|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Oct 22, 2008 7:11:26 GMT -6
I was thinking about this the other day and thought it'd make a good topic for discussion: if you use the D6 for all weapons, is there any justification for keeping magic-users and clerics limited in their selection of weapons? That is, beyond the issue of fighters and magic swords and respect for archetypes?
I'm of many minds on the subject, so I'm curious what other people have to say about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Oct 22, 2008 7:17:00 GMT -6
Hmmm
It seems weird to allow an MU to use a Sword, but not a Magic Sword.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Oct 22, 2008 7:23:45 GMT -6
I agree it, but I know many people around here feel strongly that only Fighting Men should be able to wield magic swords, so I felt obligated to mention it.
|
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Oct 22, 2008 7:36:17 GMT -6
I think that, even when using 1d6 for all weapons, certain limitations should be in place. Yes, the same damage potential is present for every weapon, but you also have to consider the availability and tactical advantages of one weapon type over another--ranged vs. melee, for instance.
I like seeing players forced to rely on their wits when they get disarmed, find that the only available weapon on the ground is a crossbow...and they can't or don't know how to use it.
I also have no problem expanding the weapon selection for Magic-users beyond "dagger."
|
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Oct 22, 2008 7:43:05 GMT -6
There's also the weapon vs. AC factor, if you're using those rules. And maybe weapon-length considerations, if you're using weapon length in charge situations and such. And ranged weapon considerations, of course. Also, even if you remove swords from consideration, allowing magic users and clerics to use other weapons will make it much easier for them to acquire a magic weapon (e.g. axes, spears, bows, arrows). Whether those considerations are significant or not depends on the individual game, I guess.
If a referee decides to allow clerics and magic users to use other weapons, I suggest handling magic swords with a "soft barrier" to their use. That is, instead of saying "magic users may not use swords," you can allow magic users to use swords but still keep magic swords out of their hands by emphasizing the magic swords' preference for a Fighting Man. All magical swords are aligned, and possess some degree of intelligence. They should do everything possible to "acquire" a Fighting Man owner. (This is what I do when I allow Thieves, which are allowed the use of magic swords, by-the-book.)
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Oct 22, 2008 9:21:30 GMT -6
The other consideration here is flavor.
In a swords and sorcery world, the Wizard won't use a sword because his arrogance makes him believe that his magic is always more powerful.
In a high fantasy world, the Gandalf type can go ahead and use a sword, but there's only one of him in existence anyway (as a player character, I mean...), so it doesn't unbalance anything.
As far as Clerics go, it's purely flavor. I think a Cleric of Thor should use a hammer, and a Cleric of Odin should use a spear (one of the innovations 2nd ed AD&D brought about). But that's just me.
And for Fighting-Men, you can tell a lot about social class by weapons; so can NPCs. I'd have NPCs assume the guy with the sword was a somebody, and the guy with the halberd was his man at arms. That's the way it would have been historically (and, indeed, in much of the fantasy literature from which the game was drawn). Yet time and again, I see players choosing their weapon based on damage and not "feel".
Anyway, that's my two coppers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Oct 22, 2008 11:05:46 GMT -6
The Greyhawk damage does a pretty good job of making people choose swords...
My feeling is that as a game, D&D does a good job. Sure the cleric doesn't always get to use the weapon that makes sense for his god, but I like the mechanical effects of restricting clerics to maces.
One consideration I just had is that I could see putting axes on par with swords. They fit most of the genre archetypes quite well, and no one can use an axe that can't use a sword, so no game balance issues are at hand. They do seem less of a candidate for intelligence, but I still think it would be cool for axe to be a good choice.
I don't mind adding staves to the mages arsenal (though I don't do so in my campaign).
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Oct 22, 2008 11:18:11 GMT -6
I don't mind adding staves to the mages arsenal (though I don't do so in my campaign). I waffle on this point a lot. I can see a mage striding along with his staff. It goes with the pointy hat; it completes the picture. But it's a tool not a weapon. It aids the mage in his conjuration. It's like a laptop computer; you find it useful, but you wouldn't dream of hitting somebody with it. Then again, the Staff of Striking is designed to hit people with... Like I say, I waffle on this point. |
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Oct 22, 2008 13:08:09 GMT -6
On the staff: if you stick with d6 for all weapons, adding staff does nothing to mages other than enable the staff bearing mage concept. Otherwise mechanically, there is pretty much nothing gained over dagger.
