Quote from: Old One Eye;693735What is so much different between picking DDN fighting styles versus picking AD&D weapon proficiencies?

I don't have to make a choice based on mechanical descriptions, and I don't have to read anything. When you pick weapon proficiencies in AD&D, either you know the rules, in which case it's just a gain of time to not have to peel through the book reminding yourself of what anything and everything does/interacts with yet more stuff to check out, or you don't know the rules (I play regularly with non-hardcore gamers, i.e. normal people), in which case I can just tell you "you know how to use this many weapons. The weapons you can choose from are. . ." And leave it at that. In 99% of cases with newbies this is sufficient, because that presentation is self-explanatory, and not mechanical. I won't have to remind you what your proficiency does during the game either, because that's the baseline: you are proficient, you can use the weapon without penalties. Period.

Weapon specializations are not available at level 1 in my AD&D game (unless the group is entirely composed of experienced players who want them, and this group is unlikely to include a significant number of newbies in the future, which does happen some times). They open up later, in part for that reason.

Hmm, I am still not sure I really see the conceptual difference between picking a weapon proficiency and picking a fighting style (ignoring specific implementations of that fighting style; damage on a miss is weird to me, too). It seems to me that you can make both of those choices based purely on roleplaying – Edric of Locksden was raised learning swordplay in court, so he knows the longsword, shortsword, and one-handed weapon style – or on mechanics – hey, 1-8/1-12 looks pretty sweet for a one-handed weapon, and if I take the style that's a +2 to hit.

(That said in AD&D it's hard not to see the sense in delaying weapon specialization until sometime after 1st level, if you're going to be using it.)

Weird, the difference is downright obvious to me. Mileages and all that.

I honestly don't think I can explain any more clearly than I just did above.

Quote from: Imp;693892It seems to me that you can make both of those choices based purely on roleplaying

It's not what I'm saying.

Quote from: Benoist;693901Weird, the difference is downright obvious to me. Mileages and all that.

I honestly don't think I can explain any more clearly than I just did above.



It's not what I'm saying.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing what you're trying to say either. I also think you've got it backwards, and picking a style should be easier. It's a lot easier for me to think "swashbucker" than "rapier, dagger, buckler, cloak", or "viking" than "sword, shield, spear, dagger, axe", or "legionnaire" than "short sword, dagger, shield, javelin, formation fighting", or "knight" rather than "sword, warhammer, mace, lance, shield, mounted combat".

Now, the Next styles seem to be more bundles of feats based on tactical approaches, but it still seems pretty easy to choose between swashbuckler, archer, aggressive, defensive, and survivor. At least if you're making your choice for thematic reasons rather than mechanical advantage.

Ah, well. Comprenne qui pourra.