A fighter with grandmastery in maces has no idea how to swing a club.
A fighter with grandmastery in katanas has no idea how to swing a wakizashi.
A fighter with grandmastery in scimitars knows exactly how to fight with a ninja-to.
The difference between a long sword and a bastard sword is the same as the difference between a halberd and a flail.
It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.
Don't forget that there's absolutely no way that a wizard or sorcerer could ever learn how to wield a sword or even a club. They can learn complex spells that involve specific gestures and arcane vocabulary but are so bad with anything but the most rudimentary weapons that they can't even use them at all. I guess they must be idiot savants...
A fighter with grandmastery in maces has no idea how to swing a club.
A fighter with grandmastery in katanas has no idea how to swing a wakizashi.
A fighter with grandmastery in scimitars knows exactly how to fight with a ninja-to.
The difference between a long sword and a bastard sword is the same as the difference between a halberd and a flail.
It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.
Don't forget that there's absolutely no way that a wizard or sorcerer could ever learn how to wield a sword or even a club. They can learn complex spells that involve specific gestures and arcane vocabulary but are so bad with anything but the most rudimentary weapons that they can't even use them at all. I guess they must be idiot savants...
Well, they could, they just wouldn't exclusively be a wizard anymore. You'd have to put some fighter levels on their character sheet.
A fighter with grandmastery in maces has no idea how to swing a club.
A fighter with grandmastery in katanas has no idea how to swing a wakizashi.
A fighter with grandmastery in scimitars knows exactly how to fight with a ninja-to.
The difference between a long sword and a bastard sword is the same as the difference between a halberd and a flail.
It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.
Don't forget that there's absolutely no way that a wizard or sorcerer could ever learn how to wield a sword or even a club. They can learn complex spells that involve specific gestures and arcane vocabulary but are so bad with anything but the most rudimentary weapons that they can't even use them at all. I guess they must be idiot savants...
Well, they could, they just wouldn't exclusively be a wizard anymore. You'd have to put some fighter levels on their character sheet.
That's only true if you're a human. It's far too difficult for an elf, gnome or even a half-elf to learn.
As a wizard, you can't use complex weapons that requires a lot of training. So you pick up a sling... Do you know what great advantage bows and crossbows have over slings? That you don't have to actively train to avoid hitting things that are behind you.
Don't trust mages with slings farther than they can be thrown, even if you manage to throw them pretty far.
A fighter with grandmastery in maces has no idea how to swing a club.
A fighter with grandmastery in katanas has no idea how to swing a wakizashi.
A fighter with grandmastery in scimitars knows exactly how to fight with a ninja-to.
The difference between a long sword and a bastard sword is the same as the difference between a halberd and a flail.
It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.
Don't forget that there's absolutely no way that a wizard or sorcerer could ever learn how to wield a sword or even a club. They can learn complex spells that involve specific gestures and arcane vocabulary but are so bad with anything but the most rudimentary weapons that they can't even use them at all. I guess they must be idiot savants...
Well, they could, they just wouldn't exclusively be a wizard anymore. You'd have to put some fighter levels on their character sheet.
That's only true if you're a human. It's far too difficult for an elf, gnome or even a half-elf to learn.
Not sorcerers of any race, or single-class wizards/specialist wizards of any race but human. A fighter/mage or M/T, C/M, FMT or FMC isn't really a mage any more than a bard is.
Right, but a "Mage" is just the word you use to describe people who've learned mage skills.
If they learn fighter skills then they're also a fighter.
There's nothing stopping your character from learning the skills of multiple classes, but if you choose to do so then you are those classes.
In AD&D 2.0 there is something stopping your character. If you choose to be a wizard or sorcerer you can't be a fighter unless you're human and dual-class. Therefore you can only learn sling, dart, dagger or quarterstaff and no weapon styles. Period...
If you choose to be exclusively a mage then that means you've ruled the possibility of your character learning other classes skills. I don't see what's so difficult about this.
At the start of the game you choose from multiple narrow paths of study your character will choose to go down. If you want to go down more than one path then you need to choose more than one path.
If you choose to be exclusively a mage then that means you've ruled the possibility of your character learning other classes skills. I don't see what's so difficult about this.
At the start of the game you choose from multiple narrow paths of study your character will choose to go down. If you want to go down more than one path then you need to choose more than one path.
