A pure mage in these (BG, BG2, IWD) games can't use a bow. A multiclass mage can use a bow if their other class can.
That's the paradigm in 2nd edition (A)D&D. Each class has a list of weapons it can use, and they choose proficiencies from among that list. Use a weapon without its proficiency, take a penalty.
Most class weapon restrictions are positive; those are the weapons they know how to use, and multiclass characters can use any of the weapons either of their classes can. Priest restrictions, however, are negative. Those are the only weapons they're allowed to use for religious reasons, and multiclass priests are restricted just like single-class priests are.
For example:
- A longsword can be used by a thief, but not by a cleric or mage.
- A thief/mage can use a longsword because it's allowed for the thief side. A cleric/thief can't, because it's not allowed for the cleric side.
I think the easy way to look at it is; Warriors, Wizards, Rogues its a matter of training. Each class has a range of weapons they can train for and they all stack together. So a Warrior mixed with a Wizard or Rogue can learn anything. But for Priests it’s about their faith. So a priest mixed with anything will have to follow the priest limits.
@atcDave I am not so sure it is a matter of training and by the way all the classes but the Sorcerer have to train, maybe even the Sorcerers do it as it is true that they don't learn spells by scrolls but the more they gain levels the more they learn spells and the more the level depending spells become powerful, it can imply that if they learn the spells by natural disposition and not trough study training is relevant also for them.
But then we see a Fighter, level 1, that duals to Mage and as the dual is completed not only is able to use the bow, but is even able to reach grand mastery in its use while he probably trains in his arcane casting and not in martial arts like a Fighter does, the fact that he never improves his Fighter level lets us suppose that he is doing so.
Also why a Mage is capable to use a sling and to get proficiency in it, or a dagger if we are talking of mlee weapons, and is so completely not capable at using a bow or a long sword that not only he can not get any proficiency, but is not even able to equip them? To use effectively a bow in RL needs a lot of training, but to use effectively a sling or to go mlee with a dagger without being immediately slaughtered by some one with a longer reach blade needs also a lot of martial training.
I would say that the weapon restrictions of the classes are more a balancing factor then a RP issue, maybe the weapon restrictions of the Clerics and Druids have more RP sense, but I fail to find a RP reason why a mage can use effectively a sling or a dagger and not a sword or a bow, or maybe even the easier to master Xbow.
Warrior classes can use all the weapons as they can do only that (Pally and Ranger get some spells, but way less then the other casters, the Fighters can get GM to balance it) and they have also more APR. Rogues and Clerics can use less weapons, they can put only a single pip and are stuck forever to 1 base APR as they can cast divine magic or use the Rogue skills, Mages and Sorcerers can use the most powerful form of magic in the game so are the more restricted in the weapons they can use and have also the worst Thac0 table. And dual and multi are OP as with the correct build they completely overcome those balancing restrictions, even Nalia can use rogue weapons and deal with locks and traps or steal from every shop if she drinks enough potions while being almost as powerful as a single class Mage, we don't even need need to talk of the many Kensages or Berseker>Mages that have been played to prove the point, too many pages have been written about them.
Well yes, of course it’s ultimately a balance thing. But balance is “meta”, there HAS TO BE a justification or the balance becomes transparently nonsense.
And I’ve seen many DMs “fix” these sorts of things. In fact, I’ve always allowed any class including mage, to learn club and crossbow (a weapon actually designed to be idiot proof)… Only some clerics are banned depending on their ethos (and yes, I have priesthoods in my game that are banned from crushing weapons; and some that use crossbows happily).
But I’ll always say the justification of those mage restrictions is their lack of martial training. It’s really not a big deal, in a PnP setting, to concoct exceptions to that rule. Even in BG1 Xan is an exception. And I’m often happy to make exceptions because that lack is merely a training thing; nothing mystical about it.
And as far as saying someone using a dagger without thorough training will be cut to pieces; a mage will indeed get cut to pieces by any skilled warrior of roughly equal level, if they use their dagger against the sword. Lousy Thaco, no armor, few hit points, no specialization, probably no strength bonus… If they don’t buff (which of course makes a deadly difference, in which case they are acting more like a mage ought to!) they are a poorly skilled warrior.
You are correct about a mage with a dagger killed by a trained warrior with a sword if he does not buff, buffing he can have a chance also in a only mlee fight, at least vs a not boss warrior, and it makes perfect sense.