If you use Greyhawk damage, staff is not defined. In AD&D the staff does 1d6/1d6 versus dagger at 1d4/1d3 (which is what dagger does in Greyhawk). I could see just defining staff for OD&D as 1d4/1d3 (or maybe 1d4/1d4) and give the mage no real advantage for the staff. Or just let him do 1d6/1d6 which isn't all that much of an advantage.
The much bigger point is granting non-fighters swords because they are the most common magic weapons, and the best magic weapons. And with Greyhawk damage, swords are the best damaging weapons (pretty much across the board - a pike or lance with shield could have an advantage, but that doesn't concern me much).
Other weapon expansions that concern me are giving clerics more than thrown hammer for missile weapons and more than thrown dagger for magic users.
As to the tool aspect, I can see that. But for me at least, the staff wielding mage has been part of the genre for so long, I don't have a real issue with it. And of course there's the Robin Hood precedent for quarterstaff as weapon.
But the game certainly doesn't really need the staff as a weapon.
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Oct 28, 2008 13:37:40 GMT -6
Just a thought on magic weapons. Most od&d monsters descriptions just mention "magic weapons" to hit them, without any 'plus'. So a magic sword could be... magic. It has no other property, gives no modifiet to hit and damage, but can hit these monsters.
By the way, a Elfic magic sword could be magic (for everyone) and gives the elf its special bonus against some monsters when he gt a magic blade.
If I pursuse the logic, a magical hammer is magic for everyone and +3 in dwarf hands, buts that probably too far thinking...
|
|
|
|
Post by Geiger on Oct 29, 2008 12:33:57 GMT -6
Just a thought on magic weapons. Most od&d monsters descriptions just mention "magic weapons" to hit them, without any 'plus'. So a magic sword could be... magic. It has no other property, gives no modifier to hit and damage, but can hit these monsters. This is the way I treat most of the magic swords IMC. They always keep their edge, unusually sharp (although regular swords could attain this kind of edge if treated by a good weapon smith) could survive a rust monster's attack, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Nov 11, 2008 2:29:53 GMT -6
IMC, when you are using a weapon you are not proficient with, you get -2 to attack rolls and a opponents attack you at +2 (I also give this AC penalty when you are disarmed, unless you are a Thief).
However, some magical swords such as the fabled Sword of Wizardry are wielded with grace and elegance by the spellcasting types, with no penalty whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 11, 2008 3:46:58 GMT -6
My 2 cp: No missiles for Clerics or MUs, and magical benefits only from class-appropriate items. (Curses are equal-opportunity!)
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Nov 12, 2008 11:03:54 GMT -6
In Smith's Zothique, many of the wizards use swords.
I wouldn't mind if wizards and clerics used such weapons. I'd forbid them from getting a bonus for 2-handed weapons or using 2 weapons if I was using those optional rules, and wizards could not use shields.
On the other hand, I tend to count staves as "improvised weapons", which I allow to inflict only half damage. I don't consider a lightweight stick to be an actual weapon... certainly it's nothing compared to a dagger (which can kill you). The only time I'd let a staff count as a real weapon would be in the hands of a monk-type.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Nov 25, 2008 8:01:49 GMT -6
In Smith's Zothique, many of the wizards use swords. I wouldn't mind if wizards and clerics used such weapons. I'd forbid them from getting a bonus for 2-handed weapons or using 2 weapons if I was using those optional rules, and wizards could not use shields. I agree with these sentiments. It seems to me there is a lot of S&S fiction in which the wizard wields a sword. CAS is an author who, like REH and Lieber, defines the genre, IMO. I see the wizard's magical staff or a walking stick as a lightweight stick as you note. Even a normal "staff as a weapon" might apply as you note; however, I feel that the hardwood quarterstaff shod in iron is real weapon no matter whose hands it is in. Here is a decent wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuarterstaffCheers, Jeff T. |
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 26, 2008 17:04:13 GMT -6
Although I can see them not being great with them, I have a hard time justifying why a magic-user simply cannot use a sword, hand axe, pole arm, or whatever.
Using the man-to-man melee tables, treat the magic-user's weapon as whatever class it normally belongs to but give him the worst of the chances to kill between his current weapon and a dagger (the weapon he can actually use properly).
