Swords for mages/sorcerers

Senash

Yeah it's a poll, but not like a "put a dot here or there" poll, since I'm intrested in people's opinion, not in "yeah, why not" answers.
Also this thread is not in Features Request on purpose, because I think it would go against standard D&D rules and many would be against it.

But think about it. Why couldn't mages and sorcerers use swords? Long or short. I always liked playing casters in RPGs with a weapon that really is a weapon. Why is it a must for mages to use staffs? Sure, you can use daggers, darts and slings, but the staff is what most mages go with. Staff is a great tool for a mage IF you use it to cast spells, but in BG it is clearly not used in that way. Darts are like toys, daggers are for backstabbing, and a sling just looks plain silly in the hands of a mage (also it is really hard to learn how to use it properly!).
The usual reasoning is that mages spend so much time studying the rules of magic that they don't have the time to learn how use a sword. Well, guess what, I used to do fencing and it's not that big deal to learn the basics. The use of a sling is much harder to learn. And even if you say that to mages, what about sorcerers? They get their magic for granted, they have plenty of time to practice whatever they want. Swordsmanship for example.

So I think it's clear where I stand. What about you guys?

AHF

Since that is anti-thetical to AD&D, I would vote "no." AD&D was a well developed game and I would look to follow those rules pretty closely with BG. Having weapon distinctions for classes isn't a terrible thing (even if it isn't "real life" logical) and mages are incredibly powerful to begin with so there is no balancing issue.

I am in the "if it ain't broke..." category on this.

Communard

The only sword I need is Mordenkainen's...

DJKajuru

I would love to say a big yes to that, but you know... go to a medieval history museum and hold a real long sword. That stuff is heavy and hard to maneuver! It made me think that only strong , well trained warriors could use it well.

ginger_hammer

Well then fighters should be able to use wands and spells and then we morph all classes into one big jack of all trades class. Me no likey.

Dee

For me, there are two facets to this.

On one hand, yes, anyone should be able to wield any weapon so long as it doesn't violate that character's code of ethics (druids and clerics, for example). If you can physically lift a weapon, you can swing it to deal damage. There are rules even in AD&D for improvised weapons such as chair legs and the like, so there's no reason not to do the same with weapons.

And on the other hand, there are already non-proficiency penalties that are much bigger for non-warriors to discourage frequent sword-use by those not intended to do so. If you're a wizard wielding a long sword, you take a -3 penalty to THAC0 with every attack, and your THAC0 is already in the toilet to begin with.

So I'm a fan of mages wielding whatever they like, although I don't think they should be able to become proficient with them unless they've got some warrior in them.

AHF

As an aside, what is the druidic code of ethics that allows them to use a scimitar but not a sword?

Dee

I think it goes something like:

"Thou shalt not use any weapon forged from unliving metal
Except for scimitars, because, like, they doth rule."

Oxford_Guy

I vote no, be a fighter/mage or just dual from fighter>mage at fighter level 3 if you just want some more weapon options

bigdogchris

A good rule of thumb is, if you cast spells in 2nd Edition D&D, you can't have metal of any kind on your body, except for jewelry and daggers.

Sanguinius

elves have a natural profiency for bows and long swords, if your citing ad&d rules in nwn2 for example elves get a bonus feat for using these weapons(and 1 or 2 others i cant remember rapier i think) so it is reasonable they could use these items, plus xan has a whopping flaming sword of death which luckily in bg1 is somehow coded as a dagger lol as profiencies are under weapon types(again similar to nwn1+2 which is 3rd ed ?

szdobos

I dont think thats a good idea. Swords are heavy

Permidion_Stark

AHF said:

As an aside, what is the druidic code of ethics that allows them to use a scimitar but not a sword?

My guess is that druids are allowed to use scimitars because traditionally they are supposed to use a sickle when cutting mistletoe. I figure that the person who originally came up with the rule decided that it was therefore better for a druid to wield a curved sword than a straight one.

It doesn't make much sense but it is the best reason I have been able to come up with.

BelgarathMTH

This made me think of two things:

1)Gandalf in Lord of the Rings wields a longsword to fight the Baalor, and he's a major archetype of wizards.

2)There's no reason why anybody should not be able to at least pick up any weapon, even if their class is denied base proficiency. As the OP said, anybody can do damage with any weapon they can lift, even if they need the real-life equivalent of a natural 20 to do so.

The one exception I can think of would be skilled-use ranged weapons like bows and slings. I would not even be able to fire an arrow from a bow or a bullet from a sling without many hours of instruction and subsequent practice. BTW, that means that it makes no sense for mages to use slings. They would not have had time to practice a skill like that because of all their required reading and memorization. Crossbow makes much more sense for a ranged wizard weapon, and 3rd edition actually finally caught on to that - and it also solved our weaponry problem, since any class is allowed to learn martial weapons as a feat if they so desire, under that ruleset.

