|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 7:41PM
#1
|
|
|
The Wizard class should lack weapon proficiencies.
Not even a staff. Just because a Wizard can use staves as implements - just like wands, orbs, books, and so on - doesnt mean Wizards know how to do kung-fu fighting with a staff.
The Wizard has atwill cantrips. THAT. Is the weapon proficiency of Wizards. Magic is the weapon of choice.
Characters who need to pick up Martial powers, should be multiclassing anyway.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 7:47PM
#2
|
|
|
I'm not in favor of limiting options as the default. If I had my way, the weapon you were proficient with (regardless of class) would be chosen by the player when she defined her character concept. I see no reason to deny a whip weilding mage, which could be a very cool concept, just because wizards have at-wills. And, to be honest, I'm hoping the at-wills will be removable for those who want to do so. I want to be able to replace the vancian subsystem, I'm sure some fans will want to remove/replace the at-wills.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 8:15PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
The Wizard class should lack weapon proficiencies.
Not even a staff. Just because a Wizard can use staves as implements - just like wands, orbs, books, and so on - doesnt mean Wizards know how to do kung-fu fighting with a staff.
The Wizard has atwill cantrips. THAT. Is the weapon proficiency of Wizards. Magic is the weapon of choice.
Characters who need to pick up Martial powers, should be multiclassing anyway.
The Wizard in the playtest is only +1 to hit with his quarterstaff and does only 1d8-1 damage; that hardly makes him a powerful warrior. Anyone can pick up and use a staff to whack someone, but with the limited training of a Wizard they really won't hit very often. It makes sense for a
Wizard to have some, albeit very limited, melee combat abilities. However, if ranged spells fired when the Wizard is standing next to a target do not provoke an attack then the Wizard has less need of melee abilities. Still, I am would hate to remove this very trivial melee combat ability from the Wizard, such an ability is certainly not unbalancing.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 11:13PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2003
|
Everyone should be proficient in simple weapons. It doesn't take much trainig to stick the pointy end of a dagger into someone or wack them with a stick.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 11:50PM
#5
|
|
|
It makes sense for a Wizard to have some, albeit very limited, melee combat abilities.
Why? I think it doesnt make sense.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 1:05AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
I have a question. Even if they're proficient in the basic stick, why would a Wizard want to use it? It's not what they do. They do MAGIC!
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 1:28AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 14, 2008
|
Everyone should be proficient in simple weapons. It doesn't take much trainig to stick the pointy end of a dagger into someone or wack them with a stick.
What does proficiency actually reflect if everyone has it? A fighter would be proficient with simple weapons, a bookworm wouldn't. I'd guess that most people on this message board (including me) are not proficient with any sort of weapon-based martial art.
Let simple weapon proficiency come from some backgrounds or themes, it doesn't have to be part of the Wizard.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 1:40AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
Everyone should be proficient in simple weapons. It doesn't take much trainig to stick the pointy end of a dagger into someone or wack them with a stick.
It does if that someone is properly trained.
I'll give you a stick and I'll stay unarmed. Unless you have had training I will have that stick in my possession and you on the ground in less than 6 seconds and there won't be a thing you can do about it.
It took me quite a while to get to this point but that is the difference between trained and untrained.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 1:49AM
#9
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
Who's to say that a Wizard didn't learn how to use a staff from one of the many books that he's read? I know people who have done self taught martial arts from the many books that you can buy.
During his off time from studying he could have been practicing some basics.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 1:54AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
Who's to say that a Wizard didn't learn how to use a staff from one of the many books that he's read? I know people who have done self taught martial arts from the many books that you can buy.
During his off time from studying he could have been practicing some basics.
With who? Other wizards?
I can see a background granting it but no real need for it in the class at present with magical attacks for both ranged and melee.
Maybe if you wanted to give up an at will for a weapon proficiency I could see that making some sort of sense.
A wizard doesn't have to use the staff as a weapon to cary one.
Most wizards in fantasy only use staves as a focus and rarely as a thumping device.
Not saying you can't, just saying I don't think there should be a sense of entitlement to a weapon when you have magic that is at will.
I'd rather this than to see the wizard return to a place where that proficiency is necessary.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
