Would it be unkind to ask for a discussion on allowing martial training to be a general proficiency? Also it would allow wizards to create magic weapons other than a stick, dart, and lead balls....
Only divine casters are limited to what magic weapons and armor they can make. Arcane casters can make any weapons and armor.
[quote="Lucerious"]
Only divine casters are limited to what magic weapons and armor they can make. Arcane casters can make any weapons and armor.
[/quote]
I stand corrected... p117 of the ACS core book, I must have misread it.
I would still like to raise the issue of Martial training for Mages?
Every campaign is a law unto itself, of course, so you are free to do this in your own campaign, but there are several reasons why this is an addendum that doesn't make sense to become part of the ACKs norm:
1) classic D&D sensibilities paint the wizard as extremely unmartial, both in weapons and armor. In contrast, the elf (or now, elven spellsword) makes other tradeoffs to be good at both. allowing armor training erodes the spellsword's niche.
2) a general proficiency is not as powerful as a class tradeoff, which many classes with less than heavy armor made in order to get other abilities. Allowing them to spend general proficiencies on armor training closes the gap between them and more heavily armored classes.
3) speaking of heavily armored classes, anyone already proficient in plate has no use of the proficiency, so extending it to everyone also erodes their niche.
4) The closest analogue to armor training is swashbuckling, which adds +1/+2/+3 armor class for lightly armored classes in exchange for the much more powerful class profiencies. Armor training as a general proficiency is out of step with the power level of most other general proficiencies.
If you're comfortable with these changes, you should absolutely add this to your campaign's set of house rules, although I personally would not make such a change in my own campaign.
I feel it’s also worth mentioning that all this would really do is “wizards can use spears and/or reach weapons or better missile weapons.”
With a d4 hit die and terrible attack throw progression (not to mention basically never having a strength bonus, because they’re so likely to sacrifice that for Int even if they rolled a good Str) and no armor, you’re not going to see mages in melee anyway. To get mages to be passable in melee, you need more changes to be made than just having proficiency in a few weapons.
So my real question is what is it that you want to accomplish by making Martial Training available to mages? Are you looking to make sure they have a usable at-will combat option, or specifically trying to incentivize melee, or what?
[quote="Aryxymaraki"] I feel it's also worth mentioning that all this would really do is "wizards can use spears and/or reach weapons or better missile weapons." [/quote]
from an armor perspective, wearing better armor reduces the chance of the archers unloading on a mage casting a spell. from a weapon perspective: the 3.x era wizard/sorcerer got to use a crossbow which, even with their terrible attack throw progression later on, dramatically improved their combat capability at level 1 when everyone is on roughly the same footing. maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing since 1st level tends to be the most torturous period for a magic user, but there's no question that access to a crossbow is a bigger deal than a spear.
from an armor perspective, wearing better armor reduces the chance of the archers unloading on a mage casting a spell. from a weapon perspective: the 3.x era wizard/sorcerer got to use a crossbow which, even with their terrible attack throw progression later on, dramatically improved their combat capability at level 1 when everyone is on roughly the same footing. maybe that’s not necessarily a bad thing since 1st level tends to be the most torturous period for a magic user, but there’s no question that access to a crossbow is a bigger deal than a spear.
Yeah, giving mages better armor would be big, but that’s not Martial Training 
As far as crossbows, remember that they were much stronger in 3.X than they are in ACKS, in which you can’t fire into melee at all without a proficiency; they also did more damage in 3.X (though that’s true for most weapons, it remains true that in 3.X a crossbow was d8 versus a monster’s d8 HD while in ACKS it’s d6 vs a d8 HD, so a crossbow wielded by a wizard was more likely to one-shot a goblin in 3.X than it is in ACKS).
You’re not wrong, though, access to a crossbow, longbow, or other high-quality missile weapon is a definite improvement over what wizards have baseline.
If the wizard cannot effectively end the encounter with single first level spell, then you need to find a new wizard. However, if the party is a push till we win it all or die type, then the wizard can still use arms and armor as a 0-level character. At 1st level, that only means a base 11+ to hit vs 10+ and prohibits monster experience from being gained.
Martial Training: I don't think Martial Training should be a general proficiency, for the reasons stated herein. It could be more extensively made available as a class proficiency, if desired. The Wizard class in AXIOMS and the Nobiran Wizard in Heroic Companion both get Martial Training as a class power. Gandalf needs to use a sword, yo.
Crossbows: Every campaign I have run, PC mages have maintained a large stash of daggers at low levels, which they have used as their ranged weapon of choice. Daggers are a relatively poor ranged weapon, of course, with limited range and bad damage. But - from personal experience - it is way, way, way, way easier to accurately fire a crossbow than to accurately throw a dagger. The idea that mages are so badly trained that they can't fire crossbows but they still can throw daggers is a definite breach of verisimilitude. So I'm certainly sympathetic to allowing mages to use them. That said, it takes some strength to reload a crossbow, which a lot of mages are short on.