But my point about the mage with the dagger was different, to use a dagger effectively needs training, possibly even more then a sword as is a very fast and deadly weapon, but has a very short reach, and to use it effectively vs an armoured guy is exceedingly difficult, you can not stab multiple times his abdomen or torso making him loose blood very fast or reaching his hearth, you have to exploit the very few weak points of his armour to land a fatal hit. So why a mage can get proficiency with it and can not even equip a longer blade?
I believe that we find a justification because there HAS TO BE a justification, not because that justification makes any sense and some restrictions are there mostly for balance reasons, in some cases I think the justification actually does not make any sense. I find very reasonable the DM fixes you talk about, a mage with club imho makes more sense then with a dagger, a mage with a short bow makes as much sense as him with a sling, and with and with an Xbow makes even more sense, long bows probably need more training as are used at al longer distance and needing more strength to be used make more difficult to be also precise when aiming, at least in RL the long bowman was a warrior that needed a lot of training.
A mage with a rifle, that's kind of a more confusing image...
Well... as they actually have tactical nukes (CC: 3xADHW or RoV + AoP + Improved Alacrity: unleash half spell book before the enemy can even react ) at their disposal I don't see anything strange if they also can use a gun, maybe not a sniper rifle at very long distance, why not a pistol at short range .
I thought the whole mage proficiency limitation was based on them needing to do advance hand movements for their spells. Simple single weapons could either be packed away quickly or would limit movements marginally and mage staves (staffs?) could be attuned to to channel energy and require less hand movements.
2e didn't have guns or hand crossbows, right? And they are not that proficient in hitting with any of them being in the end 10 thac0 behind on a warrior
Them needing to do advance hand movements for their spells in my opinion makes more sense then the training focalized on other skills and no more on using weapons. Still the game mechanics seem to contradict both: a Mage dualed into fighter can still put pips, even if less, in it and reach GM and continues to improve, even if with a worst table, his Thac0 so continues to train with the weapon, even if with inferior results compared to a Fighter, and a multi FM can use a big 2H sword and still cast as well and fast as a Mage of the same arcane level even if the big sword limits his hands movement.
Possibly different game mechanics would make those 2 reasons why more credible. Like a different way of dual classing, why a person that was able to use a weapon with a certain level of skill and training in a split second completely forgets how to do it, then after completing the dual in a split second remembers the forgotten skill and can even progress in it? Keeping the ability on the weapons he has some pips on while he begins to dual, but never be able to add a single pip in it after that moment would make more sense. Even with a weapon that Mages can use, like the staff, he can not put pips in it as he already has all the pips (so the level of training) a mage can have in that weapon. And he should also be forbidden in putting more then one pip in any other weapon type after he begins to dual, until the end of the game, not only until he complete the dual.
He would retain all the skill also when he is dualing, no down time, but will not be able to progress into a weapon more then a single class mage from that moment on, if he had GM he continues to have it, he had trained for it in his Fighter only days, but from the moment he is also Mage he can not put more then one pip in a weapon and if he already has 1 or more pips he can not put pips at all in it as his training is focused on arcane magic and he can get only the basic weapon training a single class mage has.
And some weapons that limit the movement of the hands should get a penalty in casting, i.e. dagger and dart no penalty, short sword and short bow 2 penalty in casting speed or a certain failure chance, 2H sword and long bow 4 penalty in casting speed or a higher percentage of failure.
This would make the weapon restrictions more credible RP wise, but would completely change the balance and for the penalty to cast while using a big weapon only a little micro management would be needed to completely nullify it as the player can equip a small weapon from the quick slot, cast and then equip again his big 2H sword and attack.
I really feel that the balance as it is is a good compromise, maybe makes some multi and dual too powerful, but it works, most of the weak classes are weak only because some players don't know how to use them at the best, and we are accustomed to it .
We have to use our suspension of disbelief to accept the weapon restrictions, we can pretend that the explanations given in the thread or other possible ones make sense, but the more we watch at them the more we see that there is something in the game mechanics that contradicts them.
A mage with a rifle, that's kind of a more confusing image...
Well... as they actually have tactical nukes (CC: 3xADHW or RoV + AoP + Improved Alacrity: unleash half spell book before the enemy can even react ) at their disposal I don't see anything strange if they also can use a gun, maybe not a sniper rifle at very long distance, why not a pistol at short range .
I thought the whole mage proficiency limitation was based on them needing to do advance hand movements for their spells. Simple single weapons could either be packed away quickly or would limit movements marginally and mage staves (staffs?) could be attuned to to channel energy and require less hand movements.
