How did this thread turn into a discussion of 5E build-a-bear class options?

I was wondering the same...

I'll back off now, I was just trying to point that 5e's system does not apply here.  Apologies.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1005821How did this thread turn into a discussion of 5E build-a-bear class options?

I'm to blame. I brought it up as a point of comparison.

Maybe we can go back up to the point where I was responding to you and restart:

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1005114[quote condensed]
"[T]hey were a good 'solution' to something I've always regarded as a weakness in post chainmail-era D&D: A fighter's offensive power barely creeps up as the overall power level of the game rises. You could rationalize it if you really wanted to, but it seems like an obvious flaw to me." -Larsdangly

You have identified the serious and very real issue that the rules were added to address. There were multiple ways that this was addressed in different TSR editions. OD&D had multiple attacks vs. 1hd creatures/ round, Holmes of course doesn't go that high, AD&D had fighter multiple attacks (and later, specialization, and more for 2e), and BECM did the weapon mastery rules.

They are... one way of addressing the problem. It's acceptable. It sticks much more with increasing the damage of one's single attack than in simply adding more and more attacks, like AD&D focused more upon. That's both good and bad. Bad because one super strong attack won't help it the enemy next to you only has a normal attacks' worth of hp, good because then anything that grants you an extra attack grants you an extra super attack. As Pat points out, most of the special abilities stop being useful, and deflect is game-breakingly great.

I think that, much like the Wvs.AC chart for OD&D and 1e, or many other similar TSR era D&D rules, its heart was in the right place. However, it takes a serious amount of house rules for it to achieve, and you just look at it and think, "That? That was the solution to the problem we all knew was there that seemed intuitive to you?"

I think that's still my take on the system. It's clunky. It doesn't seem playtested. I wouldn't use it without houserules. It achieves certain objectives in poor ways (ex. it takes until 11th level to get grand master in any of the weapons, but any class can do so, the fighters simply can have 3 other weapons trained to basic levels while everyone else can only have 1). But it shows that the designers (Mentzer and whomever would have had influence on the process at this point) knew of the issue of high level fighters (well, of spellcasting dominating martial ability at high levels, at least) and wanted to put something in to address it.

It was interesting to see in the RC that the rules for retro-active inclusion of the rules (why is that still there, when the rules have been consolidated into 1 book?). This came about because the weapon mastery rules were originally included in the BECMI Master set (levels 26-36). My original gaming group encountered this issue, as we did not purchase the Master set until we had gotten to level 25, and when we discovered these rules we immediately set about ret-conning our characters to match (my fighter Gwystrum suddenly got very good with his beloved +4 trident). That's notable because we hadn't made other changes from our initial messing up of the rules, but this we considered important enough to do. I believe it was because we also recognized how our martials were becoming also-rans. So, on the level that a bunch of 10 year olds read it and immediately recognized its' value, I'd say it is a step in the right direction.

I agree that it reads like something that wasn't play tested. I suspect a surprisingly large amount of what we see in print in 'official' company publications wasn't really play tested.

The retroactive part was probably left in because the weapon mastery rules are optional.  It's entirely possible to start a campaign without them using RC, then change your mind.

I'm not really complaining, but for a thread that names BECMI, there's mostly 5e talk going on in here!