As an aside, that makes me wonder if the ability to throw a weapon should be differentiated from the ability to use a weapon, somehow. That might make the higher-end tiers of weapon use more important. I sometimes also muse that there should be strength requirements for different missile weapons, e.g. a "light-pull bow" does 1d4 but requires STR 9, a "medium-pulll bow" does 1d6 and requires STR 11, a "heavy-pull bow" does 1d8 and requires STR 13, a "a very heavy pull bow" does 1d10 and requires STR 16, and a "heroic-pull bow" does 1d12 and requires STR 18. (Note that this is functionally the equivalent of adding STR damage bonus to missile weapons).
[quote="Alex"]
Martial Training: I don't think Martial Training should be a general proficiency, for the reasons stated herein. It could be more extensively made available as a class proficiency, if desired. The Wizard class in AXIOMS and the Nobiran Wizard in Heroic Companion both get Martial Training as a class power. Gandalf needs to use a sword, yo.
Crossbows: Every campaign I have run, PC mages have maintained a large stash of daggers at low levels, which they have used as their ranged weapon of choice. Daggers are a relatively poor ranged weapon, of course, with limited range and bad damage. But - from personal experience - it is way, way, way, way easier to accurately fire a crossbow than to accurately throw a dagger. The idea that mages are so badly trained that they can't fire crossbows but they still can throw daggers is a definite breach of verisimilitude. So I'm certainly sympathetic to allowing mages to use them. That said, it takes some strength to reload a crossbow, which a lot of mages are short on.
As an aside, that makes me wonder if the ability to throw a weapon should be differentiated from the ability to use a weapon, somehow. That might make the higher-end tiers of weapon use more important. I sometimes also muse that there should be strength requirements for different missile weapons, e.g. a "light-pull bow" does 1d4 but requires STR 9, a "medium-pulll bow" does 1d6 and requires STR 11, a "heavy-pull bow" does 1d8 and requires STR 13, a "a very heavy pull bow" does 1d10 and requires STR 16, and a "heroic-pull bow" does 1d12 and requires STR 18. (Note that this is functionally the equivalent of adding STR damage bonus to missile weapons).
[/quote]
I think 3.x (and to a lesser extent 4e) has a sufficient level of detail if that's something people are interested in. Thrown weapons are either DEX to hit and STR to damage or (in 4e's case) STR for hit and damage. Your standard fare bow does not add STR bonus to damage but does include a STR penalty. You can buy higher pull bows for +100gp per STR mod. Such a bow requires that much STR mod minimum to pull, imposing an accuracy penalty otherwise, and allows up to that much of a STR mod to be added to damage (IE: a fighter with +2 STR mod could buy a Composite 1 bow that allows for up to 1d6+1 damage, or a composite 2 bow for up to 1d6+2)
[quote="Alex"]
As an aside, that makes me wonder if the ability to throw a weapon should be differentiated from the ability to use a weapon, somehow. That might make the higher-end tiers of weapon use more important. I sometimes also muse that there should be strength requirements for different missile weapons, e.g. a "light-pull bow" does 1d4 but requires STR 9, a "medium-pulll bow" does 1d6 and requires STR 11, a "heavy-pull bow" does 1d8 and requires STR 13, a "a very heavy pull bow" does 1d10 and requires STR 16, and a "heroic-pull bow" does 1d12 and requires STR 18. (Note that this is functionally the equivalent of adding STR damage bonus to missile weapons).
[/quote]
I don't really like this only because it hurts range combatants ever more. It already sucks not being able to really increase the damage from bows from non-fighter types but to add requirements that only fighter types would have is even more a spit in the face.
Lets say you want to use a ranged weapon but not be a fighter-type. That leaves Wizard, Cleric, Thief, or Bard for human classes. Every one of those besides a thief will deal normal damage with a ranged attack with a thief able to deal backstab damage if he takes a proficiency for it and only if in 30 feet. The fighter types on the other hand get that and deal and extra +1 per three levels and get more cleaves.
Going by the above anyone without STR 9 couldn’t use a bow and generally needs a 11 to deal damage as normal. While a fighter-type with above average STR, say a 16, does better damage than a normal bow and then still has fighter bonus damage to add on.
|
Non Fighter Class |
Normal |
Str 9 |
Str 11 |
Str 13 |
Str 16 |
Str 18 |
|
All levels |
3.5 |
2.5 |
3.5 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
6.5 |
|
Fighter Types |
Normal |
Str 9 |
Str 11 |
Str 13 |
Str 16 |
Str 18 |
|
Level 1 |
4.5 |
3.5 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
6.5 |
7.5 |
|
Level 3 |
5.5 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
6.5 |
7.5 |
8.5 |
|
Level 6 |
6.5 |
5.5 |
6.5 |
7.5 |
8.5 |
9.5 |
|
Level 9 |
7.5 |
6.5 |
7.5 |
8.5 |
9.5 |
10.5 |
|
Level 12 |
8.5 |
7.5 |
8.5 |
9.5 |
10.5 |
11.5 |
[quote="Alex"]
But - from personal experience - it is way, way, way, way easier to accurately fire a crossbow than to accurately throw a dagger. The idea that mages are so badly trained that they can't fire crossbows but they still can throw daggers is a definite breach of verisimilitude.