2e didn't have guns or hand crossbows, right? And they are not that proficient in hitting with any of them being in the end 10 thac0 behind on a warrior
The advanced movements stuff doesn’t ring a bell. Proves nothing, but if I had to guess I’d say maybe a later edition? I am sure I’ve seen a simple lack of advanced martial training mentioned in the books though. Sorry if that offends those who think a dagger might be more complicated! I would only counter that by saying, maybe if we’re talking specialization (which the mage can’t do).
It’s always dicey to ask what the game contains or doesn’t. There were so many supplements and modules published there could be plenty of things I never saw.
But that said, I believe Hand Crossbows do show up as Drow weapons. Whether mentioned in the core books or elsewhere I couldn’t say.
Even guns showed up in at least one 1E adventure (Barrier Peaks I think? It was a Greyhawk adventure that takes the party into a crashed spaceship). 2E (switched to Forgotten Realms as the official setting) had a “gunpowder doesn’t work in this world” clause. Every DM I played with ran their own setting however (Well, one guy stuck with Greyhawk. But I’ve only ever adventured in the Forgotten Realms in various computer games), and various forms of higher tech did show up from time to time. You’d have to ask each DM what the rules were in their setting.
Hmmm, advanced hand movements for mages could very well be one of the DM rules in the 2e tabletops that I have played ~15-20 years ago. It did always sound plausible to me.
I think there is no answer that will make everyone happy. I'll continue to use "lack of martial training" in my own games!
We should be all happy as we have the luck to play a fantastic game, old, with 2D graphics designed for the computers of 20 years ago, but way deeper and complex then most of the newest games that have fantastic graphics, but have the complexity of noughts and crosses while BG can compare to the chess game .
I'll continue to use my suspension of disbelief and take this game as it is, a lot of things make no sense, way more then the weapon restrictions, how it is possible that a 150hp fighter when is brought to 1 hp can continue to fight as well as at the beginning of the battle? He is wounded so badly that he should barely be able to breath, maybe not even able to stand up and still he fights like a champ, similar crap does not happen even in the most trash Hollywood action movies (I am not implying that all the action movies are trash, but some are indeed very unrealistic about combat). This is only one of the many possible examples, still if we don't ask ourselves about it we barely notice it.
We play this game because it is great, allows great tactics, sometimes interesting exploits, has a good plot and a very complex combat and magic system while is still possible to play it with a more casual approach, and offers also immersion and RP as long as we accept it as it is and we are willing to accept some suspension of disbelief to have it well balanced, in it all the classes and kits can be played and can be strong if we know how to use them (maybe Beastmaster excluded... ).
So if our mages can not use a bow we can live with it and continue to have fun playing.
No doubt the game has been awesome fun a lot of us, for a long time! Some suspension of disbelief is required. But then some people can't get past the whole magic and elves stuff; if you've made it this far, you should be good for just a little bit more. I often wonder if among the problems with the newer games is they try too hard to explain everything and appeal to everyone. And we end up with gamers who truly have no nerd cred.
Anyway, I do have an explanation for the hit points! At least partially. I always tell my players that you really aren't seriously hurt until those last few hit points. Everything else is a reflection of fatigue, skill, luck. As for why a "Cure Light Wounds" may completely bring back a low level character from death's door while doing almost nothing for the high level fighter... I got nothing.
But it does explain the 150 hit point fighter still fine at 10. He's not really hurt, maybe a little winded, sore, and pushing his luck; but fine. I've asked my players if they wanted me to come up with something for "almost dead" and I get a resounding NO!
But there actually are some provisions for "negative hit points". At least as an optional rule. Its usually something like "bleeding out" at 0 down to -10 (or; your first level hit points. Or; I use "0 to negative 10 plus 10% of your total). If reduced to negative you continue loosing one HP per round until dead; or someone "binds your wounds" or you get ANY magical healing).
The Gold Box games actually implemented this! Funny that IE never did.
Muz1234
Member Posts: 12
Comments
That's the paradigm in 2nd edition (A)D&D. Each class has a list of weapons it can use, and they choose proficiencies from among that list. Use a weapon without its proficiency, take a penalty.
Most class weapon restrictions are positive; those are the weapons they know how to use, and multiclass characters can use any of the weapons either of their classes can. Priest restrictions, however, are negative. Those are the only weapons they're allowed to use for religious reasons, and multiclass priests are restricted just like single-class priests are.
For example:
- A longsword can be used by a thief, but not by a cleric or mage.
