Swords for mages/sorcerers
Senash
Member Posts: 405
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?
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?
2
Comments
I am in the "if it ain't broke..." category on 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.
"Thou shalt not use any weapon forged from unliving metal
Except for scimitars, because, like, they doth rule."
It doesn't make much sense but it is the best reason I have been able to come up with.
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.
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...
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...)
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.
Either that or they balance it on their upper lip like an enormous moustache.
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.
@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!