Weapon Restrictions

[James Maliszewski]

Given that all weapons do 1D6 damage under OD&D, other than the possible issues surrounding the use of magic swords (which are officially the sole purview of the Fighting Man), would there be any other consequences to allowing, for example, magic-users to wield swords?

[foster1941]

The practical impacts of the weapon restrictions (assuming you're not using the Man-to-Man chart from Chainmail) are making magic swords fighter-only (which you mentioned) and doing the same with long-range missile weapons (mages can throw daggers and clerics can throw hammers, but only fighters can use bows and crossbows).

[coffee]

I think it also has to do with the frequency magical weapons come up on the tables.

There is a 20% chance of getting a magic sword, but only a 5% chance of a misc. weapon.

On the misc. weapon table, there is a 20% chance of a dagger and a 20% chance of a blunt weapon.

Thus the fighting-men will be the ones with the good (magic) weapons; thus they will be the ones going into melee (or firing arrows). Which is as it should be.

[Zulgyan]

You could make it work this way:

As all swords are intelligent, you can have them REFUSE to be wielded by magic-users. Even deal them damage, just as if they would be of another alignment. The swords only want to be wielded by a fighter.

Then, you can change all staves into swords. And have all those swords refuse to be wielded by a fighter. So a staff of wizardry becomes a SWORD OF WIZARDRY. All remains the same. You only change that swords, apart from preferring alignment, now they also prefer CLASS.

[korgoth]

I don't like weapon restrictions for clerics especially... I plan on using a simple weapon length rule so that will still penalize magic-users who are stuck with the dagger. I would allow a magic-user to use a weapon other than a dagger at a penalty. I'm not using clerics so it isn't an issue for me.

If I were using the standard classes, I' be inclined to ditch the restrictions for clerics at least, but go with the idea that magic swords don't or won't work for non-Fighting Men. Or that Fighting Men should get priority of assignment when handing out magic swords, but clerics can in principle use them (if you want to simulate Archbishop Turpin, who supposedly used the sword Almace, which may have been the work of Weyland).

[badger2305]

Weapon restrictions always seemed artificial to me, at least the "you can't use a sword 'cause you're a magic-user" kind of restriction. I'm perfectly fine with penalties for using an unfamiliar weapon (which for magic-users means pretty much everything), or in-game reasons for not using certain weapons, e.g. clerics are restricted to blunt weapons for religious reasons.

Mind you, I rather like the weapon mastery rules in RC - not that different from the homebrew rules I've mentioned in the Digging Up the Past thread.

[James Maliszewski]

badger2305 said:

Weapon restrictions always seemed artificial to me, at least the "you can't use a sword 'cause you're a magic-user" kind of restriction. I'm perfectly fine with penalties for using an unfamiliar weapon (which for magic-users means pretty much everything), or in-game reasons for not using certain weapons, e.g. clerics are restricted to blunt weapons for religious reasons.

My personal preference is to use a system of proficiencies, whether according to individual weapons or groups of related weapons. Some classes, like fighting men, get lots of proficiencies to start and acquire new new ones more quickly, whereas other classes, like MUs, don't get many to start and acquire new ones very slowly. However, the choice of which proficiencies a character has is dictated by player choice, not class.

[Gynsburghe]

badger2305 said:

Weapon restrictions always seemed artificial to me, at least the "you can't use a sword 'cause you're a magic-user" kind of restriction. I'm perfectly fine with penalties for using an unfamiliar weapon (which for magic-users means pretty much everything), or in-game reasons for not using certain weapons, e.g. clerics are restricted to blunt weapons for religious reasons.

I feel compelled to agree with this. Through-out fantasy literature there have been wizards swinging swords, and I have no problem with a cleric of a battle oriented deity using edged weapons. I think applying a penalty for "non traditional/unfamiliar" weapon is fair. I understand the "balancing" game mechanic of allowing only fighter types the complete gamut, but penalties seem a graceful way of letting others in on the fun, so to speak.

There is a school of thought that believes in a "cold iron" restriction on the use of magic, which I've seen crop up, which causes some weapon and armor restrictions to make perfect sense (not to mention loss of movement necessary to complete spells). This would also knock out any "modern" version of the dagger as well. I've toyed with letting MUs use any non-Iron/Steel weapon they choose (and thus taking a penalty to the damage/durability), but I think it's perhaps better to avoid this can of worms... Though I still think of this from time to time. I really don't want to make magic-users any less appealing per se, so I keep avoiding this train of thought.