- A thief/mage can use a longsword because it's allowed for the thief side. A cleric/thief can't, because it's not allowed for the cleric side.
But then we see a Fighter, level 1, that duals to Mage and as the dual is completed not only is able to use the bow, but is even able to reach grand mastery in its use while he probably trains in his arcane casting and not in martial arts like a Fighter does, the fact that he never improves his Fighter level lets us suppose that he is doing so.
Also why a Mage is capable to use a sling and to get proficiency in it, or a dagger if we are talking of mlee weapons, and is so completely not capable at using a bow or a long sword that not only he can not get any proficiency, but is not even able to equip them? To use effectively a bow in RL needs a lot of training, but to use effectively a sling or to go mlee with a dagger without being immediately slaughtered by some one with a longer reach blade needs also a lot of martial training.
I would say that the weapon restrictions of the classes are more a balancing factor then a RP issue, maybe the weapon restrictions of the Clerics and Druids have more RP sense, but I fail to find a RP reason why a mage can use effectively a sling or a dagger and not a sword or a bow, or maybe even the easier to master Xbow.
Warrior classes can use all the weapons as they can do only that (Pally and Ranger get some spells, but way less then the other casters, the Fighters can get GM to balance it) and they have also more APR. Rogues and Clerics can use less weapons, they can put only a single pip and are stuck forever to 1 base APR as they can cast divine magic or use the Rogue skills, Mages and Sorcerers can use the most powerful form of magic in the game so are the more restricted in the weapons they can use and have also the worst Thac0 table. And dual and multi are OP as with the correct build they completely overcome those balancing restrictions, even Nalia can use rogue weapons and deal with locks and traps or steal from every shop if she drinks enough potions while being almost as powerful as a single class Mage, we don't even need need to talk of the many Kensages or Berseker>Mages that have been played to prove the point, too many pages have been written about them.
And I’ve seen many DMs “fix” these sorts of things. In fact, I’ve always allowed any class including mage, to learn club and crossbow (a weapon actually designed to be idiot proof)… Only some clerics are banned depending on their ethos (and yes, I have priesthoods in my game that are banned from crushing weapons; and some that use crossbows happily).
But I’ll always say the justification of those mage restrictions is their lack of martial training. It’s really not a big deal, in a PnP setting, to concoct exceptions to that rule. Even in BG1 Xan is an exception. And I’m often happy to make exceptions because that lack is merely a training thing; nothing mystical about it.
And as far as saying someone using a dagger without thorough training will be cut to pieces; a mage will indeed get cut to pieces by any skilled warrior of roughly equal level, if they use their dagger against the sword. Lousy Thaco, no armor, few hit points, no specialization, probably no strength bonus… If they don’t buff (which of course makes a deadly difference, in which case they are acting more like a mage ought to!) they are a poorly skilled warrior.
But my point about the mage with the dagger was different, to use a dagger effectively needs training, possibly even more then a sword as is a very fast and deadly weapon, but has a very short reach, and to use it effectively vs an armoured guy is exceedingly difficult, you can not stab multiple times his abdomen or torso making him loose blood very fast or reaching his hearth, you have to exploit the very few weak points of his armour to land a fatal hit. So why a mage can get proficiency with it and can not even equip a longer blade?
I believe that we find a justification because there HAS TO BE a justification, not because that justification makes any sense and some restrictions are there mostly for balance reasons, in some cases I think the justification actually does not make any sense. I find very reasonable the DM fixes you talk about, a mage with club imho makes more sense then with a dagger, a mage with a short bow makes as much sense as him with a sling, and with and with an Xbow makes even more sense, long bows probably need more training as are used at al longer distance and needing more strength to be used make more difficult to be also precise when aiming, at least in RL the long bowman was a warrior that needed a lot of training.
A mage with a rifle, that's kind of a more confusing image...
2e didn't have guns or hand crossbows, right? And they are not that proficient in hitting with any of them being in the end 10 thac0 behind on a warrior
Possibly different game mechanics would make those 2 reasons why more credible. Like a different way of dual classing, why a person that was able to use a weapon with a certain level of skill and training in a split second completely forgets how to do it, then after completing the dual in a split second remembers the forgotten skill and can even progress in it? Keeping the ability on the weapons he has some pips on while he begins to dual, but never be able to add a single pip in it after that moment would make more sense. Even with a weapon that Mages can use, like the staff, he can not put pips in it as he already has all the pips (so the level of training) a mage can have in that weapon. And he should also be forbidden in putting more then one pip in any other weapon type after he begins to dual, until the end of the game, not only until he complete the dual.
