Greetings!

I tend to think that Mages and weapon usage comes down to a training issue. Mages are not Warriors, and never benefit from a host of special Warrior abilities, skills, and powers. Thus, let Mages use whatever melee or ranged weapon that they like, if they can gain the basic training in the style of weapon.

Allowing a Mage to thus carry around a shortbow, or a crossbow, to use alongside a Mage's more traditional weapons of a dagger, quarterstaff, and darts, really is not going to break the game. In a similar manner, let the Mage carry a shortsword, or a longsword, scimitar, Saex, bearded axe, hand axe, club, or light mace. Whatever kind of basic melee weapon, as appropriate to their culture and training. Again, a Mage using such a weapon in combat as needed whenever they cannot cast their spells, really is not a big deal. Embracing this also deals effecively with any angst about realism and making sense using a frigging hand axe as an emergency or what have you.

Mages are not any good with using such weapons anyways--as the aforementioned comparison with Warriors. Thus, again, it won't break the game. Likewise, it adds realism, and also provides the Mage character with a bit more utility and effectiveness beyond just standing there helplessly whenever they run out of spells for the day, or have a spell failure.

If a DM is desperate to avoid any kind of perception conflict, stepping on class toes, whatever, just reskin the ability. Instead of using whatever ordinary, normal weapon as the Mage character may have gained training in--if that is too much of a stretch for the campaign's comfort zone, make it a special Mage Ability to "Summon Weapon"--and innate special ability that Mages learn as Apprentices that allow them to summon forth a magically-created, magically-empowered weapon, which has a temporary spell duration. Five minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, at will, whatever seems most appropriate. There you go. They get to do 1D4, 1D6, or 1D8 normal damage per attack. Again, melee or ranged, as appropriate. It really is that simple.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on March 04, 2024, 04:15:32 PM
Greetings!

I tend to think that Mages and weapon usage comes down to a training issue. Mages are not Warriors, and never benefit from a host of special Warrior abilities, skills, and powers. Thus, let Mages use whatever melee or ranged weapon that they like, if they can gain the basic training in the style of weapon.

Allowing a Mage to thus carry around a shortbow, or a crossbow, to use alongside a Mage's more traditional weapons of a dagger, quarterstaff, and darts, really is not going to break the game. In a similar manner, let the Mage carry a shortsword, or a longsword, scimitar, Saex, bearded axe, hand axe, club, or light mace. Whatever kind of basic melee weapon, as appropriate to their culture and training. Again, a Mage using such a weapon in combat as needed whenever they cannot cast their spells, really is not a big deal. Embracing this also deals effecively with any angst about realism and making sense using a frigging hand axe as an emergency or what have you.

Mages are not any good with using such weapons anyways--as the aforementioned comparison with Warriors. Thus, again, it won't break the game. Likewise, it adds realism, and also provides the Mage character with a bit more utility and effectiveness beyond just standing there helplessly whenever they run out of spells for the day, or have a spell failure.

If a DM is desperate to avoid any kind of perception conflict, stepping on class toes, whatever, just reskin the ability. Instead of using whatever ordinary, normal weapon as the Mage character may have gained training in--if that is too much of a stretch for the campaign's comfort zone, make it a special Mage Ability to "Summon Weapon"--and innate special ability that Mages learn as Apprentices that allow them to summon forth a magically-created, magically-empowered weapon, which has a temporary spell duration. Five minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, at will, whatever seems most appropriate. There you go. They get to do 1D4, 1D6, or 1D8 normal damage per attack. Again, melee or ranged, as appropriate. It really is that simple.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I agree. But I would also add one possible variant I've been using:

I prefer tying damage output to class but let any class use any weapon.
So instead of limiting mages to only use daggers (and staffs depending  in edition)  in melee they may use any one-handed weapon, but still roll 1d4 for damage. 1d6 for two-handed (like when useing a staff). Apply same principle with both melee&ranged weapons to the others classes as well.

I let any character use any weapon, but large amounts of iron in near contact with your skin inhibits casting spells.  It doesn't prevent it, but it does make it slightly more difficult.  Then I'm fairly generous on where the limits are.  Iron arrow heads or spear points?  No problem.  Big end of a battle axe?  Problem.  Short sword with an ivory hilt in a leather scabbard?  OK!  Great sword slung on your back?  Too much.  Arming sword with a bronze blade (and about the longest you can go with bronze even magically enhanced), also no problem.  Brigandine and scale tunics made of bronze that weigh even more?  If you have the "strength" to haul it around, knock yourself out. 

