Wizards and Crossbows
Nifft
Member Posts: 1,065
Over in the Mage clubs discussion, we started talking about crossbows. There's enough to talk about for this to have its own thread, so here it is.
The main objection to crossbow proficiency seemed to be "they are far too mechanical and complex gadgets". Let's examine if that holds water.
Fact: Only the smartest people can become Wizards.
If it's too "complex" for a Wizard, it should be way too complex for some dumb Fighter.
Fact: Wizards make mechanical servitors like Iron Golems.
We see that Magi have already delved deep into the mechanical arts in order to make constructs which have more moving parts than a crossbow.
Fact: Wizards are good at charming, animating or summoning hordes of unskilled labor.
You know who probably invented the crossbow? I'll bet it was a Necromancer looking to fill out his unskilled undead archery department, or an Enchanter looking to make his legion of charmed goblins somewhat more threatening.
Thoughts?
The main objection to crossbow proficiency seemed to be "they are far too mechanical and complex gadgets". Let's examine if that holds water.
Fact: Only the smartest people can become Wizards.
If it's too "complex" for a Wizard, it should be way too complex for some dumb Fighter.
Fact: Wizards make mechanical servitors like Iron Golems.
We see that Magi have already delved deep into the mechanical arts in order to make constructs which have more moving parts than a crossbow.
Fact: Wizards are good at charming, animating or summoning hordes of unskilled labor.
You know who probably invented the crossbow? I'll bet it was a Necromancer looking to fill out his unskilled undead archery department, or an Enchanter looking to make his legion of charmed goblins somewhat more threatening.
Thoughts?
6
Comments
I think the lack of Crossbow and other skills is related to a lack of and apathy toward training in arms in general. Magecraft requires more mental focus and time so the Mage can't be bothered to learn all the ins and outs of this weaponry business, etc etc.
That is now my roleplay justification.
The crossbow is the same as a modern gun - it requires little or no skill to fire, and only a bit of skill in marksmanship to hit.
The crossbow was also denounced as "evil, horrible, and the end of civilization" in its time, much as guns are currently being demonized in our own culture. It could pierce plate mail. It made armor more or less obsolete. It had no "honor", and even the lowliest peasant could kill the greatest, most skilled knight in combat, with only a little practice shooting cups off of hay bales.
Our modern guns are direct descendents of the crossbow. The technology of these shooting devices equalized all warfare and combat. The winner of all 20th century combat came down to who could shoot the most advanced crossbow or gun the best, and who could put the most effective troops on the ground (and in the air, toward the latter part of the century), using what amounted to amplified crossbows.
And, to bring it all back around to D&D, the WotC writers realized this and implemented it in 3rd edition rules. The crossbow is the wizard's best weapon in NWN. We also find occasional dialogue screens where npc's make comments about how "crude and simple and slow, but distressingly effective" they find crossbows to be.
The great NWN mod writer Savant even placed a crossbow in the starter shop in his first town named "the Wizard's Sidearm".
Emphatically yes, anybody of any character class should be able to wield a crossbow, if we are being realistic and logical about our games.
"I have never been able to imagine a mage practicing sufficiently with a sling so that he could obtain a proficiency with it. The crossbow would actually seem easier."
Look. The crossbow would actually be easier for the mage to handle than the sling. It's easier to aim and to shoot. The problem in BG is....
1) The game is old classic fantasy and The classic mage weapons in fantasy literature are the staff and the dagger.
2) The crossbow bolt pretty much delivers as much damage as the arrow, and more than the sling. To give the mage proficiency in it, might start to unbalance the game a bit.
All said, I'm not against the mage getting crossbow. I very much like all kinds of variety in the game to make it more interesting. Somehow, though, if the mage does get proficiency in the crossbow I'd like to see him have just a little more difficulty with it (let it have a -1 penalty instead of the usual -2 penalty for lacking proficiency. If his Dex is high enough then he would automatically partially overcome that disadvantage).
Even those incompetent scrub dudes on Robin of Sherwood put them to use to devestating effect in the first season...
As long as the wizard has the minimum strength to cock the thing, he should be able to use it just as well or better as that nearby simpleton peasant. Medieval crossbow training was measured in HOURS...literally like 4-8 hours of practice and you could be good enough to kill heavily experienced knights.