My question is why is a club harder to use than a dagger? Or a mace than a quarterstaff? Is a sling easier to use than a crossbow? I can see if wizards all start out as shepherds then staffs and slings make sense, how likely is that though? Isn't a hammer pretty universal? Is a warhammer so different from a sledgehammer that it requires some kind of military training?
Yeah, that's a fair point. Guess I never thought about that.
You'd think basic proficiency in any weapon would require about the same amount of training, short of any especially unwieldy weapons like flails.
And in terms of gameplay limitations, the fact that mages get so few proficiency points would still be enough to communicate that they're not spending a lot of time on weapons training.
Yeah, that's a fair point. Guess I never thought about that.
You'd think basic proficiency in any weapon would require about the same amount of training, short of any especially unwieldy weapons like flails.
And in terms of gameplay limitations, the fact that mages get so few proficiency points would still be enough to communicate that they're not spending a lot of time on weapons training.
A fighter can at least wield any weapon regardless of proficiency. Is a wizard or sorcerer so inept that they can't pick up an axe to save their lives? Even if they grew up in the woods???
Item limitations are just a videogame trope in general.
I'd be hardpressed to come up with any reason why any class should be unable to use any item beyond "It's magic, don't question it."
A particularly weird one though is bards and robes. They can't cast in armor unless it's special armor, but they also can't wear robes, despite those being designed for just that reason.
For that matter does anybody know why scrolls are destroyed if you fail to scribe them into your spellbook?
I read a forgotten realms novel once where some priestess used one of those priest scrolls, and the words disappeared from the page as she read them aloud.
Is something similar happening with the inscriptions? Like maybe the words disppear from the page even if you write them down wrong or something. But then you'd only find out you'd failed when you tried to cast it later and it blew up in your face or something.
Monks can't use the staff, despite the staff being the one weapon most consistently shown in the hands of a monk. They can use darts though! We are all familiar with the age-old connection between Monks and darts, i'm sure.
Monks can't use the staff, despite the staff being the one weapon most consistently shown in the hands of a monk. They can use darts though! We are all familiar with the age-old connection between Monks and darts, i'm sure.
Don't forget scimitars. I'll never forget seeing Indiana Jones shooting that scimitar wielding monk in Temple of Doom. Oh wait, that wasn't a monk was it???
@JoenSo The sling or the wizard? Because I could totally see Montaron throwing Xzar.
Since I was paraphrasing Minsc, the sling would be the less likely candidate. "This here is a wizard sling!" "Great! I'll take it, I'm a wizard!" "No no, it's a sling for wizards." "Yes? And I'm a w... oh no."
All complaints should be sent to E. Gary Gygax, who designed the system upon which all this wonderful mess is based.
But as a counter example, my sons have grown up in the woods and have no clue about the proper way to use a hand axe. Now a PS4 controller, they have mastery in that. But an axe? That’s for icky proles who do actual work. Like me.
A fighter with grandmastery in maces has no idea how to swing a club.
A fighter with grandmastery in katanas has no idea how to swing a wakizashi.
A fighter with grandmastery in scimitars knows exactly how to fight with a ninja-to.
The difference between a long sword and a bastard sword is the same as the difference between a halberd and a flail.
It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.
Don't forget that there's absolutely no way that a wizard or sorcerer could ever learn how to wield a sword or even a club. They can learn complex spells that involve specific gestures and arcane vocabulary but are so bad with anything but the most rudimentary weapons that they can't even use them at all. I guess they must be idiot savants...
This point has always bugged me about D&D rules. A sword is a dangerous weapon in the hands of even a toddler if that toddler does the real life equivalent of rolling a 20. I think any character ought to be able to pick up and use any weapon, only with proficiency penalties. Something like a base -4 for fighters using a non-proficient weapon, -6 for clerics, -8 for thieves, -10 for mages, dexterity and strength bonuses apply.
Speaking of dexterity bonuses, I think they should apply to your chance to hit with any weapon, not just ranged. Strength bonuses should be for damage only.
And this might be an unpopular opinion, but I think vanilla Baldur's Gate had it right with weapon proficiencies, with its broad categories of weapons. It was Baldur's Gate 2 that created the ridiculous "logic" problem with its absurdly specific proficiencies. I often use Tweaks to revert it back the BG1 system.
Bg1 might've been a bit over-broad at times though. I seem to recall the "blunt" proficiency encompassed flails, maces, and quarter staves. I wouldn't imagine those skills would be quite so transferable.
