Access to ranged weapon skills by discipline...
Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:34 am
and an argument for why they should be different, in some cases =P
So I've been looking at some characters I'd like to create and I've been noticing that some things that don't fit with my personal expectations of which talents a discipline would have access to. I'm curious to hear what others think on the subject (and possibly even what led to the design decisions being made the way they were, if the dev team feel like chipping in their two cents). Obviously, I'm not expecting any changes in the rulebooks. Even if my points are super-convincing, I don't expect them to be convincing enough to justify rewriting anything, I'm just looking for alternate perspectives on the matter.
To start things off, the magician disciplines having access to neither missile nor throwing weapons as a talent is fine. They aren't adepts in weapon use, and if it comes down to it, they can still learn the skills for that, and that's perfectly fine. As such, I won't be covering Elementalists, Illusionists, Nethermancers, Shamans, or Wizards individually.
Now then, some of my observations on the differences in the two talents:
Missile Weapons: These have the best range, and damage, and are the most powerful as weapons as a result. Typically, they require both hands (a sling less so than a bow, but if you're holding something in your off hand you'll still have a hard time loading a sling), meaning that if you're using one, you're probably *only* using one to the exclusion of many other activities. The best weapons are much more readily used repeatedly due to ammunition cost being low (the expensive weapons are launchers, not ammo) On the down side, they do tend to be rather single-purpose though. One final thing: the crossbow can be used from positions where all other ranged weapons would be difficult at best to use (try throwing a ball accurately while on your belly, for example) although I don't believe that is reflected by any special interaction with the rules for people that are knocked down or anything like that.
Throwing Weapons: These have lower range and damage, but can often be used in a single hand (allowing the use of a shield or second weapon, or even to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand while drawing and throwing something). They do also enjoy greater versatility in use; a bola can entangle people, for example. They are also expensive in bulk to use the best weapons; a hawk hatchet may be remarkably effective, but it is going to be non-trivial to throw a dozen of those in every fight...
Air Sailors: They have throwing weapons, I would argue that they should have missile weapons. Airship battles are going to start at range, and then probably switch primarily to melee weapons. The longer range of missile weapons seems like it should come into play more often than the usefulness of throwing weapons in a brawl. The times you will want to use a ranged weapon, you probably aren't going to be needing your other hand to be holding a sword or a shield. The Air Sailor is all about working together, and weapons like nets and bolas are better for that, but I feel these are outweighed by the range and damage advantage for them. Plus, if you lob an expensive thrown weapon from airship to airship, there's a good chance you're not getting it back.
Archers: They have access to both. I would argue that there are probably some Archers that would prefer to focus on throwing weapons rather than missile (meaning they would want the discipline talent and the optional talent to be switched), but even if a GM doesn't want to make the exchange it is not by any means impossible to be a throwing weapon specialist as an archer.
Beastmaster: They have neither. This probably has more to do with their overall lack of *any* weapon skills, though, focusing purely on unarmed instead. I will come back to this later though =P
Cavalryman: They eventually get access to missile weapons, I think they should get throwing weapons. I don't have any extremely compelling points here; I think either could have worked, mainly because their bond with their steed should mean they don't need their hands to direct movement. I do think many Cavalrymen would use shields though, which thrown weapons would support much better, and the Cavalryman mostly revolves around their power in melee so it would feel odd to me for them to use a weapon that makes it hard to switch between melee and range. On the other hand, the logistics between stowing a lance or sword while riding along to pull out a javelin while your other hand is holding a shield in between charges doesn't make the most sense to me either, so... it could go either way. Still, I do give a slight edge to throwing weapons here.
Scout: They get access to missile weapons. I'd say most will think of bows, although for a stealthy class I would argue the crossbow has definite advantages; either way, both of those are missile weapons, which is what they get.
Sky Raider: They get access to throwing weapons. This works fine, I'd say if anything they're thematically two-handed weapon users, and switching their poleaxe or whatever to one hand to throw a smaller axe makes sense. They even technically have an ability to support throwing weapons over missile weapons, though I will say that I'm not sure which two-handed throwing weapons their 5th circle ability is supposed to be used with, but that's neither here nor there
Swordmaster: They get no access to either. I'm going to say this is probably a deliberate choice to focus purely on melee weapons.
Thief: They get access to both. That's probably fine, there are arguments either way; an entangled enemy is subject to surprise strike, but crossbows can be used while crammed into all sorts of hiding places, so long as it is already loaded.
Troubadour: They get access to throwing weapons. I'm not sure what tipped the balance in that direction, but I don't see any reason why they would specifically have missile weapons either, so that's fine, I guess.
Warrior: They get access to missile weapons. Here I have to disagree; I would consider warriors to be among the more defensively-oriented melee disciplines, which means a shield, but even if they use other standard melee options (two weapons, two-handed weapon) it still favours throwing weapons. They aren't dedicated to ranged combat like an archer, so even though the missile weapons are the more powerful weapons, I don't see that as being a compelling argument; in a ranged fight, the Warrior is going to try to close range rather than attempt to engage an opponent in an archery duel. Obviously they would want *some* method of returning fire until they do get into range, but that option being missile weapons feels out of place to me simply because it requires that they set aside their preferred equipment to do so; a Warrior who switches his halberd to his off-hand and throws a javelin while closing fits in a way that a Warrior firing arrows at someone while closing range does not, to me.
