59 replies to this topic

[Ellderon]

I'm interested to see what people think about NOT restricting weapons to classes/races. And by that I mean, not restricting what kind of weapon they can pick up and use(if they have sufficient STR or DEX), but rather restricting proficiencies.

I don't see why a mage can't pick up a lingsword and swing it aroun. He would suck, since he isn't proficiet with it and he can't get beter, but still.. It's nice to know you can in a emergency.

EDIT: This is ONLY for weapons/shields...
Armor is a different thing...

Edited by Ellderon, 28 July 2004 - 03:35 AM.

[Feanor]

I'm interested to see what people think about NOT restricting weapons to classes/races. And by that I mean, not restricting what kind of weapon they can pick up and use(if they have sufficient STR or DEX), but rather restricting proficiencies.

I don't see why a mage can't pick up a lingsword and swing it aroun. He would suck, since he isn't proficiet with it and he can't get beter, but still.. It's nice to know you can in a emergency.

EDIT: This is ONLY for weapons/shields...
Armor is a different thing...

Agreed. But a mage wielding a sword should have SEVERE penalties.

By the way, Ellderon, what is the purpose of those question about a new system of rules which I see you ask ? Are you making a mod, by chance ?

[the bigg]

By the way, Ellderon, what is the purpose of those question about a new system of rules which I see you ask ? Are you making a mod, by chance ?

Ashes of Embers.

[Feanor]

By the way, Ellderon, what is the purpose of those question about a new system of rules which I see you ask ? Are you making a mod, by chance ?

Ashes of Embers.

Ehh, I think you missed my point here, Bigg. My question it was not related only to this topic, because I saw Ellderon asking things about rules which have nothing to do with Ashes of Embers and some of them nor even with AD&D.

[NiGHTMARE]

It depends on the reason they normally can't use the weapon.

For example, I have no problem with a priest of Iyactu Xvim swinging an enormous axe around, but a priest of Eldath doing the same would be severely frowned upon by his deity to say the least. Similarly, druids' weapon restrictions revolve around their personal beliefs, and probably shouldn't be changed (or alternatively, the player should be penalized for not roleplaying the character properly).

Also, from a technical viewpoint can you imagine a thief doing a 4x backstab with a two-handed sword? Ouch!

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 28 July 2004 - 08:16 AM.

[Feanor]

Also, from a technical viewpoint can you imagine a thief doing a 4x backstab with a two-handed sword? Ouch! 

Well, Nightmare, remember that thieves could use katanas. Celestial Fury, for instance, is more deadly than any two handed sword.

[Erephine]

Its the best sword from the whole BG series, actually.

Anyway, I think class restrictions are a must. If you equip a mage with a two handed sword, all you can expect from him is to chop off his own arms by accident.

[BobTokyo]

Glamdring a magical sword, glows in the presence of an enemy and serves Gandalf in his mission to aid the Fellowship of the ring.

[kirkjobsluder]

Well, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, this is one of those things where you could always negotiate with a good DM. Ideally in a good pnp gaming group very few things a player would want to do are impossibilities, but all things come with some potentially undesirable tradeoffs.

One way I've seen of playing this is that if you want to pick up a non-class weapon, you loose all of your class advantages. (If you are a cleric, expect to do a quest as well before getting them back.) Thieves using a two-handed sword shouldn't get backstab or stealth and certainly shouldn't pick pick pockets or open locks as well. Mages, with possible rare exceptions for race (Xan), shouldn't be able to cast when using a non-class weapon. I can see opening the door up to mage proficiencies in single-handed weapons such as maces and swords. But not two-handed weapons such as polearms which would wreck any somatic spell component just hauling it around.

In CRPGs though, you don't have a DM who can say, "I don't see how you can do that, and carry around a bastard sword at the same time." So weapon proficiency restrictions are a minor evil.

ETA: Thinking about it in the shower, the way I'd approach it is that any class (except for clerics) can weild anything, but that the penalties for doing so makes it more advantageous to wield a class-related weapon. The joy of a theif carrying around Lilacor would be cut short by finding that a basic shortsword +1 does more consistent damage. Give the player choices, but make it clear that some choices are better than others.

Edited by kirkjobsluder, 28 July 2004 - 10:08 AM.

[Ellderon]

Change the ability requirements allso.

I set the two-hander to require 16-17 STR.

Now what mage/thief is wiling to sacrefice several ability points into STR????

And yes, if your calss can gain 2 proficiency levels in bastards swords, but can't get a sinble one in quaterstaffs, you won't use a quaterstaff unless absolutely necessary. (Like fighting a elemental that is immune to most damages, and you have a quaterstaff that deals 2x damage to elementals... Your normal bastard sword would hardly scratch it, so of course you would switch temporarely weapons).
Since two-handers are really crippled (they should be doing AT LEAST 2D6 damage or more),I would gladly make them stronger, but thievs and mages get penalized if they carry them (Spellcasting speed reduced by.. 4, and thieving skills reduced by 50%)

The whole point of this is not to FORCE someone to use a distinct weapon type, but rather to incourage it.

[Ellderon]

By the way, Ellderon, what is the purpose of those question about a new system of rules which I see you ask ? Are you making a mod, by chance ?

Hehe...Let's just say that a LOT is curently cooking in the LOI...