He would retain all the skill also when he is dualing, no down time, but will not be able to progress into a weapon more then a single class mage from that moment on, if he had GM he continues to have it, he had trained for it in his Fighter only days, but from the moment he is also Mage he can not put more then one pip in a weapon and if he already has 1 or more pips he can not put pips at all in it as his training is focused on arcane magic and he can get only the basic weapon training a single class mage has.
And some weapons that limit the movement of the hands should get a penalty in casting, i.e. dagger and dart no penalty, short sword and short bow 2 penalty in casting speed or a certain failure chance, 2H sword and long bow 4 penalty in casting speed or a higher percentage of failure.
This would make the weapon restrictions more credible RP wise, but would completely change the balance and for the penalty to cast while using a big weapon only a little micro management would be needed to completely nullify it as the player can equip a small weapon from the quick slot, cast and then equip again his big 2H sword and attack.
I really feel that the balance as it is is a good compromise, maybe makes some multi and dual too powerful, but it works, most of the weak classes are weak only because some players don't know how to use them at the best, and we are accustomed to it .
We have to use our suspension of disbelief to accept the weapon restrictions, we can pretend that the explanations given in the thread or other possible ones make sense, but the more we watch at them the more we see that there is something in the game mechanics that contradicts them.
Yeah a pistol seems like a natural for the mage!
The advanced movements stuff doesn’t ring a bell. Proves nothing, but if I had to guess I’d say maybe a later edition? I am sure I’ve seen a simple lack of advanced martial training mentioned in the books though. Sorry if that offends those who think a dagger might be more complicated! I would only counter that by saying, maybe if we’re talking specialization (which the mage can’t do).
It’s always dicey to ask what the game contains or doesn’t. There were so many supplements and modules published there could be plenty of things I never saw.
But that said, I believe Hand Crossbows do show up as Drow weapons. Whether mentioned in the core books or elsewhere I couldn’t say.
Even guns showed up in at least one 1E adventure (Barrier Peaks I think? It was a Greyhawk adventure that takes the party into a crashed spaceship). 2E (switched to Forgotten Realms as the official setting) had a “gunpowder doesn’t work in this world” clause. Every DM I played with ran their own setting however (Well, one guy stuck with Greyhawk. But I’ve only ever adventured in the Forgotten Realms in various computer games), and various forms of higher tech did show up from time to time. You’d have to ask each DM what the rules were in their setting.
I think there is no answer that will make everyone happy. I'll continue to use "lack of martial training" in my own games!
I'll continue to use my suspension of disbelief and take this game as it is, a lot of things make no sense, way more then the weapon restrictions, how it is possible that a 150hp fighter when is brought to 1 hp can continue to fight as well as at the beginning of the battle? He is wounded so badly that he should barely be able to breath, maybe not even able to stand up and still he fights like a champ, similar crap does not happen even in the most trash Hollywood action movies (I am not implying that all the action movies are trash, but some are indeed very unrealistic about combat). This is only one of the many possible examples, still if we don't ask ourselves about it we barely notice it.
We play this game because it is great, allows great tactics, sometimes interesting exploits, has a good plot and a very complex combat and magic system while is still possible to play it with a more casual approach, and offers also immersion and RP as long as we accept it as it is and we are willing to accept some suspension of disbelief to have it well balanced, in it all the classes and kits can be played and can be strong if we know how to use them (maybe Beastmaster excluded...
So if our mages can not use a bow we can live with it and continue to have fun playing.
Anyway, I do have an explanation for the hit points! At least partially. I always tell my players that you really aren't seriously hurt until those last few hit points. Everything else is a reflection of fatigue, skill, luck. As for why a "Cure Light Wounds" may completely bring back a low level character from death's door while doing almost nothing for the high level fighter... I got nothing.
But it does explain the 150 hit point fighter still fine at 10. He's not really hurt, maybe a little winded, sore, and pushing his luck; but fine. I've asked my players if they wanted me to come up with something for "almost dead" and I get a resounding NO!
But there actually are some provisions for "negative hit points". At least as an optional rule. Its usually something like "bleeding out" at 0 down to -10 (or; your first level hit points. Or; I use "0 to negative 10 plus 10% of your total). If reduced to negative you continue loosing one HP per round until dead; or someone "binds your wounds" or you get ANY magical healing).
The Gold Box games actually implemented this! Funny that IE never did.