All of that is with my casters being a bit more useful with weapons than D&D wizards, too.  It's designed so that a high-level enchanter or sorcerer is a better weapon user than most extremely low-level creatures, but spells gradually outstrip their weapon use, as they finally get some spells that can punch.  Meanwhile, warriors are quickly picking up bonus damage with all their weapons, along with a better base chance to hit and more options to improve their general weapon use.  This gives the casters a chance to use pretty much any flavor of weapon they want, while leaving some of the heaviest hitters out of their league.  Since they don't have nearly as many weapon special abilities, they can't maximize their weapon use either.  Then there is one caster class that combines magic and weapons at the expense of adventuring skills, so you can have "cleric" or "paladin" or "blade singers" or other such caster/melee concepts, if you are willing to pay for it. Meanwhile, elves go the other way, naturally better at magic but even more adverse to iron than everyone else.  You'll rarely see an elf with any kind of axe in my game.

The original abstraction in D&D that limits the wizards so hard on weapons is in the service of specific details with underlying reasons.  I've just shifted the reasons and the abstractions around to allow a little more customization, while "strongly encouraging" wizard-types to stick to simple weapons and little armor.

Quote from: Teodrik on March 04, 2024, 04:32:51 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 04, 2024, 04:15:32 PM
Greetings!

I tend to think that Mages and weapon usage comes down to a training issue. Mages are not Warriors, and never benefit from a host of special Warrior abilities, skills, and powers. Thus, let Mages use whatever melee or ranged weapon that they like, if they can gain the basic training in the style of weapon.

Allowing a Mage to thus carry around a shortbow, or a crossbow, to use alongside a Mage's more traditional weapons of a dagger, quarterstaff, and darts, really is not going to break the game. In a similar manner, let the Mage carry a shortsword, or a longsword, scimitar, Saex, bearded axe, hand axe, club, or light mace. Whatever kind of basic melee weapon, as appropriate to their culture and training. Again, a Mage using such a weapon in combat as needed whenever they cannot cast their spells, really is not a big deal. Embracing this also deals effecively with any angst about realism and making sense using a frigging hand axe as an emergency or what have you.

Mages are not any good with using such weapons anyways--as the aforementioned comparison with Warriors. Thus, again, it won't break the game. Likewise, it adds realism, and also provides the Mage character with a bit more utility and effectiveness beyond just standing there helplessly whenever they run out of spells for the day, or have a spell failure.

If a DM is desperate to avoid any kind of perception conflict, stepping on class toes, whatever, just reskin the ability. Instead of using whatever ordinary, normal weapon as the Mage character may have gained training in--if that is too much of a stretch for the campaign's comfort zone, make it a special Mage Ability to "Summon Weapon"--and innate special ability that Mages learn as Apprentices that allow them to summon forth a magically-created, magically-empowered weapon, which has a temporary spell duration. Five minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, at will, whatever seems most appropriate. There you go. They get to do 1D4, 1D6, or 1D8 normal damage per attack. Again, melee or ranged, as appropriate. It really is that simple.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I agree. But I would also add one possible variant I've been using:

Tie damage output to class but let any class use any weapon.
So instead of limiting mages to only use daggers (and staffs depending  in edition)  in melee they may use any one-handed weapon but still roll 1d4 for damage. 1d6 for two-handed (like when useing a staff). Apply same principle with both melee&ranged weapons to the others classes as well.

Greetings!

Nice, Teodrik!

Yeah, in my experience, being more flexible and open-minded with the classes and weapon usage--like in the example "problem" here of Mages--embracing that, biting that bullet so to speak, merely adds realism, provides the Mage characters with less of a "Stupid Factor"--and allows the game to move on smoothly, all the while, nothing game-breaking ever happens. In my campaigns, Mage characters know full well that they suck in hand-to-hand combat, or ranged combat, compared to Warriors, Hunters, Rogues, and what have you. However, they can at least contribute in desperate fights when their spells are not up, and not look at you with that frustrated look that combines "I'm so fucked!" with "Why the fuck did I roll a stupid Mage character again?".

It reminds me of an old tidbit--my Mage character can use a hand-axe to chop firewood for the camp, or he can use a shovel to help dig a latrine pit--but he can't use either weapon or tool to fight off the hungry wolves in the camp, or the Goblin scouts that attack the camp at dawn?

I don't like what I call "Stupid Factors" like that, things that rub my brain the wrong way with a lack of realism like some kind of fucking sandpaper. So, I changed it ages ago, and have never worried about it. Players don't mind, there is no character upstaging or toe-stepping, the genre is preserved--and the Players as well as myself, don't have to wrestle with that nagging feeling of being stupid.

And, as you may know, I'm an OSR guy. I like the traditions, the old ways, the old styles and old approaches. However, some things are just stupid, and need to be changed. Some new ideas and changes to the game and the hobby through the years have in fact been positive, and very welcome. Questioning and reviewing some Class restrictions, weapon usage, and embracing more flexibility is certainly one of those positive improvements.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK