@CaptRory - LOL. I was going more for a Merlin type of vibe, but yeah. That works too.
Personally, my favorite wizard is Raistlin from Dragonlance. He is the definitive wizard as far as I am concerned. And the image of him holding a Crossbow and firing it, let alone practicing at it for hours on end, is just anathema in my view. Not to say he "Couldn't". Just that he wouldn't.
The other end of the scale obviously is someone like Gandalf. In that image, I can definitely see that he is proficient in wielding Glamdring (or was it Orcrist??). And that works as well. And clearly he held off a Balrog that way, but he was much more (in my view) about using his brain and his magic than a front line fighter like Aragorn or Boromir.
It's like this. When I played PnP way back in the day, I would much rather be learning the rules and rolling up characters, or reading a book or learning computers than playing Dodgeball or any other sport. So I relate. Could be my own weakness. I mean look at Vin Deisel. He used to play D&D. I bet his characters were much more butch and physical, even if he played a Wizard.
@the_spyder If you were functionally immortal like Gandalf, you'd have plenty of time to learn all sorts of things. "Man, am I bored. I guess I'll learn how to use that pointy thing I have hanging over the fireplace." Then after discovering a Swordfish can't actually be used as a sword, he goes and buys one because, why not? =3
@CaptRory - LOL. Now I want to create a wizard that walks around leaning on a Swordfish and using THAT as a weapon. After all, the rules don't preclude that. Hmm... Wonder how much damage it would do.
Why would a mage dedicate time trying to learn something other than magic?
Because being dead at 1st level limits his available study time EVEN MORE than practicing with a weapon would.
Because if he ever wants to see 20th level, he's got to survive 1st level, then 2nd level, then 3rd level, then 4th level ... and even at 5th level, when he might be able to sling a mighty Fireball once or twice per day, he's still got to survive every OTHER round of combat.
You've got six spell slots total at 5th level (or nine if you're a specialist). That's six (or nine) rounds of combat at most, then you're spent.
Your choice is about either learning some weapon, or standing around doing nothing during lethal combat.
That's time better spent scribing another spell or searching for the fabled Ring of Wizardry.
Is the Ring of Wizardry guarded? If it is, you might need to survive some combat during your search. Again, there are more rounds of combat in a day than there are spells in your head.
I dunno, maybe in tabletop games you play a guy who stays in his tower and does research? My magic-users were always out in the world having adventures, and any advantage was an advantage worth taking.
Your choice is about either learning some weapon, or standing around doing nothing during lethal combat.
Or, you know... using a spell scrolls or magical items (wands, etc.) when you can't use memorised spells. Spell scrolls or magical items that could be obtained either by purchasing or searching...
@Nifft - I think you are confusing the reality of the game mechanics with the motivation of the character. Surviving low levels sounds like a great motivation, but the characters probably aren't going to see it that way. As far as any aspiring wizards is concerned, the more he casts spells and studies magic, the better he will get. He doesn't "Need" to kill X number of orcs to get to 2nd level. He needs to learn magic and practice it. Spending any time at all learning anything else would detract from that pursuit.
In reality there are good professionals and there are great ones. The good ones cover all of their bases and have a good solid general foundation of skills. The Great ones focus on a given direction to the exclusion of just about anything else. Sure, they learn what is necessary to survive, but they don't split their focus to transient or non-essential skill sets.
@Nifft - I think you are confusing the reality of the game mechanics with the motivation of the character. Surviving low levels sounds like a great motivation, but the characters probably aren't going to see it that way.
Seriously, go look at it and think about the implications of a system where the choice between 50 ft. of silk rope vs 50 ft. of hemp rope is a thing, where having a limited quantity of 10 ft. poles will matter to you, where knowing how many iron spikes you've got left might make or break your quest.
You don't buy chalk so your PC can draw pretty pictures on the sidewalk outside your suburban home. You buy it because marking the walls of the dreadful maze might just allow you to survive it, to defeat the wicked minotaur (by combat or trickery) and make off with his treasure.
That's just one clue you can find in the core-est of core books about the nature of D&D. The spell list is another big clue. Count the number of spells which are useful to adventurers and compare it to the number of spells which are useful to sedentary scholars.
In reality there are good professionals and there are great ones. The good ones cover all of their bases and have a good solid general foundation of skills. The Great ones focus on a given direction to the exclusion of just about anything else.
We live in a time of safety, when being unable to fight doesn't usually kill you.
My games do not take place in a safe, peaceful world as we are blessed to live in.