Shin

I'd say that if you want your mage to be able to use a sword (or anything else that would suit your idea of the character), just edit it in.

shawne

For me, it comes down to simple efficiency: even if mages could use swords, why bother when their spells can cause as much (or significantly more) damage?

Dee

A quick google search reveals that druids were given use of the scimitar because of its curved shape, which is reminiscent of a crescent moon.

Anduin

I reckon...

Elvish wizards should be able to use longswords (and longbows?), they should have the ability to use slings removed...

Human wizards should be able to use crossbows and have sling option removed...

Gnome wizards should be able to use slings still...

Senash

@Aosaw I thought only Fighter/Druids could use scimitars, but then again I realized that there was no scimitar prof in BG1...

And if you guys mentioned it: what about the summonable swords? One can expain them simply with saying that "It's magic. Magic makes the mage able to use it". But still, if magically summoned swords can be used, why not real ones.

Also there's Xan as well, whom I forgot to mention (thx @Sanguinius ), and the elves. But them if you would pnly allow elves to use swords, they would be even more preferable to other races as they are now. The idea from @Anduin or something similar could work maybe.

I'm playing with a different RP system with my friends, and in it the characters are limited in what they can use by their strength/dexterity score (most weapons have a limit) and their weapon proficiencies (if they are not proficient they can still use it, but with penalties). Mage have 1 weapon prof to start with and can develop more later if he/she wants to spend their points on that instead of impoving his alchemy knowledge or other scientific skill which would help him (not worth it...). But if they have the strength/dexterity, a mage can even use a halberd if they wish to do so (ok at this point the game master might intervene...)

Quartz

Game balance. Yes the realism stinks, but game balance takes precedence.

Senash

DJKajuru said:

I would love to say a big yes to that, but you know... go to a medieval history museum and hold a real long sword. That stuff is heavy and hard to maneuver! It made me think that only strong , well trained warriors could use it well.

I do have a real sword at home (ok, it's an Anduril replica, so I'm not so sure if it is realistic, but it is made from steel), and it isn't as heavy as I expected it to be. Plus it is a bastard sword, a long sword should be lighter than that.

Renulan

Holding a sword or even carrying one would interfere with thoughts, waving of the arms and hands. A mage wants to be as light as he can to fully focus on the very difficult spellcasting he is about to do. Real swords *are* heavy.

Not saying an 8 str mage couldn't lift one over his head a few times. But if you *REALLY* want to have a sword, you need to add an arcane spell failure chance,

Without prior training (Fighter1/mage1) No, a pure mage1 shouldn't be able to use a sword.

The reason they can wield a dagger for example. It's so light and not clumsy because of its size.

If you want to be a sword wielding mage that's what dual classing/multi is for.

Moomintroll

There's always Phantom Blade, for those photo opportunities.

VedwintheTyrant

Real swords aren't heavy. A real longsword weighs about 4lbs. That's lighter than some cats I've owned. Swords, as martial weapons, are designed to be used by soldiers for extended periods of time. You need to be able to kill someone with a longsword even after 4 hours of pitched battle. You can't do that if you can't swing the sword. I particularly appreciate the system in Ars Magic which makes it so much of an opportunity cost that almost no mages pick up sword-play, even though there's nothing stopping them from doing so in the first place. That system wouldn't translate easily into D&D. A better way to work things out for second edition would probably be to use the kit system to make a wizard with enhanced weapon skills and perhaps the penalties of a specialist wizard without the bonuses.

Renulan

Wizards need to wiggle their fingers, it's quite simple... really.

Shin

Technically, if you can make gestures, use spell components and cast while holding a 2 meter staff, you should be able to do the same while holding a long sword.

Mungri

Just dual class from a fighter, and use whatever weapons you want on your Wizard.

Moomintroll

Shin said:

Technically, if you can make gestures, use spell components and cast while holding a 2 meter staff, you should be able to do the same while holding a long sword.

I won't comment on the personal habits of wizards but as they are so used to being rod in hand, holding a staff is second nature and doesn't inhibit casting.

Either that or they balance it on their upper lip like an enormous moustache.

Dee

What about a dagger or sling? Those are both weapons that make it impossible to make arcane gestures with that hand.

A fighter/mage can also use a shield, for that matter.

It has nothing to do with the logistics of spellcasting; it has everything to do with the class not being able to become proficient with the weapon in question, which in the Infinity Engine means also being unable to equip the weapon in the first place.

AHF

It isn't a logical issue. A sling is a much more difficult and concentration intensive weapon to use than a longsword. It also requires more technique and training to use at a basic level of competence.

@Quartz is right - this is about game balance and AD&D spent a lot of time developing a nice brand of game. Respect the DM's Guide!

Shin

I don't think it's related to balance - it's not like it would improve single class mages combat-wise in any significant way if they could equip longswords. Rather it's like @Aosaw says, a result of how the engine works.