swim in a special situation, the DM must make a ruling. You may not like the lack of control detail, but the game works just fine this way. David Stardate 4015.6 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Malaug Date : 01-06-04 12:20 PM I remember playing Dungeons& Dragons when it first came out, and stripping something back to it's bones is a great way to cut your teeth but I think that in AD&D when they bought in the weapon specialisation, it was a good idea. In relation to the swimming thing, I agree that the game would work fine this way, but not every person on this world knows how to swim or write. Drop a desert nomad in the sea and I'm sure he would sink like a stone. I'm just saying that a few non-weapon proficienciences help the game along and give it an edge. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-06-04 12:29 PM Originally posted by Malaug I'm just saying that a few non-weapon proficienciences help the game along and give it an edge. I agree. However, you were saying things like "It just has to be," and I don't agree with that. My proposition was that optionless AD&D 2nd Edition is a viable game. As for it being too limited for continual play, I disagree with that as well. You don't need powers and advantages in order to make D&D interesting. Good adventure and exciting treasure must be created by the Dungeon Master to keep the players interested. Remember that Dungeons & Dragons originally had fewer choices than optionless AD&D 2nd Edition, and that was the game that started it all. Hardly limited to a couple of campaigns! And like I said, it would be most interesting if the DM were to take optionless AD&D and use that as a base for his own new classes and rules. David Stardate 4015.6 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : The WarOverlord Date : 01-07-04 06:03 AM Thread Title : Re: Sorry Originally posted by Malaug It took so long, I've been away. Of course you have to use the proficiency slots, and the Fighter gets the ability to use the specilist proficiencies for their weapon of choice to inflict more damage. It just has to be. Many was the time in 1st edition where a character lands in the water and just swims because they know how with a strength check! Proficiences make it a bit more in depth. Swim or Drown is real life and you had no swimming lessons and fall of a ship....which is why "walking the plank" was a feared punnishment as most ancient Sailors didn't know how to swim though anyone can "doggie paddle" if they don't panic. Profiecency Slots? Feats? You holding a Long sword? lift it over the shoulder of the same hand you are using and swing it down flowing to in front of your waist on your opposite side...stepping forward with the foot on the same side gives more stable follow through :rolleyes: Holding a short Sword? step forward with the same foot your sword is in and jab :rolleyes: Got a shield? Put it up and step back with the opposite foot to brace for impact unless you are using the end of your shield to slash in which case you step into the attack with the same foot on the side the shield is :rolleyes: Got a crossbow? stick the bolt in the grove, pull the string back with the pull back assembly until the trigger clicks, aim, pull the trigger Got a Bow? take the bow in you non-dominate hand, grab and arrow with your donninate hand, stick the arrow on top of the hand grip and the back grove on to the string, pull back using pinch method, thumb grip mthod (asian) or index and pointer finger method (english) aim and release the string. I really don't understan "Feats" and "profeicencies" as I own real long swords, short swords,Bow and arrows and Crossbows and using the weapons aren't excatly rocket science :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Malaug Date : 01-07-04 10:47 AM Thread Title : Okay The WarOverlord I agree that using these weapons is not rocket science, but unfortunately a novice with these weapons wouldn't take into account footwork or the correct way to draw an arrow. I know fencing is about footwork but I wouldn't know a correct stance from an incorrect one. Give someone who's never used a bow and arrow the same and it'll take a long time for them to properly knock an arrow. With a proficiency it shows that the character knows a little bit more than your "wet-behind-the-ears" novice. I take it you have taught yourself how to use these items and got better as time goes along. Whallah, you're more proficient in it than me, therefore it's a Proficiency. If you dedicate more time to the sword than the bow, it's a Specialization. If you dedicate your life only to the sword its Mastery, with bonuses applying to each state. Unfortunately feats are a 3rd edition thing and I'm not too sure about that system so I can't comment. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Zythrst Greyeyes Date : 01-07-04 03:31 PM I like NWP's and have always used them. Its not perfect however as there are some that I'd want to move around. Mainly I would have Reading/Writing as a General NWP. I wonder if anybody ever used the other system introduced in 2e I forgett what it was called. but you simply chose a profesion ie Bower/Fletcher and got a list of skills. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Malaug Date : 01-08-04 04:44 AM Thread Title : Yep I did use this system Zythrst Greyeyes, but we used it as something on top of NWPs. Sort of like a trade you did before you became an adventurer. As a house rule, it was a randomly generated thing though so we didn't get NWPs based on what secondary skill we had, I remember having a Rogue whose secondary skill was Armoury and a Cavalier whose secondary skill was Bowyer/Fletcher so it has pros and cons. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Sildatorak Date : 01-09-04 09:05 PM Thread Title : Re: Re: Sorry Originally posted by The WarOverlord You holding a Long sword? lift it over the shoulder of the same hand you are using and swing it down flowing to in front of your waist on your opposite side...stepping forward with the foot on the same side gives more stable follow through :rolleyes: Holding a short Sword? step forward with the same foot your sword is in and jab :rolleyes: Got a shield? Put it up and step back with the opposite foot to brace for impact unless you are using the end of your shield to slash in which case you step into the attack with the same foot on the side the shield is :rolleyes: Got a crossbow? stick the bolt in the grove, pull the string back with the pull back assembly until the trigger clicks, aim, pull the trigger Got a Bow? take the bow in you non-dominate hand, grab and arrow with your donninate hand, stick the arrow on top of the hand grip and the back grove on to the string, pull back using pinch method, thumb grip mthod (asian) or index and pointer finger method (english) aim and release the string. I really don't understan "Feats" and "profeicencies" as I own real long swords, short swords,Bow and arrows and Crossbows and using the weapons aren't excatly rocket science :rolleyes: I think you've vastly oversimplified the use of some of these weapons, WarOverlord. If you just use the same slash with your sword over and over, you will get it deflected and get run through, same goes for only one sort of stab with the shortsword. If you look at the ranges on the bow, you are doing a lot more than just a point/draw/shoot method; to hit things farther away you have to consider your angle of aim and such. Proficiency is a measure of more than just "I can use this" it is "I can use this effectively" which includes things like using a given weapon in defensive maneuvers, disarming, attacking, feinting, etc. I personally like the way that 3e does weapon profs. You start out with a goodly number based on your class and can spend feats to get more (feats are similar to 2 slot proficiencies in their usefulness and you get 1 to start and 1 per 3 levels). It gives every character a wide range of choice in weapon use, and lets you expand it if that is what you want to do. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : DarkTouch Date : 01-10-04 06:23 PM Originally posted by Hiryu Now WotC goes out of their way to make sure the opposite is true with 3E. This amuses me. Over on the Psionics board, people whine and complain about WotC's policy of not having to buy any other books besides the core books. The psionics handbook is the only book WotC has published with psionics in it.. they've even gone so far as to republish the Githyanki and Githzerai with magic vs. psionic stats. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Ars Loqui Date : 01-11-04 10:13 AM Couldn't you just as easily explain a character's increasing proficiency with weapons by his decreasing THAC0? Logically this makes sense, and thus makes weapon proficiencies redundant. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : DM Zoc Date : 01-11-04 10:24 AM It all depends on how much you want any given aspect to govern game-play. Improving THAC0 means that the person is getting better with weapons in general. No weapon proficiencies means that she/he/it/they can use weapons never-before-seen just as well as those that have been in use for a thousand years. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-11-04 12:50 PM Originally posted by Ars Loqui Couldn't you just as easily explain a character's increasing proficiency with weapons by his decreasing THAC0? Logically this makes sense, and thus makes weapon proficiencies redundant. In the original AD&D, the numbers were set up to represent the chances to hit for a character proficient with his weapon. If he is not proficient, he applies the non-proficiency penalty. The tables don't represent the chance to hit something, they represent the chance for a proficient character to hit something. David Stardate 4029.4 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : imayb1 Date : 01-12-04 12:35 PM Originally posted by Ars Loqui Couldn't you just as easily explain a character's increasing proficiency with weapons by his decreasing THAC0? Logically this makes sense, and thus makes weapon proficiencies redundant. Hmm. Not if you use specialization-->mastery proficencies. That line of thinking goes something like, "any fighter can swing a sword, but only a few learn to truly make the sword an extension of themselves." The weapon proficiencies represent the time and effort that a fighter puts into practice and learning sword skill (or whatever weapon). Yes, experience --ie, a lowering of THAC0 by level-- will make him a 'better' swordsman, but it's more a representation of keeping his skills up, or learning from his mistakes, rather than continual self improvement. Note: This is my opinion and you don't have to like it. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Cheiron Date : 01-12-04 01:23 PM neve really used proficiencies myself... i mostly used them as limits on what the players could allow their characters to do... i made them roleplay every situationand never really relied on the fall of a die, as it can do thing that really would never happen. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Zythrst Greyeyes Date : 01-12-04 01:31 PM Weird seeing as most nwp's had nothing to do with roleplaying. Well unless your playing a really active campaign. I've never made my players swim a river or climb a mountain though :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Hiryu Date : 01-12-04 01:42 PM Note: This is my opinion and you don't have to like it. :D Seeing how there are some people in this board who WILL flame you for any given statement instead of doing the sensible thing and starting a civilized debate, all of us should start including that little disclaimer in our signatures. :smirk: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Hoondatha Date : 01-12-04 02:39 PM As a fencer, I just wanted to object to the drastic over-simplification at the top of the page. If someone came after me on the strip like that, I'd eat him alive. While yes, using an epee is essentially stepping forward and thrusting, getting the point to actually *hit* is something else entirely. Being proficient to me means many things: you know how to use your feet (not get tangled up, trip yourself, overextend, etc), you know your weapon (what your reach is, how to manipulate it, how it will react when you do thus-and-so with it), and just as importantly, you've trained your muscles to the use of the weapon. Try to hold a lunge when you've never done it before (for that matter, try to lunge properly), and you start to realise that being proficient actually means something. At the same time, all of those factors are different when you switch weapons. You can tell on the fencing strip when your opponent is used to a different weapon, because they hold it wrong, use it wrong. Suddenly non-proficiency penalties start making sense. And the foil and epee are really close together, weapon-wise. The differences between an epee, a long sword, a katana, and a flail are huge. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:19 AM.