* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Weapon Limitations Started at 04-09-07 05:24 PM by Vampirelord Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=825677 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Vampirelord Date : 04-09-07 05:24 PM Thread Title : Weapon Limitations First off, let me tell you that I'm not complaining, nor am I looking for new rules. I just wanna understand the logic of Wizards or Priests (for example) not being able to use certain weapons and armor. Once again, I know there are rules that changes this (Player's option), but can someone give me an answer to what the essential idea of this was? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-10-07 02:59 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations First off, let me tell you that I'm not complaining, nor am I looking for new rules. I just wanna understand the logic of Wizards or Priests (for example) not being able to use certain weapons and armor. Once again, I know there are rules that changes this (Player's option), but can someone give me an answer to what the essential idea of this was? For Clerics, the idea was that they use only blunt weapons as a religious precept (see for example the explanation given in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleric_(character_class) ) For Wizards, this was either given as an in-game restriction (e.g., wizards are forced to use only daggers by their guild, IIRC this was found in Dragonlance), or simply due to lack of martial training. For Thieves, the core idea was that the thief would usually try to keep one hand free to perform tricks, and would rely on weapons that can be used to backstab. For armor, you cannot cast wizardly spells in armor -- even bards, who can use armor, cannot cast spells while wearing it. Thieves don't use heavy armor because it interferes with their thieving skills. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : havard Date : 04-10-07 04:38 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations For Clerics, the idea was that they use only blunt weapons as a religious precept (see for example the explanation given in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleric_(character_class) ) For Wizards, this was either given as an in-game restriction (e.g., wizards are forced to use only daggers by their guild, IIRC this was found in Dragonlance), or simply due to lack of martial training. For Thieves, the core idea was that the thief would usually try to keep one hand free to perform tricks, and would rely on weapons that can be used to backstab. For armor, you cannot cast wizardly spells in armor -- even bards, who can use armor, cannot cast spells while wearing it. Thieves don't use heavy armor because it interferes with their thieving skills. The Cleric class has long since developed beyond where the blunt weapon precept made sense. I prefer making this the default weapons that Clerics are trained with, but allow for differences between orders. In general I like the lack of martial training explaination the best (both for weapons, armor and shields), though I'd allow spending weapon proficiencies, non weapon profs, general skills etc to fill those gaps in your martial training. The only benefit of the current system is that everyone doesn't end up using swords, which gets a little boring... ;) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Vampirelord Date : 04-10-07 06:13 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Thanks, my vision is a little bit clearer now In general I like the lack of martial training explaination the best (both for weapons, armor and shields), though I'd allow spending weapon proficiencies, non weapon profs, general skills etc to fill those gaps in your martial training.Havard So you mean you would allow wizards, in full plate and katanas?:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : havard Date : 04-10-07 06:51 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations So you mean you would allow wizards, in full plate and katanas?:D Theoretically yes ;) But they still wouldn't be able to cast spells very efficiently wearing full plate :) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-10-07 07:34 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations But they still wouldn't be able to cast spells very efficiently wearing full plate :) Though this is truly a limitation of the rule set (3e) -- e.g., in OD&D, elves cast very efficiently while wearing full plate. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : havard Date : 04-10-07 09:17 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Though this is truly a limitation of the rule set (3e) -- e.g., in OD&D, elves cast very efficiently while wearing full plate. For OD&D, I rule that: Elves can cast spells in chainmail or lighter armor. Human magic users can only cast spells unarmored. Magic also requires the caster to have both hands free, so no Shields are ever allowed. So even if they can tweak the rules a little, I still have my limitations ;) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : emeriliath Date : 04-10-07 11:17 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations First off, let me tell you that I'm not complaining, nor am I looking for new rules. I just wanna understand the logic of Wizards or Priests (for example) not being able to use certain weapons and armor. Once again, I know there are rules that changes this (Player's option), but can someone give me an answer to what the essential idea of this was? The essential, original idea, was to make each class different from the others. Magic-users should rely on their powerful spells. To offset this, they would be weaker in standard combat. A Thief cannot move very quietly in metal armor, but leather is a step up from the magic-user. Weapons are also improved over, the m-u, and skills are granted to balance the class out. The cleric has spells, but was not a major offensive force (spells), so they allowed all armors, but had to limit weapons to differentiate them from fighters. How many wizards in movies have been in plate mail? How many thieves in movies have used polearms? Even though clerics cannot use all weapons, most weapons are in the 1-6 or 1-8 damage range. So it was a matter of flavor, than actually weakening the class. I sometimes get tired of everyone using a long sword. It's nice to see a variety of weapons, or armor, used by the group. It also can be important to survival, as some creatures take less damage from edged weapons (i.e. skeletons). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Vampirelord Date : 04-10-07 11:34 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations The essential, original idea, was to make each class different from the others. Magic-users should rely on their powerful spells. To offset this, they would be weaker in standard combat. A Thief cannot move very quietly in metal armor, but leather is a step up from the magic-user. Weapons are also improved over, the m-u, and skills are granted to balance the class out. The cleric has spells, but was not a major offensive force (spells), so they allowed all armors, but had to limit weapons to differentiate them from fighters. How many wizards in movies have been in plate mail? How many thieves in movies have used polearms? Even though clerics cannot use all weapons, most weapons are in the 1-6 or 1-8 damage range. So it was a matter of flavor, than actually weakening the class. I sometimes get tired of everyone using a long sword. It's nice to see a variety of weapons, or armor, used by the group. It also can be important to survival, as some creatures take less damage from edged weapons (i.e. skeletons). Yes, I see. And this is one of the reasons I don't like 3rd edition, it makes all classes able to use all weapons, armor and feats (if i got that right). It seems to make different classes a little bit useless. So let me reformulate the question, what was the essential idea of doing that in 3rd edition? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : havard Date : 04-10-07 11:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations So let me reformulate the question, what was the essential idea of doing that in 3rd edition? While some people like the classes each to be uniquely different from the others, other players feel that they are too restrictive and cannot model more complex characters. Archtypes aside, it is obviously possible to imagine a lot more character concepts than what the classes allow for. Especially if you have played for a while and are getting a little tired of those stereotypes. This lead some people to leave D&D for other games. Notice how classes arent very popular at all outside the D&D scene? The archtypes represented by classes were slowly broken down by adding of more classes, Kits, skills, and finally the Player's Options books. 3E takes the whole thing one step further as it becomes part of the core rules rather than add ons. Ofcourse, one doesn't really need a new edition to allow a mage to pick up a sword, as the houserules I presented above illustrate. It is just a question of mindset ;) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-10-07 06:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Yes, I see. And this is one of the reasons I don't like 3rd edition, it makes all classes able to use all weapons, armor and feats (if i got that right). It seems to make different classes a little bit useless. So let me reformulate the question, what was the essential idea of doing that in 3rd edition? To make a long story short, 3e simply gives people who think they should be able to do unusual things what they want -- obviously, at a price. E.g., in order to use some additional armor and weapons, the wizard may have to give up other (possibly more important) stuff like the ability to create magic items. So, the sword-wielding and plate armored wizard will be quite likely a very weak melee fighter (due to low HP and chanches of hitting) as well as a weak spellcaster (since his spell will most likely fail, or will be less powerful than those cast by a non-armored wizard). All in all, from a power-playing point of view these problems are not likely to be offset by the minimal advantage of using swords or having heavy armor (when you most likely have spells that can replace it), especially at higher levels. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-10-07 06:14 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations This lead some people to leave D&D for other games. Notice how classes arent very popular at all outside the D&D scene? The fact that the D&D (or d20) scene is about 90% of the RPG scene does help as well -- smaller-scale products go for fringe markets. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Vampirelord Date : 04-10-07 06:23 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations E.g., in order to use some additional armor and weapons, the wizard may have to give up other (possibly more important) stuff like the ability to create magic items. You can't make magical items in 3rd edition?:eek: Or am I taking that too literal?:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : havard Date : 04-11-07 02:59 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations You can't make magical items in 3rd edition?:eek: Or am I taking that too literal?:D Yes you can. But spellcasters gain the ability to create magical items through selecting feats which they can instead choose to spend on gaining the ability to wield a sword, wear armor etc. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : oralpain Date : 04-11-07 11:28 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations As others have mentioned, the idea of making more or less clear-cut fantasy archtypes, that stand out from each other, is the the real reason behind the limitations. There is some logic to back these restrictions up, but it certainly takes a back seat to flavor and balance. And there is nothing wrong with this. To an extent, it's what makes the game. Personally, I feel balance and flavor are better served by logic rather than the otherway around. I have few hard limitations preventing weapons from being used, or armor from being worn. In my games, most spells can be cast just fine while wearing armor. I just use my best judgement on a case by case basis. For example, if a spell requires only verbal components, there is no reason that wearing full plate and gauntlets would interfere with it's casting (as the metal itself is not a hindrance in my games; it would be too much work to invent a system for such stuff). With other spells, removing gauntlets may very well be enough to allow successful casting. However, platemail wearing single-classed wizards are unheard of in my games. Wearing armor, especially heavier armor, is not like wearing clothing. It's a talent and a skill, and not as all passive as it may seem. A warrior has trained with armor. He or she knows how to put it on correctly (not a simple task with armor that have amny layers, straps, buckels, pins, and other fastenings) and quickly. He or she knows where the weak and strong points of the armor are and how to move to conceal the former. He or she has drilled in armor time and time again, strengthening the muscles needed to bear it for long periods, and becoming aclimated to the increased heat and tendency to become fatiuged. A warrior also knows how to care for and store armor, as well as how to perform minor repairs. Basically a warrior in plate mail suffers little loss of mobility (running, jumping, cartwheels and swimming short distances have all been done in accurate replicas of historical plate), and only small increase in the rate of fatigue when wearing such armor, and they can do it day in and day out, if pressed. A wizard, on the other hand, will take several times as long to get in and out of the armor, will be slowed down considerably more, will become exausted considerably faster, will recieve a bit less protection, and will have the armor fall apart in short order. These things, combined with the typically inferior physical ability scores and combat values will probably result in such a wizard being pulled ot the ground and slain by a dirk through an eyeslit the first time he/she engages in melee. Now, I will let training and expended proficencies make up for this, but it will take a very long time, if magical studies are not to be seriously affected, and by the this time, the character's magic (and hopefully competence) will be far superior to any skin of steel. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-11-07 04:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Yes you can. But spellcasters gain the ability to create magical items through selecting feats which they can instead choose to spend on gaining the ability to wield a sword, wear armor etc. Actually, you can't even redirect all the selections to armor/weapon, so to have an plate armored and sword wielding wizard, even a human one, you'd have to wait a very high level. An alternative route is multiclassing, which sacrifices the ability to cast high level spells (and then, theoretically, it's not different from multiclasses or dual-classes of AD&D, because your abilities derive from having another class). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : havard Date : 04-11-07 05:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Actually, you can't even redirect all the selections to armor/weapon, so to have an plate armored and sword wielding wizard, even a human one, you'd have to wait a very high level. An alternative route is multiclassing, which sacrifices the ability to cast high level spells (and then, theoretically, it's not different from multiclasses or dual-classes of AD&D, because your abilities derive from having another class). I agree, multiclassing would be a much better option if you wanted to go all the way. Main difference is dual classing in AD&D is seriously broken :P Havar -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Vampirelord Date : 04-11-07 05:33 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Well, yes, dual-classing is awesome, but IIRC you need at least 15 in your prime ability scores of your current class, and 17 on the ones you'r changing to, correct? Would you allow a wizard with lets say, 12 STR, 14 INT, he has researched a spell that increases his STR to 17 and INT to 15 for a period of time, to dual-class into Fighter?:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-12-07 04:08 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Main difference is dual classing in AD&D is seriously broken :P Why? AD&D multi- and dual- classed are generally stronger than 3e multiclasses, but they aren't per se broken -- well, except maybe for the excessively high requirements. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-12-07 04:08 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Well, yes, dual-classing is awesome, but IIRC you need at least 15 in your prime ability scores of your current class, and 17 on the ones you'r changing to, correct? Would you allow a wizard with lets say, 12 STR, 14 INT, he has researched a spell that increases his STR to 17 and INT to 15 for a period of time, to dual-class into Fighter?:D I'd rather lower the requirements for dual classing. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : havard Date : 04-12-07 08:51 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Why? AD&D multi- and dual- classed are generally stronger than 3e multiclasses, but they aren't per se broken -- well, except maybe for the excessively high requirements. I have no problems with multiclassing in 2E, but I dont like dual classing. Just the whole thing about not being able to use the abilities of your old class untill you have reached the same level in the new one is silly. If I were to run a 2e campaign, Id allow all races to multiclass and probably allow most combos too. Level limits are also out IMC. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : emeriliath Date : 04-12-07 10:14 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations I think one of the reasons they made the rule (about limiting previous abilities until a higher level), was to possibly keep play balance. The authors of that rule may have thought the dual-class character would be adventuring with a new first-level group. Allowing the character to retain double-digit levels from another class would completely unbalance the game. On the other hand, remaining with previous group, you would gain so much experience that you might drastically jump in levels after one adventure. That wouldn't necessarily be fair to someone else in the party who had the same class; they've worked long and hard to get that far, and this character did it in a single adventure. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : RobertFisher Date : 04-12-07 02:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations I just wanna understand the logic of Wizards or Priests (for example) not being able to use certain weapons and armor. Whatever the rationalization, I believe these limits were mainly intended to ensure that the magic swords went to the fighters, the magic wands went to the MUs, & the magic armor went to the clerics & fighters...& so forth. I think one of the reasons they made the rule (about limiting previous abilities until a higher level), was to possibly keep play balance. Despite what he published, I suspect--based on a couple of things he's said online--that Gary was more liberal about letting the dual-class character use the abilities of both classes from the moment of the switch. If there ever actually was a dual-class PC in his campaign. What I plan to do, if dual-classing comes up in a game I'm DMing, is to let the character use the abilities of both classes, but not let anything be cumulative. e.g. A fighter/MU would keep a fighter hp total & a MU hp total. He would only use the higher one in play rather than adding them together or messing with fractional HD. I might not put any prereqs on it & even allow advancing in both classes simultaneously. (The player splits the XP between the classes to taste.) So, it'd be a bit more like 3e multi-classing. Of course, I'm approaching it from a classic D&D rather than an AD&D point-of-view. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : oralpain Date : 04-12-07 09:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Would you allow a wizard with lets say, 12 STR, 14 INT, he has researched a spell that increases his STR to 17 and INT to 15 for a period of time, to dual-class into Fighter?:D This is possibly the most blatant exploitation of the rules and butchering of their spirt that I can think of. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Vampirelord Date : 04-12-07 09:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations This is possibly the most blatant exploitation of the rules and butchering of their spirt that I can think of. Lol, well, technically I am correct. It's just up to the DM if he thinks it's reasonable.:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : havard Date : 04-13-07 04:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Whatever the rationalization, I believe these limits were mainly intended to ensure that the magic swords went to the fighters, the magic wands went to the MUs, & the magic armor went to the clerics & fighters...& so forth. Makes sense. The "problem" arises when the game is written specifically for one style of gaming (exploring dungeons, getting treasure etc), but then the game expands beyond the initial scope. Dungeons almost never feature in my games for instance(!). The sollution is ofcourse, changing the rules. Despite what he published, I suspect--based on a couple of things he's said online--that Gary was more liberal about letting the dual-class character use the abilities of both classes from the moment of the switch. If there ever actually was a dual-class PC in his campaign. What I plan to do, if dual-classing comes up in a game I'm DMing, is to let the character use the abilities of both classes, but not let anything be cumulative. e.g. A fighter/MU would keep a fighter hp total & a MU hp total. He would only use the higher one in play rather than adding them together or messing with fractional HD. I might not put any prereqs on it & even allow advancing in both classes simultaneously. (The player splits the XP between the classes to taste.) So, it'd be a bit more like 3e multi-classing. Sounds like a great way of handling it! Of course, I'm approaching it from a classic D&D rather than an AD&D point-of-view. Probably the reason why I liked it ;) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-13-07 10:38 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations I have no problems with multiclassing in 2E, but I dont like dual classing. Just the whole thing about not being able to use the abilities of your old class untill you have reached the same level in the new one is silly. Actually, the character can use those abilities, he just doesn't get any experience from using those abilities -- which makes some sense, since he can't rely on his old self when he is trying to get a new life. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : emeriliath Date : 04-13-07 10:54 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Would you allow a wizard with lets say, 12 STR, 14 INT, he has researched a spell that increases his STR to 17 and INT to 15 for a period of time, to dual-class into Fighter?:D In my personal campaign, I would not allow this. Learning a new class takes plenty of time training (years). If the stats are not lasting that long continuously, then it wouldn't work. Technically, the character is not smart enough, or strong enough, to accomplish this. Now if the character could accomplish this on an extended period, say with ioun stones, then I would let it fly. On another note, perhaps going dual is with the original character conception. Maybe it flows with the whole campaign's direction. The gods can influence things and make exceptions and/or grant boons. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : havard Date : 04-13-07 10:55 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Actually, the character can use those abilities, he just doesn't get any experience from using those abilities -- which makes some sense, since he can't rely on his old self when he is trying to get a new life. True. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it makes it uneccesarily difficult to dual class. In fact so difficult that no player has ever dual classed in any of our AD&D campaigns ever from 1989! I suppose just ignoring that XP feature would fix the rules for me. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-13-07 03:54 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations True. I suppose just ignoring that XP feature would fix the rules for me. Dual classing is indeed a bit too difficult -- and indeed I never had a dual class in my campaigns (I didn't have many humans to begin with, actually); I used a dual classed Thief/Illusionist in the Baldur's Gate CRPG, though. You could simply replace the XP feature with a straight XP penalty (say, double XP until the original level is reached). GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : RobertFisher Date : 04-18-07 10:07 AM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Sounds like a great way of handling it! Thanks! I understand the reasoning behind it, but it makes it uneccesarily difficult to dual class. In fact so difficult that no player has ever dual classed in any of our AD&D campaigns ever from 1989! Ah! But I think you've touched on the real reasoning behind it. Have the rule there to try to silence those who complained about the class system being too restrictive while ensuring that the rule would almost never actually be used! It also has the nice effect that any DM who wants to make dual classing easier tends to be seen as "nice" for easing the rules instead of making DMs who would want to tighten up a more liberal system seem "mean". The DM can also provide one-time waivers to make dual classing easier in specific cases rather than a blanket easing of the restrictions. Explain it as the effect of a particularly masterful teacher or a boon from the gods or the effect of a powerful artifact/relic or somesuch. For player's there's always wishes. While it might take many, many wishes to raise your PC's ability scores to the required levels, I think fewer might be sufficient to simply bypass the requirements. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : emeriliath Date : 04-18-07 12:54 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations For player's there's always wishes. While it might take many, many wishes to raise your PC's ability scores to the required levels, I think fewer might be sufficient to simply bypass the requirements. Rather than wishing to raise stats, a single wish should be powerful enough to grant the boon to dual-class. Of course, this depends on how powerful/plentiful wishes are in a particular DM's campaign. Now that I'm thinking about it, I would probably even let a single-classed demi-human dual-class with a wish. Why not? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Matthew_ Date : 04-18-07 05:10 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations For Clerics, the idea was that they use only blunt weapons as a religious precept (see for example the explanation given in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleric_(character_class) ) Heh, the Cleric Sub Class has some odd restriction, considering its inspiration (The Military Orders). It may be that Gygax or somebody was influenced by the common misconception that Odo of Bayeux used a Mace at Hastings to avoid 'shedding blood', but this has long since been a dead historical theory. More than likely it was supposed to be a 'balancing' feature with its origins in (O)D&D. It is worth noting that once The Complete Priest's Handbook and Monster Mythology were released there were plenty of options for playing Priest Sub Classes with pretty much all the powers of Clerics and an alternate Weapon set. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : RobertFisher Date : 04-19-07 01:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Weapon Limitations Of course, no discussion of this topic is complete without a mention of class-based damage. If damage is a function of class (i.e. expertise) or class & weapon rather than strictly weapon, then the weapon restrictions become easier to eliminate or relax. In my experience, most mages want their meat-shields to have the best gear they can & thus will not challenge the fighter for ownership of the best magic weapon the party discovers. I & my groups have often been happy to not make long swords the most common magic weapon found in favor of more variety. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:15 AM.