[/quote]
Or an arquebus, if one includes Guns of War.
Clerics and mages have spells capable of taking archery from subpar to outright dominant in combat. Thieves with sniping can backstab an opponent from as far as 50' with a short bow and up to 90' with an arbalest. The only class category that needs a boost in archery are fighters.
My thought has been to upgrade crossbows to d8 and arbalests to d10 with -1 initiative.
Keep short bows as is.
Change long bows to d8, but they cannot be used properly in stealth; they are just too big. Either negate the ability to hide in shadows, or apply a hefty penalty to the roll.
Change composite bows to allowing strength to add to damage, but it use is limited to fighter class types.
Side note: Assassins are currently the best archers due to backstab, dexterity as a PR, and access to sniping. The Elven Ranger, a class I've always loved, suffers the most given what melee trade-offs they made. If forced to melee, an explorer can still hold his own in output next to the fighter. The ranger, sadly, cannot and gains nothing in range damage to compensate.
[quote="Alex"]
Martial Training: I don't think Martial Training should be a general proficiency, for the reasons stated herein. It could be more extensively made available as a class proficiency, if desired. The Wizard class in AXIOMS and the Nobiran Wizard in Heroic Companion both get Martial Training as a class power. Gandalf needs to use a sword, yo.
Crossbows: Every campaign I have run, PC mages have maintained a large stash of daggers at low levels, which they have used as their ranged weapon of choice. Daggers are a relatively poor ranged weapon, of course, with limited range and bad damage. But - from personal experience - it is way, way, way, way easier to accurately fire a crossbow than to accurately throw a dagger. The idea that mages are so badly trained that they can't fire crossbows but they still can throw daggers is a definite breach of verisimilitude. So I'm certainly sympathetic to allowing mages to use them. That said, it takes some strength to reload a crossbow, which a lot of mages are short on.
[/quote]
I would add slings to that mix - it takes a lot of training to use a sling accurately. From a purely numbers standpoint, 1d4 daggers and 1d4 slings seem to make sense, but as you said, in "real life," it's a lot easier to point a crossbow and pull the trigger than it is to hurl a rock or knife and do any damage. However, I'd like to point out that many crossbows used a cranequin or windlass (hand-cranked winding mechanism), or a foot-pull and a belt clip that uses the stronger leg muscles, making crossbows much easier to pull than ordinary bows. In either case, the crossbow has to be pointed down, or even turned around, to set it. I could see using an every-other-round requirement for a foot-pulled or hand-wound crossbow used by an untrained mage. In fact, that may work for a default - any class can use a crossbow, but must take a full round to load it, rather than being able to fire it every round, similar to the ballista.
Of courses, if you carry four loaded ones, you can fire every round for the whole combat probably. This leads inevitably to the mages that are covered in crossbows; either heavy ones strapped overtly over the top of thick robes, or elegantly concealed ones that lock together in clever, compact ways.
Either one seems delightful and appropriate for mages.
one of the challenges in trying to model all of this is that it's all quite anachronistic. Crossbows come along much later than bows, and part of their appeal, like firearms later, is that it's much much easier to train someone to use it than a regular bow.
I'm not necessarily opposed to wizards having access to crossbows. considering it's often maligned in popular culture as a "coward's weapon" it makes sense mages should have it. Part of the balance of it is that it's much more expensive than other weapons, but this tends to not matter past level 1 and not at all for mages who don't need expensive armor. In my own games, since crossbows tend to be much stronger than bows until cleaving comes into play, I ruled that they malfunction on a 1, and require a turn to properly repair them to working again.
As for the wizard carrying an arraw of crossbows at the ready, this is a similar fear to early firearms in games: the long reload times results in having several guns ready to be fired once. You could offset this by saying crossbows which do not have a strength requirement (and can therefore be used by classes with lower martial training) weigh 2 stones and take 1 round of reloading, during which time the target can be attacked as though they were running away. This is still a good deal for a mage, and 2 stone should keep them from going crazy with the collection of crossbows.
On one hand, 2 stone as an encumbrance cost for a dangerous loaded weapon seems reasonable, and I"ll probably use that rule. On the other hand, I wasn't doomsaying when I said mages would be going crazy with crossbows; I think it sounds wonderful.
Tying in to Alex's strength-based crossbows, I could see using the various reload mechanisms to compensate for low strength, so a Str 9 character can use a Str 9 crossbow with no reload mechanism, can use a Str 11 crossbow with a goat's-foot lever, can use a Str 13 crossbow with a cranequin, and can use a Str 16 crossbow with a windlass, each of which add cost and reload time to the weapon. Meanwhile, a Str 11 character could knock each reload mechanism up a step, while a Str 6 character would need a lever just to use a normal crossbow.
I kind of love that.
I think strength as an attribute is already highly desired no matter the class due to its general benefits. Requiring a minimum strength to use weapons properly just makes an already top prize attribute into a tax as well; especially for a weapon that is most desired by low strength types.