As an aside: I do not observe the universal d6 for weapon damage, though part of me really likes it. I am however reluctant to give up the universal d6 hit dice for PCs/Monsters (I have considered just changing fighting men to d8, and leaving everyone else at d6, except the monsters. I do like all my dice!). I like my games deadly, in a way... especially the campaign concept I have been working up...

Yet again I digress

Gynsburghe

[wulfgar]

Although all weapons do 1D6, I still think the restrictions on clerics and especially MUs do serve some purpose. In a word- Availability. Sure, if you're in a well stocked town it's no problem tracking down a dagger or a mace. But what happens, when you are beaten senseless and wake up without your gear far underground in some dungeon? If you can overpower some monsters you can take their weapons. But what are the odds that they were wielding a dagger or a blunt weapon? The fighting man doesn't have to worry about this. He can use any weapon that comes his way.

[Gynsburghe]

If I was a cleric/MU escaping a dungeon - I think I'd use whatever I could get my hands on and deal with the penalty, whatever that might be. The fighter, however, has the ability to take the weapon and actually be more successful with it - and I'm all for this. I think this example illustrates that a methodology of dealing with weapons on "nonproficiency" is somewhat necessary (even if no "official" WP system is used).

Gynsburghe

[jrients]

The problem I've always had with non-proficiency penalties is that it has always been expressed as a simple to-hit penalty. If your penalty is low enough than a sufficiently enchanted weapon can offset the penalty, and probably net you some other advantage (like a bonus to damage). If the penalty is high, then you never hit and what was the point of adopting the more complicated rule anyway?

I personally think that unless you're going to adopt a scheme like Zulgyan's (the idea of a Sword of Wizardry has great appeal to me) then the answer is to also make wielding a sword more dangerous to someone not trained in its proper use. I'm talking about fumble rules now, a subject that could easily warrant its own thread. Basically, if a magic-user was desparate enough to try to wield a sword, I'd ruin his day if he rolled a '1' on his to-hit die.

[badger2305]

jrients said:

The problem I've always had with non-proficiency penalties is that it has always been expressed as a simple to-hit penalty. If your penalty is low enough than a sufficiently enchanted weapon can offset the penalty, and probably net you some other advantage (like a bonus to damage). If the penalty is high, then you never hit and what was the point of adopting the more complicated rule anyway?

I personally think that unless you're going to adopt a scheme like Zulgyan's (the idea of a Sword of Wizardry has great appeal to me) then the answer is to also make wielding a sword more dangerous to someone not trained in its proper use. I'm talking about fumble rules now, a subject that could easily warrant its own thread. Basically, if a magic-user was desparate enough to try to wield a sword, I'd ruin his day if he rolled a '1' on his to-hit die.

Fumble and "klutz" rules were a staple of early fanzine discussions. There's a rather extensive description of several systems in various A&Es and The Wild Hunt.

[Gynsburghe]

I've always used some sort of reward for rolling 20s, and a penalty for rolling 1. An untrained soul getting seriously hurt is not beyond the evil of my DM-ness ;D

If you wish to keep the rules uncluttered, changing the combat system to incorporate these concepts is perhaps foolish. I have been trying to add to the conventions of OD&D's combat system, while keeping it fresh of too much later clunkiness. I don't mind rules, especially the kind that are developed through conversations like these

What I find myself running from are books that tell me "thou shalt handle this with ye olde table 25-1b." I'm a tinkerer with rules by nature, but I try to avoid destroying the spirit of the game in favor of too much "realism".

Gynsburghe

[philotomy]

I think class-based weapon restrictions in the rules are unrealistic, but reasonable. That is, they don't bother me as part of the archetype-based D&D rules. They're simple and work well to model the D&D archetype of a magic user or cleric (which is to say, they work well in the majority of cases).

I understand the desire to modify this restriction, though. I've gone over it, myself. In the end, I decided to simply stick to the weapon restrictions, and handle exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I decided I preferred that over adding rules/systems to handle it differently. YMMV, of course.

[coffee]

Once again I gotta agree with Philotomy.

Which is not to say that a Gandalf-type shouldn't have a sword, of course, but such types are really few and far between.

I think the design intent was that Magic-Users should use their heads and rely on weapons like the fighters. A lot of the old-school campaigns got gigged for being nothing but "hack & slash"; a friend of mine described his game as "think & slash". That's where the M-U shines, not in melee. Just my opinion, of course.

[foster1941]

coffee said:

a friend of mine described his game as "think & slash"

That's brilliant

[coffee]

We thought so.

Pity I haven't seen him gaming at all in over 10 years...