And yes I find it utterly ridiculous that they can use slings but not crossbows....Slings are the most complex ranged weapon to actually use in the entire game....just getting the rock to go in the right direction is hard enough....actually having enough force to do damage or hit a target in a specific place requires YEARS of practice...they're up there with bows in terms of time requirements to use well.
But slaves, antiquity armies and shepherds have been using them for forever you might say....well yeah...slinger armies are drilled day in and day out in the practice of the slings (Similar to longbow users in England)....while shepherds...you're sitting in a field watching over sheep...a generally uneventful occurrence 80% of the time...they practiced using a sling to pass the time, and it was also a useful skill for hunting or defense.
And I disagree with the first point....the minimum intelligence to be a wizard is 9 (allowing up to 4th level spell casting in 2nd edition, which is lvl 7+, which is extremely high for non-PC characters that aren't old grizzled veterans)...that falls within the range for the intelligence of an average peasant (wizardry is more about finding a teacher to actually show you the basics which the average peasant usually won't have, especially since a scroll for a first level spell would require about a years income for the average peasant, assuming they had no other expenses). Yeah your ability to actually learn spells is pretty awful (about 35% or so), but it's do-able...smarter wizards just have an easier time.
But, in the long term, a crossbow won't give mage too much power. Sure, he will be able to take down a gibberling or two, or the occasional bandit easier without his spells. But he will forever suck at THAC0 and will only be able to attack 1/round, so it won't have a big impact on the battles that really matter. Can you imagine a pure class mage going at it against Sarevok with crossbow? At like 18 THAC0 or such! Big S will slice and dice him quickly.
But then again, it is a sign or prestige and level, the weapons you use. An arch-mage with his staff of magi will look down upon a mageling waving a crossbow around. 'You wield a crossbow? Oh. You must be a multi-class, then. You know, there is no shame in dabbling, kid. I prefer my Energy Blades, though. It feels so much more refined and elegant.'
Mages get access to Daggers/Q-Staves because they are the lowest tier melee weapons in the game, and they aren't a melee class.
They get access to Slings/Darts because they are the lowest tier ranged weapons in the game, and they aren't a combat class.
If you give Mages access to good weapons, you might as well give Fighters access to Wizard spells.
1) hard physical restrictions - a str 3 Mage cannot lift a two-handed sword, never mind using it effectively in combat
2) limitations of skill - anyone smart enough to become a Mage could potentially have learned to use magic wands but will not be able to use them if they chose a different career (note: this is the only restriction use any item should bypass)
3) restriction by choice - the Kensai's martial superiority comes from fighting without armour, I.e. a Kensai would not choose to wear armour (or lose his kit benefits with a penalty for not having training fighting in armour)
Mages not using crossbows would in my opinion fall into the third category - they are easy to fire, true, but need maintenance and such which could be time better spent studying magic.
I have no qualms about a rational re-examination of weapons and who can use what. And crossbow is an excellent place to start, I can think of no more appropriate weapon for a mage, especially a starting mage.
But, like many people here, I don't understand why wouldn't my wizard (who is modeled after me - average strength, a bit higher than average CON and lower than average DEX) be able to use a crossbow. Basically, you have only one 'unit' to handle - the crossbow itself - and you turn it around searching for a target. When you find it, you release the bolt - no strength required.
It would be better even from the gameplay perspective, if sling was used more by people, who have the strength to actually use it well, which is not your typical mage. And if (I presume) no proficiency points in a crossbow are basically equal to you using it for the first time (not after a short training, you really can't fail to shoot the bolt), than it would make sense to allow proficiency - after all what use would the other four points be to a warrior, if a wizard with a proficiency point would be as good with a crossbow as grandmaster fighter. Proficient means you can handle the weapon better than when you hold it the first time, not that you are an expert on using it (even if using it only means 'aim it well').
So, in short, I would allow wizards to use crossbows, but take them the ability to use a sling and darts (and all other weapons that fall under that designation).
That said, it would be interesting, if some new d&d edition made use of weapons dependant only on abilities and not on class - the class would define how many points you can get (whether only proficiency or more). Abilities would also define how well you use the weapon, but if you wouldn't have the minimal required level of ability, than you wouldn't be able to use that weapon at all (the minimal requirements would be more stern than they are now). Taking all of this into account, your typical wizard, who invests his points to INT would have a hard time using a greatsword, but could still use daggers, if he has a few points in DEX, than also quarterstaffs, etc...
Or maybe I fail in game rules, if so, than disregard the last paragraph.
On the other hand, Mages don't really need more diverse or more powerful weapon selection (or itemisation in general) because their effectiveness doesn't scale with their items. Every single Mage spell scales either with the Mage's level, against enemy Saves, or not at all. There's no need for a Mage to have a wide variety of items available to them because they don't need whatever advantage it gives them.
Fighters get item variety because they function based on their items. Mages lose item variety because they function based on their special abilities (spells).
EDIT: I'd like to note that I personally don't think being more "realistic" is a reason to add something to a game.
It is all the various modifiers and bonuses that separate the weak from strong on damage. Again, that's Thaco, specialization bonuses, and the various strength and dexterity bonuses. Take a 7th level fighter vs a Mage of the same level, using a crossbow, that the fighter is specialized in, and neither has a dexterity bonus. The fighter would have a 13 Thaco (level plus specialization) and do 6.5 per hit, for an average damage of 2.6 against AC 0. While a Mage would have a Thaco of 19 and do 4.5 per hit for an average of 0.45 points per round against AC 0. That makes the fighter more than five times more effective with no weapon or ability modifiers at all.
My point is purely that the character skills matter FAR more than the weapon itself. The weapon choice is purely about atmosphere and role playing (well, power gaming too if you want to chase the best magic items). And I love atmosphere and role playing. But I think a plausible and believable world is a huge part of it. The crossbow is a practical weapon, its believable for a mage and its well in keeping with the medieval fantasy flavor. And that's why, in PNP I often give my mages a crossbow. I don't object to BG following 2e core rules and not allowing for it, but I'd be perfectly happy to see a change too.
And because of the non-proficiency penalties, unless your class/kit specifically forbids a certain type of weaponry, any weapon should be useable as almost any class. In PnP a mage of sufficient strength COULD technically slip on a suit of full plate...but just like weapons, he'd suffer a massive +6 penalty on his AC for non-proficiency, in addition to preventing spell-casting...still if he was out of spells or didn't have any useful to the situation (and had no better options) he'd end up with a net gain of 3 more ac + the bonuses vs damage types which might be worth it under specific circumstances.
And it's not like BG hasn't already fudged some of the equipment rules from what core says....Fighter/Druids are supposed to obey ALL the equipment rules for the druid class since their restrictions are part of their ethos vows, not just the weapon restrictions (They're not prevented from equipping the items in PnP, but using illegal items prevents them from using any of their druid abilities until 24 hours after they remove the offending items due to Ethos violation).
But game mechanics and balance come before logic. Sometimes the answer isn't some logical or story based reason. Sometimes its "Because it makes for good gameplay."
1. Even with all the pulleys, cranks, and winches and whatnot, it is damned hard to pull back the string. A wimpy mage could maybe load 2 or 3 bolts before becoming exhausted if he could load them at all.
2. Mages would get their long flowing robes that they love so much caught in the gears and mechanisms of the crossbow. Lets see a mage cast a spell with a 12 pound chunk of wood and metal stuck to his sleeve.
3. Name one mage that would choose a "stupid fighters" weapon over their slings that take hours of practice and experience that they sunk into the thing.
Lets leave the crossbows to the fighters that don't have to worry about strength and excessive amounts of flamboyant clothing, and typical mage arrogance.
And a mage is as strong and fit as his scores indicate; its an error to make such generalizations. And I think mage robes are no more cumbersome than cloaks and robes worn by other nobles in a medieval setting.
Honestly, the only reason to follow the rule, is because its a rule. I think all logic suggests its a good weapon for a mage. I could imagine clerics and paladins objecting, but not a mage.
*Evil Wizard summons a giant demon*
*Paladin shoots demon in the face with cannon*
*Party goes out for ice cream*