A magic-user can charge in with a battle axe and strike before a sword-wielding opponent, and he would have the battle axe's chance to kill against an unarmored foe, while he would still have the dagger's chance to kill a foe in plate armor.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 27, 2008 10:49:06 GMT -6
Even the question of armor is unclear. It don't seems, as far as I read, that magic-users cant' use armors, but only they can't use spells in armors - but elves do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 27, 2008 14:26:42 GMT -6
That's another one that's hard to justify.
A magic-user standing like a statue wearing plate armor is going to be just as well protected as a fighting-man standing still in the same armor.
I say that armor is one category more encumbering for magic-users due to their awkwardness in it, which goes into account with making spell use impossible with all of the wild gesticulations required, although power words and the like would be fine still.
With that sort of ruling, a magic-user who runs out of spells could grab a sword and shield, suit up in chain mail, and rush into battle, but he would be rushing into (and probably soon away from!) battle much slower than would a fighting-man with the same gear.
Elves with magical armor can avoid this restriction. Why? They're elves!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 27, 2008 16:39:35 GMT -6
It could be an explanation of the elves : they're magic-users when they got no armor, and fighting-men when they have one...
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 27, 2008 17:20:25 GMT -6
If you really need a rationale, invoke the importance of the Fighting Man's training. Mages and Clerics lack the skill to use "cross-class" weapons to any better effect than their customary armament. Anyone without considerable practice is unlikely to hit a foe in combat with a medieval missile, and Ms and Cs probably have less facility than a peasant -- so at least impose such a penalty as to make it clearly so.
Considering the abstract nature of the combat system, it seems quite reasonable that too-cumbersome armor would be at least as much a hindrance as a help in melee. Like David when Saul offered his royal panoply, an MU is wise to eschew it. Thinking along such sensible (to me) lines, I would allow an AC benefit versus missiles, though.
I think there ought to be an Experience penalty for flouting the rules of the role one has chosen. An MU who goes about imitating a Fighter ought not only to perform poorly in that role but also to fall behind in level advancement. Want to be a Wizard? Practice acting like one!
Magical benefices absolutely should not accrue to those using class-prohibited items.
|
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 27, 2008 23:02:16 GMT -6
Oh, I absolutely agree with penalizing xp earned for using prohibited equipment.
I just have a problem with a magic-user picking up a sword because it's literally the only weapon available and having to tell them that they suck so badly that they have zero chance to hit.
As far as armor hurting more than helping, I'm in agreement with missiles, but maybe I'm just a weirdo when it comes to my class role bending.
As a magic-user, I feel like running from a sword-wielding lunatic while naked would be worse than running from the same lunatic while wearing a mail shirt. Will I be able to do anything remotely wizardly? No. Will I be penalized experience point wise? Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcstephens on Nov 28, 2008 0:43:14 GMT -6
I just assume that part of the graduation ceremony at Magic School is the swearing of an oath renouncing the use of weapons and armor. It's a Magic Oath, similar to a Geas, and bad things happen to you if you break it. Clerics get the same sort of thing when they're ordained, or whatever happens to make them a Cleric.
|
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 28, 2008 1:04:05 GMT -6
jcstephensWhat happens if you don't graduate from Magic School, but learn from elsewhere? Hm... perhaps there could be evil sorcerer bad guy magic-users without such restrictions?
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Nov 28, 2008 1:49:37 GMT -6
I think if a really strong Magic-User (i.e., 16+) wanted to pick up a sword or a battle axe, he might have a chance. But I'm talking about the ones strong enough to change class to fighter should they choose. (Men & Magic p. 10)
|
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 28, 2008 1:57:56 GMT -6
Good point, coffee.
I'd have to laugh at the player of a str 6 magic-user trying to wield a two handed sword.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcstephens on Nov 28, 2008 14:52:10 GMT -6
jcstephensWhat happens if you don't graduate from Magic School, but learn from elsewhere? Hm... perhaps there could be evil sorcerer bad guy magic-users without such restrictions? Chaos Wizards. Magic is inherently Chaotic, the various restrictions are intended to allow magic-users to cast spells safely, and anyone who violates those restrictions is corrupted by Chaos and eventually mutates into something inhuman. That green-skinned cackling witch creature you just whacked? She wanted to study Magic, but her parents wouldn't let her. So she ran off into the woods to find Magic on her own. Unfortunately, she succeeded. Tomorrow would have been her 17th birthday. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 28, 2008 18:35:53 GMT -6
Jcstephens' approach is delightful -- more interesting to my mind than "non-proficiency" penalties.
Withholding XP may be quite enough by itself, except in a scenario in which gaining XP is irrelevant.
|
|