But I'm not going to reveal anything without Nightmares approval...

[kirkjobsluder]

Since two-handers are really crippled (they should be doing AT LEAST 2D6 damage or more),I would gladly make them stronger, but thievs and mages get penalized if they carry them (Spellcasting speed reduced by.. 4, and thieving skills reduced by 50%)

I think that the problems of wielding heavy two-handed weapons for spellcasters should be more severe. No spells with a somatic spell component. I also think that there is still a loophole if you permit backstabbing with heavy two-handed weapons with potions of invisibility. Since the rationale for backstabbing is a sugical strike to a vulnerable part of the body based on suprise, it makes sense to me that it should be limited to one-handed weapons.

[Ellderon]

Penalty, penalty, penalty- no spells with somantic components (others are cast slower), no backstabbing and a penalty to other thief abilities...

Plus you need a str of 16-17 to wield it, and are not proficient with it..

Hmm.. I would say that no sane mage/thief would pick it up....

[Erephine]

Great, so the average fighter with a strength of ~13-14 cannot use two handed swords anymore.

No, seriously, the restriction system was pretty much perfect as it is/was.

[Ellderon]

In reality you really need a good deal of SRT in order to wield it properly.
Don't forget that the Composite Long Bow requires 18 STR(way too much)!!!!

That's not something I would call perfectly balanced.

[Johanobesus]

Personally, I have always found a few of the restrictions sort of bizarre. A mace is basically an artificial club, so why can't a druid use one? Supposedly it's because of their "ethic," they can use a rough branch with a nail stuck in it, but not a polished wooden shaft with a metal ball on the end. But then in BGII they can use scimitars, and no other swords. That makes no sense to me at all. Why can they only use a sword if it has a certain shape? If they can use scimitars and daggers, it seems to me they should be able to use all swords. If they can use clubs, it seems to me they should be able to use maces and flails.

I think you shouldn't penalize weapon use too much. I don't see why a long sword should get in the way of picking a lock. Carrying around a big scabbard might reduce stealth and skills that rely at least in part upon stealth, like pick-pocketing and hide-in-shadows, but then where does the thief keep a katana, or are thieves like immortals in "Highlander," and have a magical disappearing scabbard in their coats? If a katana doesn't get in the way, neither should a long sword. A great big two-handed sword, though, would probably get in the way of everything. Also, consider that most thieves aren't that strong. With the exception of Yoshimo, most NPC thieves are a bit weak. Considering that they are often the first ones to look inside a chest or tomb and carry out loot, I try to keep their loads as light as possible, and there is no way I would burden Imoen or Jan with a big heavy weapon.

As for mages, maybe instead of restricting the spells they can cast, you could increase the spell casting time. If a mage is wielding a bastard sword, he can still cast any spell he wants, but it will take him a moment to put the sword in its scabbard before he can start casting, doubling his casting time. The bigger the weapon, the longer it takes for him to put it away. In fact, the same could be true for all spell casters. I've always thought fighter/mages were a bit over powered.

[Jerdol]

My vote is split (although I did vote for universal weapons) because I am in favor of weapon restrictions for druids. While a mage is barred fom sword-weilding because sword-weilding isn't what they teach in mage school, druids are prohibitted from metal weapons because they are against metal weapons as a matter of principle. In 3rd edition d&d, a druid who uses a metal weapon loses <HISHER> spells until 24 hours after <HESHE> (I've been afflicted with modder's illness) stops using the weapon. If that clause were added to the mod, I'd be fine with it.

PS: Also look up why clerics may not use sharp weapons. I'm not sure about that one.

[Ellderon]

Anyone can pick up any weapon from the ground and use it if need be, as long as he has attributes needed for it.

Class restriction is a no, but class favoring some weapons is a yes.


@Johanobesus - I totaly agree. Penalyze the casting time for casters and steath and agility for thievs/rangers. The bigger the weapon, the greater the penalty. Makes perfect sense..

Druids might get some additional penalty, but I don't see why they shouldn't use their powers (metal can be found in nature too..in raw form, but still..)

Edited by Ellderon, 29 July 2004 - 03:39 AM.

[NiGHTMARE]

As I already mentioned, I think which weapons clerics are allowed to use should depend on their deity.

The PC could be asked to select a god at the start of the game. There's then a script which activates if the PC worships a certain god and is wielding a certain weapon, and disables spellcasting for a set amount of time. The same script could be used for druids as well.

If you like, Ellderon, I could write such a script .

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 29 July 2004 - 03:45 AM.

[kirkjobsluder]

PS: Also look up why clerics may not use sharp weapons. I'm not sure about that one.

The original rationale for clerics using blunt weapons was in my opinion rather weak (prohibitions on drawing blood). On optional rule in 2nd edition provided a template for a cleric kit in which a cleric gets to choose from a small number of weapons favored by his/her diety.

In regards to mages casting spells with a non-class weapon. The rule I've always gone with is one action per round unless someone has a skill (like quick-draw) that permits one to make multiple actions. So, sheathing a weapon (so that you can use it again) costs you a full round. Readying a weapon costs another full round.

Personally, I like the idea of making spell descriptions meaningful again. Spells with a somatic component require complex hand and body movements that are difficult or impossible with most armor and weapons.