If your games are about being a scholar in a safe world -- have fun with that. That's not like any game of D&D I've ever played, but I'm not going to judge you for doing things differently.
I played one mage who was a castle's defensive mastermind when not adventuring. She spent most of her research time designing castle defenses including magical artillery and ammunition, nothing like firing Fireballs from every catapult in every turret of the castle! She loved her crossbow too...
I'll tell you what else I'm looking at in the Player's Handbook. Taken from the latest copy of the AD&D 2nd Edition, published 21-May-2013.
WizardThe wizard group encompasses all spellcasters working in the various fields of magic—both those who specialise in specific schools of magic and those who study a broad range of magical theology. Spending their lives in persuit of arcane wisdom, wizard have little time for physical endeavours. They tend to be poor fighters with little knowledge of weaponry. However, they command powerful and dangerous energies with a few simple gestures, rare components, and mystical words. Spells are the tools, weapons, and armour of the wizard. He is weak in a toe-to-toe fight, but when prepared he can strike down his foes at a distance, vanquish in an instant, become a wholly different creature, or even invade the mind of an enemy and take control of his mind and action.
[...]
Wizard can use more magical items than any other character. These include potions, rings, wands, rods, scrolls, and most miscellaneous magical items. A wizard can use a magical version of any weapon allowed to his class but cannot use magical armour, because no armour is allowed. Between their spells and magical items, however, wizards wield great power.
This is pretty much how I play a mage, and have yet to actually die (permanently) in either a PnP game, or in BG. I don't play in 'safe' games, either, but that's why you have front-line fighters and mages stay to the back (i.e. the book says henchmen).
I played one mage who was a castle's defensive mastermind when not adventuring. She spent most of her research time designing castle defenses including magical artillery and ammunition, nothing like firing Fireballs from every catapult in every turret of the castle! She loved her crossbow too...
Hell yeah, the absolute BEST abuse of one's enemies tend to involve the unholy fusion of magical and mechanical know-how.
Another thing I remember us trying is a Dragon Turtle Golem (with arrow slits; we wanted to ride inside it like a clanky APC with glowing red eyes and a flamethrower-like breath weapon attack).
@Troodon80 - I guess you're ignoring my points about the equipment and spell lists. Oh well.
The passages you quote include "A wizard can use a magical version of any weapon allowed to his class", so it seems even your favorite lore is compatible with my vision of Wizards who pick up a martial trick or two.
@Troodon80 - I guess you're ignoring my points about the equipment and spell lists. Oh well.
No, I'm not, I'm reading directly from the book you said to look at. Before, you said it was some obscure book, but now you're quoting equipment lists. You can't point to it as a solid, irrefutable reference and then ignore the parts you don't like. If that's how the debate is 'won', then all the parts can - in turn, and each round - be ignored. Of course, then it wouldn't be AD&D 2e.
The passages you quote include "A wizard can use a magical version of any weapon allowed to his class", so it seems even your favorite lore is compatible with my vision of Wizards who pick up a martial trick or two.
Sure, so long as it's a dagger, staff, sling, or dart. Other than that, it goes against having 'little knowledge of weaponry.'
Why would a wizard use a crossbow when a wand of magic missile would do just as well?
Looking at the equipment, I suppose you could have a Hand Crossbow; speed is 5, size is small, and weight is 3lbs. But you'd need to break down the three different forms of crossbow as proficiencies, so that a mage wouldn't be using something stupidly huge. The Hand Quarrel also does around 1d3 damage, so it's even less than a sling.
@Troodon80 - I guess you're ignoring my points about the equipment and spell lists. Oh well.
No, I'm not, I'm reading directly from the book you said to look at. Before, you said it was some obscure book, but now you're quoting equipment lists. You can't point to it as a solid, irrefutable reference and then ignore the parts you don't like. If that's how the debate is 'won', then all the parts can - in turn, and each round - be ignored. Of course, then it wouldn't be AD&D 2e.
@Troodon80 - you're linking me to a debate on whether Druid + Thief should be valid multi-classes, which changes between printings of the 2e PHB, and thus the books are literally and obviously obscure on that issue.
In this debate, I'm quoting that book because it's what YOU value, and because even YOUR OWN BOOK supports my stance. (I do NOT regard your 2e PHB as a "solid, irrefutable reference", but I do view it as a point of reference.)
Then you quoted me some passages, so I found evidence supporting my position in the passages you quoted.
- - -
I didn't ask you to "read from the book", I asked you to consider the implications of the equipment list and spell list. Did you honestly not understand that? Did you honestly think I asked you to paste in some roleplaying flavor text?
Look, I know winning a debate is fun, but please let's keep it intellectually honest.
I don't mind continuing the debate, but it will be frustrating to keep reminding you of these points you're ignoring.
Why would a wizard use a crossbow when a wand of magic missile would do just as well?
In P&P price difference and magic-resistant targets (drow, nishruu, enemy wizards with spell reflection up). You'd have to be suicidal to fire a magic missile at some distressingly common targets in BG2. Roleplaying a suicidal idiot isn't my idea of being a smart wizard.
Having a backup weapon gives you more options, and having more options is what MY wise wizard would want.
In BG1 it's also about the interface. A character using a wand needs manual attention every round. A character using a missile weapon will continue firing without intervention.
Look, I know winning a debate is fun, but please let's keep it intellectually honest.
Apart from being insulting, you haven't put forward a single intellectual point that could not be debated and refuted.
For it to be intellectual, it would require you to understand what a wizard is.
The book - the latest printing, I might add - states (as a reference) that they have little time for physical endeavours and have little understanding of weaponry as they do not need it.
My idea behind copying some 'role-playing flavour text' is that I'm trying to get you to actually think about the character. I'm asking you, why would a wizard need it? Not why would you like it, but why would a wizard need it?
I mean, 'manual attention' aside, since removing that implies a simple dumbing-down and nothing more. And aside from facing drow or other higher level enemies (because you referred previously to being level 1 - common enemies would be more likely to be an animal, ogre, or orc, both in-game and if a DM is even remotely fair when creating the encounter tables. In BG2, your character also has a higher level - the distressingly common targets are still susceptible to magic resistance lowering and piercing/dispelling spells, so that's a null point).
Take a somewhat common situation from BG: You have made your way immediately to the Friendly Arm Inn. On your way there, Imoen took two shots at a gibberling and killed it. You arrive at the Inn, but are greeted by Tarnesh, the bounty hunter, who after talking tries to attack you. The surrounding guards move in to attack him, Imoen uses the bow. Your mage doesn't even have to lift a finger. After a brief chat with your two new friends, you now have Jaheira, Khalid, and Imoen in your party. You are level 1 or 2, the most powerful foe you're likely to face down is a wolf. Which doesn't have any magical protections. You used up your magic on, say, Carbos or Shank, and didn't bother to rest at the Friendly Arm Inn, so no spell(s). Your mage can't use a crossbow, but Imoen does happen to have a wand of magic missile and a couple potions of healing.
Both from a roleplaying perspective and an in-game perspective, Imoen gives my character one of the potions of healing and the wand of magic missile. Khalid and Jaheira both tackle the wolf while Imoen uses the bow. The protagonist uses the wand of magic missile from the rear of the party and away from direct danger. If/when one of the two front-liners gets injured, they have two other potions of healing.
Crossbow doesn't even... cross... my mages' mind, although Imoen does wish for one. I have no need of it, nor do I have any want of it.
What you would be better off doing is either playing as a Fighter/Mage or Mage/Thief multi-class if using a crossbow is of vital importance to you, or use a bard if multi-class is not available to you (e.g. a human character). If all you want is 'more options', then you have plenty of options by playing a different class.
If this is about personal tastes, then the debate cannot be 'won' by either side, since I prefer to play as closely to the AD&D 2e rules as I can (as well as the rules from the multitude of 2e campaign books), with only minor deviations or allowances depending on the situation (I know, I know, I'm a terribly boring DM). So I suppose we can just agree to disagree. Up to a point, I still think the debate should be about the item in question and the class rather than why we, personally, want a particular thing. I say that as someone who has a keen interest in archery; while I have an interest in real life, any mage I play wouldn't even entertain the notion, preferring magic over anything else, such as the mundane task of operating a crossbow. That's why I specifically go for a mage with that line of thought. When I play a fighter/mage, or even fighter/mage/thief, my character, much like myself, has an interest in archery and uses that interest to his or her advantage while also having basic spells available.
I also noticed that you completely disregarded the bit at the end of my post where I said it could be possible to use a hand crossbow, given the overall size and the ability needed to operate it. Why is that? Is that not relevant enough for you? Perhaps you feel more like insulting me, rather than actually debating the reasons a mage could or could not use a crossbow? If that is all you're going to do, then I'll not debate the topic any more. If you continue the attitude, however, I will reply in kind. I ask that you calm down and actually debate the points rather than directing insults at me.
Take a somewhat common situation from BG: You have made your way immediately to the Friendly Arm Inn. On your way there, Imoen took two shots at a gibberling and killed it. You arrive at the Inn, but are greeted by Tarnesh, the bounty hunter, who after talking tries to attack you. The surrounding guards move in to attack him, Imoen uses the bow. Your mage doesn't even have to lift a finger.
(emphasis added)
Okay, so we are finally at the basis of our disagreement: you think it's fine for your Wizard to stand around doing nothing during a fight.
Since there's no wrong way to play an RPG, you're not playing wrong, but your playstyle is incompatible with my playstyle. I want my character to contribute to every fight, even if he's not casting magic. You want your character to only cast magic, even if that means NOT contributing to some fights.
This is the basis of our disagreement: different playstyles.
We won't reach a consensus on this, so let's agree to disagree.
Okay, so we are finally at the basis of our disagreement: you think it's fine for your Wizard to stand around doing nothing during a fight.
Since there's no wrong way to play an RPG, you're not playing wrong, but your playstyle is incompatible with my playstyle. I want my character to contribute to every fight, even if he's not casting magic. You want your character to only cast magic, even if that means NOT contributing to some fights.
I did mention that you still have that wand of magic missile, right? In my last playthrough, I did use it twice while Imoen used her bow and two guards helped in attacking Tarnesh. I still had charges enough left to deal with the Hobgoblins north of the Friendly Arm Inn along with Imoen, Jaheira, and Khalid. Just because I said your mage doesn't have to lift a finger, it doesn't mean that your mage must not lift a finger. An example of this is when Imoen attacked a gibberling when I didn't even know it. Two shots and it was dead. My mage didn't left a finger because he was walking on ahead, oblivious to the gibberling, while Imoen decided to attack it without me even realising. It's not incompatible at all. You want a crossbow, and that's fine, but you don't need a crossbow in order to play with a compatible play-style.
After picking up Jaheira and Khalid, then killing the hobgoblins, I went to the Temple of Wisdom where I sold off the loot from aforementioned hobgoblins in order to get a couple more potions. Potions, spells, wands, scrolls, etc., those are the things I think about while playing as a mage. If I cannot afford them then, yes, my mage has very little to do when all other assets (wands, scrolls, darts, and bullets for my sling, etc.) have been expended (which is very rare later in the game). One of the main points in having limitations in this instance in that you have to plan strategically at lower levels. For example: when your party archer/ranged unit (thief, in my case, since that's Imoen) doesn't have any more arrows or bolts left, they also stand around doing nothing unless you give a new order. This doesn't only effect mages. I tend not to put low level thieves or mages into direct melee, preferring ranged combat, as they can potentially die very quickly. Rather than sacrificing a party member by playing stupid, with the possibility of raising them later for a fee that could be better spent buying more arrows for, say, Imoen, or a new wand for my mage, or more armour for one of the other characters, I'd rather play sensibly and not put them in any situation where there is a possibility of unnecessary danger. But do so as a last resort.
Having a crossbow doesn't mean unlimited ammunition, at least not at low levels. So, you are at level 1, your character, a mage, is using a crossbow but has just run out of quarrels, he or she has no other items due to them being expended in the last battle and you are faced with a pack of three wolves - he or she will still stand around doing nothing, correct?
@Troodon80, it seems to me that by your argument, wizards shouldn't be able to use any weapons, including daggers, slings and darts. I still think it takes a lot more practice to hit a target with a sling or a thrown object than to spend a little time on a shooting range learning basic marksmanship. Plus, the wizard will ever only spend enough time practicing marksmanship to gain basic proficiency at it.
My wizard characters are much more frugal and practical about life than yours. As for wands and scrolls, they are very expensive expendable resources. I save them for really tough battles. I only ever use my wands of magic missiles against enemy mages and clerics, and my wands of flame against enemy adventuring parties.
I can buy 20 crossbow bolts for 1 gold piece. Scrolls cost hundreds, and wands cost thousands. And, I am not going to stand by doing nothing while all my friends fight for their lives.
The heatedness of this discussion is arising, as @Nifft has said, from differences in personality and playstyle.
If we take out the emotion and return to discussing the issue logically (invoking Mr. Spock, here), the rules for wizards as implemented in BG, and in D&D in general, wind up being very arbitrary, with some logic applied, but not really thought through very well. Also, since we are discussing rules for an amusement, there are really no such things as "right" and "wrong" rules. The rules are being created for the amusement of the participants in the game. Becoming angry about a game defeats the purpose of the activity.
I still think it takes a lot more practice to hit a target with a sling or a thrown object than to spend a little time on a shooting range learning basic marksmanship. Plus, the wizard will ever only spend enough time practicing marksmanship to gain basic proficiency at it.
The point is not necessarily how easy it is to aim and fire, even an 8 year old (even though anyone with sense wouldn't let an 8 year old touch one) could do that, but how much effort it takes to use it in general. Reloading, for example. As I mentioned before:
Using a dart requires that you throw it.
Using a sling requires that you plop a stone into the sling and spin it.
A crossbow requires that you use specially weighted quarrels, the use of strength to pull the bowstrings into place while standing over it, making sure that the string is pulled evenly (assuming that there is no winch or handle), loading the bolt in a particular way, and finally firing. If using a winch, then it requires time. If using a handle, then it still requires strength.
Out of the three, I can see the third one having a lot more involved with the general use. Firing is different from general usage. There is also the point I made before about how it could be cumbersome for a mage to use one. If you take the general image of a robed mage, there is a lot for something like a crossbow to get snagged on, nor is it in any way subtle.
BG doesn't show any of this, but if you take a more realistic look at it: a crossbow is more difficult to load and take care of, while a sling or dart is more difficult to aim. A crossbow also needs to be carried and provides extra weight - which would be fine if you had a pack mule - while darts and slings are minimal in weight and can be placed into a pocket or pouch.
I agree with Troodon80 on this. The obvious idea behind current system is that wizard is only *meant* to be using light thingies... light weapons, light clothing. The prohibitive nature of this system doesn't express that wizards are not able to lift crossbow, or a sword, or wear armor. It's more like interpretation of some common sense. Wizard wants to be able to succesfully cast spells, and for that he can't carry around much heavy stuff. That's how I interpret it anyway and it makes sense to me.
@CaptRory - LOL. I was going more for a Merlin type of vibe, Could be my own weakness. I mean look at Vin Deisel. He used to play D&D. I bet his characters were much more butch and physical, even if he played a Wizard.
I lol'ed at that! Vin Diesel- I attack the goblin with my dagger! DM-(rolls a critical hit) You did 30 damage, the goblin's frail body explodes into tiny chunks of meat under the weight of your dagger. (Wait, how did your character have 23 strength again?)
@CaptRory - LOL. I was going more for a Merlin type of vibe, Could be my own weakness. I mean look at Vin Deisel. He used to play D&D. I bet his characters were much more butch and physical, even if he played a Wizard.
I lol'ed at that! Vin Diesel- I attack the goblin with my dagger! DM-(rolls a critical hit) You did 30 damage, the goblin's frail body explodes into tiny chunks of meat under the weight of your dagger. (Wait, how did your character have 23 strength again?)
I wonder if Vin Diesel has played BG? May be he would be up for a voice over in the future?
That would actually be kinda awesome.
Wasn't he going to make a movie about his D&D character at some point?
We live in a time of safety, when being unable to fight doesn't usually kill you.
My games do not take place in a safe, peaceful world as we are blessed to live in.
If your games are about being a scholar in a safe world -- have fun with that. That's not like any game of D&D I've ever played, but I'm not going to judge you for doing things differently.
I have always played my wizards thus, where they are 100% focused on matters arcane and 0% on learning martial skill. They live in a world of danger and great peril. Yet they survive. The reason they do is that they surround themselves with companions who are better adapted to combat than he is. He embraces the true intent of the original game, that of each party member contributing to their strengths, rather than each party member having to be a jack of all trades.
Like you, I don't fault you for your way of seeing things. Merely that I do not see them that way. But again, that is one of the great strengths of the system. It embraces many different styles of game play. And that makes it a much larger world to play in. As with real life, there are an almost infinite potential for different points of view. Thus to each their own.
@the_spyder Now I'm picturing Quigley Down Under as a wizard. *Quigley picks up a crossbow and shoots the other wizard* "I never said I didn't know HOW to use a crossbow. Only that I never had much use for one."
I definitely prefer image of a more rough and tumble adventuring Mage as opposed to a bookish sort. But then I have a very combat oriented view of a fantasy setting. From PnP days, I expect most battles to run eight rounds or so, and the Mage may only be casting on two or three of those. The rest of the time, I expect the Mage to make a more physical contribution, whether its a wand, darts or quarter staff.
@atcDave You should check out The Dresden Files then. Harry Dresden, Wizard for Hire. The only openly practicing wizard in America. Can be found in the Yellow Pages under Wizards. He is not opposed to just shooting someone or whacking someone in the head with his wizard's staff.
@atcDave You should check out The Dresden Files then. Harry Dresden, Wizard for Hire. The only openly practicing wizard in America. Can be found in the Yellow Pages under Wizards. He is not opposed to just shooting someone or whacking someone in the head with his wizard's staff.
I enjoyed the Sci-Fi series that ran for a season, but never read it. I do like a practical mage!
That was me too. The book is GREAT! It starts really good with Storm Front and each subsequent book becomes better and better as the author (Jim Butcher) refines his art.
Comments
Personally, my favorite wizard is Raistlin from Dragonlance. He is the definitive wizard as far as I am concerned. And the image of him holding a Crossbow and firing it, let alone practicing at it for hours on end, is just anathema in my view. Not to say he "Couldn't". Just that he wouldn't.
The other end of the scale obviously is someone like Gandalf. In that image, I can definitely see that he is proficient in wielding Glamdring (or was it Orcrist??). And that works as well. And clearly he held off a Balrog that way, but he was much more (in my view) about using his brain and his magic than a front line fighter like Aragorn or Boromir.
It's like this. When I played PnP way back in the day, I would much rather be learning the rules and rolling up characters, or reading a book or learning computers than playing Dodgeball or any other sport. So I relate. Could be my own weakness. I mean look at Vin Deisel. He used to play D&D. I bet his characters were much more butch and physical, even if he played a Wizard.
Because if he ever wants to see 20th level, he's got to survive 1st level, then 2nd level, then 3rd level, then 4th level ... and even at 5th level, when he might be able to sling a mighty Fireball once or twice per day, he's still got to survive every OTHER round of combat.
You've got six spell slots total at 5th level (or nine if you're a specialist). That's six (or nine) rounds of combat at most, then you're spent.
Your choice is about either learning some weapon, or standing around doing nothing during lethal combat. Is the Ring of Wizardry guarded? If it is, you might need to survive some combat during your search. Again, there are more rounds of combat in a day than there are spells in your head.
I dunno, maybe in tabletop games you play a guy who stays in his tower and does research? My magic-users were always out in the world having adventures, and any advantage was an advantage worth taking.
Rather than dedicate time to weapons training.
In reality there are good professionals and there are great ones. The good ones cover all of their bases and have a good solid general foundation of skills. The Great ones focus on a given direction to the exclusion of just about anything else. Sure, they learn what is necessary to survive, but they don't split their focus to transient or non-essential skill sets.
Look at the PHB equipment table.
Seriously, go look at it and think about the implications of a system where the choice between 50 ft. of silk rope vs 50 ft. of hemp rope is a thing, where having a limited quantity of 10 ft. poles will matter to you, where knowing how many iron spikes you've got left might make or break your quest.
You don't buy chalk so your PC can draw pretty pictures on the sidewalk outside your suburban home. You buy it because marking the walls of the dreadful maze might just allow you to survive it, to defeat the wicked minotaur (by combat or trickery) and make off with his treasure.
That's just one clue you can find in the core-est of core books about the nature of D&D. The spell list is another big clue. Count the number of spells which are useful to adventurers and compare it to the number of spells which are useful to sedentary scholars.
What he needs is XP. There are several sources of XP, and all of them involve surviving danger and overcoming adversity.
We live in a time of safety, when being unable to fight doesn't usually kill you.
My games do not take place in a safe, peaceful world as we are blessed to live in.
If your games are about being a scholar in a safe world -- have fun with that. That's not like any game of D&D I've ever played, but I'm not going to judge you for doing things differently.
We bribed the minotaur in the Caves of Chaos (Keep on the Borderland) to help us against the gnolls, but we didn't have any porn. Hell yeah, the absolute BEST abuse of one's enemies tend to involve the unholy fusion of magical and mechanical know-how.
Another thing I remember us trying is a Dragon Turtle Golem (with arrow slits; we wanted to ride inside it like a clanky APC with glowing red eyes and a flamethrower-like breath weapon attack).
@Troodon80 - I guess you're ignoring my points about the equipment and spell lists. Oh well.
The passages you quote include "A wizard can use a magical version of any weapon allowed to his class", so it seems even your favorite lore is compatible with my vision of Wizards who pick up a martial trick or two.
Why would a wizard use a crossbow when a wand of magic missile would do just as well?
Looking at the equipment, I suppose you could have a Hand Crossbow; speed is 5, size is small, and weight is 3lbs. But you'd need to break down the three different forms of crossbow as proficiencies, so that a mage wouldn't be using something stupidly huge. The Hand Quarrel also does around 1d3 damage, so it's even less than a sling.
In this debate, I'm quoting that book because it's what YOU value, and because even YOUR OWN BOOK supports my stance. (I do NOT regard your 2e PHB as a "solid, irrefutable reference", but I do view it as a point of reference.)
Then you quoted me some passages, so I found evidence supporting my position in the passages you quoted.
- - -
I didn't ask you to "read from the book", I asked you to consider the implications of the equipment list and spell list.
Did you honestly not understand that?
Did you honestly think I asked you to paste in some roleplaying flavor text?
Look, I know winning a debate is fun, but please let's keep it intellectually honest.
I don't mind continuing the debate, but it will be frustrating to keep reminding you of these points you're ignoring.
In P&P price difference and magic-resistant targets (drow, nishruu, enemy wizards with spell reflection up). You'd have to be suicidal to fire a magic missile at some distressingly common targets in BG2. Roleplaying a suicidal idiot isn't my idea of being a smart wizard.
Having a backup weapon gives you more options, and having more options is what MY wise wizard would want.
In BG1 it's also about the interface.
A character using a wand needs manual attention every round.
A character using a missile weapon will continue firing without intervention.
For it to be intellectual, it would require you to understand what a wizard is.
The book - the latest printing, I might add - states (as a reference) that they have little time for physical endeavours and have little understanding of weaponry as they do not need it.
My idea behind copying some 'role-playing flavour text' is that I'm trying to get you to actually think about the character. I'm asking you, why would a wizard need it? Not why would you like it, but why would a wizard need it?
I mean, 'manual attention' aside, since removing that implies a simple dumbing-down and nothing more. And aside from facing drow or other higher level enemies (because you referred previously to being level 1 - common enemies would be more likely to be an animal, ogre, or orc, both in-game and if a DM is even remotely fair when creating the encounter tables. In BG2, your character also has a higher level - the distressingly common targets are still susceptible to magic resistance lowering and piercing/dispelling spells, so that's a null point).
Take a somewhat common situation from BG: You have made your way immediately to the Friendly Arm Inn. On your way there, Imoen took two shots at a gibberling and killed it. You arrive at the Inn, but are greeted by Tarnesh, the bounty hunter, who after talking tries to attack you. The surrounding guards move in to attack him, Imoen uses the bow. Your mage doesn't even have to lift a finger. After a brief chat with your two new friends, you now have Jaheira, Khalid, and Imoen in your party. You are level 1 or 2, the most powerful foe you're likely to face down is a wolf. Which doesn't have any magical protections. You used up your magic on, say, Carbos or Shank, and didn't bother to rest at the Friendly Arm Inn, so no spell(s). Your mage can't use a crossbow, but Imoen does happen to have a wand of magic missile and a couple potions of healing.
Both from a roleplaying perspective and an in-game perspective, Imoen gives my character one of the potions of healing and the wand of magic missile. Khalid and Jaheira both tackle the wolf while Imoen uses the bow. The protagonist uses the wand of magic missile from the rear of the party and away from direct danger. If/when one of the two front-liners gets injured, they have two other potions of healing.
Crossbow doesn't even... cross... my mages' mind, although Imoen does wish for one. I have no need of it, nor do I have any want of it.
What you would be better off doing is either playing as a Fighter/Mage or Mage/Thief multi-class if using a crossbow is of vital importance to you, or use a bard if multi-class is not available to you (e.g. a human character). If all you want is 'more options', then you have plenty of options by playing a different class.
If this is about personal tastes, then the debate cannot be 'won' by either side, since I prefer to play as closely to the AD&D 2e rules as I can (as well as the rules from the multitude of 2e campaign books), with only minor deviations or allowances depending on the situation (I know, I know, I'm a terribly boring DM). So I suppose we can just agree to disagree. Up to a point, I still think the debate should be about the item in question and the class rather than why we, personally, want a particular thing. I say that as someone who has a keen interest in archery; while I have an interest in real life, any mage I play wouldn't even entertain the notion, preferring magic over anything else, such as the mundane task of operating a crossbow. That's why I specifically go for a mage with that line of thought. When I play a fighter/mage, or even fighter/mage/thief, my character, much like myself, has an interest in archery and uses that interest to his or her advantage while also having basic spells available.
I also noticed that you completely disregarded the bit at the end of my post where I said it could be possible to use a hand crossbow, given the overall size and the ability needed to operate it. Why is that? Is that not relevant enough for you? Perhaps you feel more like insulting me, rather than actually debating the reasons a mage could or could not use a crossbow? If that is all you're going to do, then I'll not debate the topic any more. If you continue the attitude, however, I will reply in kind. I ask that you calm down and actually debate the points rather than directing insults at me.
Okay, so we are finally at the basis of our disagreement: you think it's fine for your Wizard to stand around doing nothing during a fight.
Since there's no wrong way to play an RPG, you're not playing wrong, but your playstyle is incompatible with my playstyle. I want my character to contribute to every fight, even if he's not casting magic. You want your character to only cast magic, even if that means NOT contributing to some fights.
This is the basis of our disagreement: different playstyles.
We won't reach a consensus on this, so let's agree to disagree.
After picking up Jaheira and Khalid, then killing the hobgoblins, I went to the Temple of Wisdom where I sold off the loot from aforementioned hobgoblins in order to get a couple more potions. Potions, spells, wands, scrolls, etc., those are the things I think about while playing as a mage. If I cannot afford them then, yes, my mage has very little to do when all other assets (wands, scrolls, darts, and bullets for my sling, etc.) have been expended (which is very rare later in the game). One of the main points in having limitations in this instance in that you have to plan strategically at lower levels. For example: when your party archer/ranged unit (thief, in my case, since that's Imoen) doesn't have any more arrows or bolts left, they also stand around doing nothing unless you give a new order. This doesn't only effect mages. I tend not to put low level thieves or mages into direct melee, preferring ranged combat, as they can potentially die very quickly. Rather than sacrificing a party member by playing stupid, with the possibility of raising them later for a fee that could be better spent buying more arrows for, say, Imoen, or a new wand for my mage, or more armour for one of the other characters, I'd rather play sensibly and not put them in any situation where there is a possibility of unnecessary danger. But do so as a last resort.
Having a crossbow doesn't mean unlimited ammunition, at least not at low levels. So, you are at level 1, your character, a mage, is using a crossbow but has just run out of quarrels, he or she has no other items due to them being expended in the last battle and you are faced with a pack of three wolves - he or she will still stand around doing nothing, correct?
My wizard characters are much more frugal and practical about life than yours. As for wands and scrolls, they are very expensive expendable resources. I save them for really tough battles. I only ever use my wands of magic missiles against enemy mages and clerics, and my wands of flame against enemy adventuring parties.
I can buy 20 crossbow bolts for 1 gold piece. Scrolls cost hundreds, and wands cost thousands. And, I am not going to stand by doing nothing while all my friends fight for their lives.
The heatedness of this discussion is arising, as @Nifft has said, from differences in personality and playstyle.
If we take out the emotion and return to discussing the issue logically (invoking Mr. Spock, here), the rules for wizards as implemented in BG, and in D&D in general, wind up being very arbitrary, with some logic applied, but not really thought through very well. Also, since we are discussing rules for an amusement, there are really no such things as "right" and "wrong" rules. The rules are being created for the amusement of the participants in the game. Becoming angry about a game defeats the purpose of the activity.
Using a dart requires that you throw it.
Using a sling requires that you plop a stone into the sling and spin it.
A crossbow requires that you use specially weighted quarrels, the use of strength to pull the bowstrings into place while standing over it, making sure that the string is pulled evenly (assuming that there is no winch or handle), loading the bolt in a particular way, and finally firing. If using a winch, then it requires time. If using a handle, then it still requires strength.
Out of the three, I can see the third one having a lot more involved with the general use. Firing is different from general usage. There is also the point I made before about how it could be cumbersome for a mage to use one. If you take the general image of a robed mage, there is a lot for something like a crossbow to get snagged on, nor is it in any way subtle.
BG doesn't show any of this, but if you take a more realistic look at it: a crossbow is more difficult to load and take care of, while a sling or dart is more difficult to aim. A crossbow also needs to be carried and provides extra weight - which would be fine if you had a pack mule - while darts and slings are minimal in weight and can be placed into a pocket or pouch.
Vin Diesel- I attack the goblin with my dagger!
DM-(rolls a critical hit) You did 30 damage, the goblin's frail body explodes into tiny chunks of meat under the weight of your dagger. (Wait, how did your character have 23 strength again?)
Wasn't he going to make a movie about his D&D character at some point?
Like you, I don't fault you for your way of seeing things. Merely that I do not see them that way. But again, that is one of the great strengths of the system. It embraces many different styles of game play. And that makes it a much larger world to play in. As with real life, there are an almost infinite potential for different points of view. Thus to each their own.