Same with two handed swords and longswords both being in the "large blades" proficiency.
@JoenSo The sling or the wizard? Because I could totally see Montaron throwing Xzar.
Since I was paraphrasing Minsc, the sling would be the less likely candidate. "This here is a wizard sling!" "Great! I'll take it, I'm a wizard!" "No no, it's a sling for wizards." "Yes? And I'm a w... oh no."
And that's how Xzar became an unwilling participant of Olympic Wizard Tossing.
Monks can't use the staff, despite the staff being the one weapon most consistently shown in the hands of a monk. They can use darts though! We are all familiar with the age-old connection between Monks and darts, i'm sure.
Bit of interesting background behind that.
In order to create the monk's special barefisted attack animations, they had to overwrite one of the existing animations.
They chose the two handed weapon attack animation, which is why monks can't use two handed weapons.
In this case there is no real in lore logic or even gameplay sense to the decision. Just coding limitations.
Monks can't use the staff, despite the staff being the one weapon most consistently shown in the hands of a monk. They can use darts though! We are all familiar with the age-old connection between Monks and darts, i'm sure.
Bit of interesting background behind that.
In order to create the monk's special barefisted attack animations, they had to overwrite one of the existing animations.
They chose the two handed weapon attack animation, which is why monks can't use two handed weapons.
In this case there is no real in lore logic or even gameplay sense to the decision. Just coding limitations.
Could that be undone or changed? Say, changed to the weapon-and-shield animation? Because I'd love me some staff-wielding monk love. (Yes, ok, this time I get why Freud keeps giving me funny looks).
Comments
A fighter with grandmastery in maces has no idea how to swing a club.
A fighter with grandmastery in katanas has no idea how to swing a wakizashi.
A fighter with grandmastery in scimitars knows exactly how to fight with a ninja-to.
The difference between a long sword and a bastard sword is the same as the difference between a halberd and a flail.
It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.
a-HA!!!
Don't trust mages with slings farther than they can be thrown, even if you manage to throw them pretty far.
The sling or the wizard? Because I could totally see Montaron throwing Xzar.
Not sorcerers of any race, or single-class wizards/specialist wizards of any race but human. A fighter/mage or M/T, C/M, FMT or FMC isn't really a mage any more than a bard is.
If they learn fighter skills then they're also a fighter.
There's nothing stopping your character from learning the skills of multiple classes, but if you choose to do so then you are those classes.
At the start of the game you choose from multiple narrow paths of study your character will choose to go down. If you want to go down more than one path then you need to choose more than one path.
You'd think basic proficiency in any weapon would require about the same amount of training, short of any especially unwieldy weapons like flails.
And in terms of gameplay limitations, the fact that mages get so few proficiency points would still be enough to communicate that they're not spending a lot of time on weapons training.
I'd be hardpressed to come up with any reason why any class should be unable to use any item beyond "It's magic, don't question it."
A particularly weird one though is bards and robes. They can't cast in armor unless it's special armor, but they also can't wear robes, despite those being designed for just that reason.
I read a forgotten realms novel once where some priestess used one of those priest scrolls, and the words disappeared from the page as she read them aloud.
Is something similar happening with the inscriptions? Like maybe the words disppear from the page even if you write them down wrong or something. But then you'd only find out you'd failed when you tried to cast it later and it blew up in your face or something.
"This here is a wizard sling!"
"Great! I'll take it, I'm a wizard!"
"No no, it's a sling for wizards."
"Yes? And I'm a w... oh no."
But as a counter example, my sons have grown up in the woods and have no clue about the proper way to use a hand axe. Now a PS4 controller, they have mastery in that. But an axe? That’s for icky proles who do actual work. Like me.
Speaking of dexterity bonuses, I think they should apply to your chance to hit with any weapon, not just ranged. Strength bonuses should be for damage only.
And this might be an unpopular opinion, but I think vanilla Baldur's Gate had it right with weapon proficiencies, with its broad categories of weapons. It was Baldur's Gate 2 that created the ridiculous "logic" problem with its absurdly specific proficiencies. I often use Tweaks to revert it back the BG1 system.
Same with two handed swords and longswords both being in the "large blades" proficiency.
In order to create the monk's special barefisted attack animations, they had to overwrite one of the existing animations.
They chose the two handed weapon attack animation, which is why monks can't use two handed weapons.
In this case there is no real in lore logic or even gameplay sense to the decision. Just coding limitations.