Weaponsmith: They eventually get access to missile weapons. That makes sense to me. Throwing weapons would involve a lot of forging to be up to their standards (meanwhile you only need to "forge" a single missile weapon), and the missile weapons are the more effective weapons. I could see some Weaponsmiths preferring shields, but seeing as how this isn't really a major part of their discipline to begin with, I'd say it's fine.
And I said I'd come back to Beastmaster, so here we are... not for the Beastmaster itself, but for the "homebrew" Master of the Hunt discipline which is mentioned as having come from more splitting off a concept from the Beastmaster on a site owned by what I'm pretty sure is one of the dev team (I'm not sure of real name, but I'm assuming it's Panda on these forums). I'm guessing it's not headed for print any time soon (lower on the priority list than Boatsman, evidently, which I would've guessed was not high ) but it has access to missile weapons but not throwing. To me, that feels backwards, because throwing weapons are better for setting up your allies, and for that matter they also eventually get access to surprise strike which throwing weapons does a better job of setting up too.
So, those are my thoughts. What about the rest of you? (I'm not expecting an essay back addressing each of those points, but feel free to if you want to).
And, for that matter... are there any other design decisions that seem odd to the rest of you? I haven't dived too deeply into it yet myself, but it seems possible there would be other things that seem strange
So I've been looking at some characters I'd like to create and I've been noticing that some things that don't fit with my personal expectations of which talents a discipline would have access to. I'm curious to hear what others think on the subject (and possibly even what led to the design decisions being made the way they were, if the dev team feel like chipping in their two cents). Obviously, I'm not expecting any changes in the rulebooks. Even if my points are super-convincing, I don't expect them to be convincing enough to justify rewriting anything, I'm just looking for alternate perspectives on the matter.
To start things off, the magician disciplines having access to neither missile nor throwing weapons as a talent is fine. They aren't adepts in weapon use, and if it comes down to it, they can still learn the skills for that, and that's perfectly fine. As such, I won't be covering Elementalists, Illusionists, Nethermancers, Shamans, or Wizards individually.
Now then, some of my observations on the differences in the two talents:
Missile Weapons: These have the best range, and damage, and are the most powerful as weapons as a result. Typically, they require both hands (a sling less so than a bow, but if you're holding something in your off hand you'll still have a hard time loading a sling), meaning that if you're using one, you're probably *only* using one to the exclusion of many other activities. The best weapons are much more readily used repeatedly due to ammunition cost being low (the expensive weapons are launchers, not ammo) On the down side, they do tend to be rather single-purpose though. One final thing: the crossbow can be used from positions where all other ranged weapons would be difficult at best to use (try throwing a ball accurately while on your belly, for example) although I don't believe that is reflected by any special interaction with the rules for people that are knocked down or anything like that.
Throwing Weapons: These have lower range and damage, but can often be used in a single hand (allowing the use of a shield or second weapon, or even to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand while drawing and throwing something). They do also enjoy greater versatility in use; a bola can entangle people, for example. They are also expensive in bulk to use the best weapons; a hawk hatchet may be remarkably effective, but it is going to be non-trivial to throw a dozen of those in every fight...
Air Sailors: They have throwing weapons, I would argue that they should have missile weapons. Airship battles are going to start at range, and then probably switch primarily to melee weapons. The longer range of missile weapons seems like it should come into play more often than the usefulness of throwing weapons in a brawl. The times you will want to use a ranged weapon, you probably aren't going to be needing your other hand to be holding a sword or a shield. The Air Sailor is all about working together, and weapons like nets and bolas are better for that, but I feel these are outweighed by the range and damage advantage for them. Plus, if you lob an expensive thrown weapon from airship to airship, there's a good chance you're not getting it back.
Archers: They have access to both. I would argue that there are probably some Archers that would prefer to focus on throwing weapons rather than missile (meaning they would want the discipline talent and the optional talent to be switched), but even if a GM doesn't want to make the exchange it is not by any means impossible to be a throwing weapon specialist as an archer.
Beastmaster: They have neither. This probably has more to do with their overall lack of *any* weapon skills, though, focusing purely on unarmed instead. I will come back to this later though =P
Cavalryman: They eventually get access to missile weapons, I think they should get throwing weapons. I don't have any extremely compelling points here; I think either could have worked, mainly because their bond with their steed should mean they don't need their hands to direct movement. I do think many Cavalrymen would use shields though, which thrown weapons would support much better, and the Cavalryman mostly revolves around their power in melee so it would feel odd to me for them to use a weapon that makes it hard to switch between melee and range. On the other hand, the logistics between stowing a lance or sword while riding along to pull out a javelin while your other hand is holding a shield in between charges doesn't make the most sense to me either, so... it could go either way. Still, I do give a slight edge to throwing weapons here.
Scout: They get access to missile weapons. I'd say most will think of bows, although for a stealthy class I would argue the crossbow has definite advantages; either way, both of those are missile weapons, which is what they get.
Sky Raider: They get access to throwing weapons. This works fine, I'd say if anything they're thematically two-handed weapon users, and switching their poleaxe or whatever to one hand to throw a smaller axe makes sense. They even technically have an ability to support throwing weapons over missile weapons, though I will say that I'm not sure which two-handed throwing weapons their 5th circle ability is supposed to be used with, but that's neither here nor there
Swordmaster: They get no access to either. I'm going to say this is probably a deliberate choice to focus purely on melee weapons.
Thief: They get access to both. That's probably fine, there are arguments either way; an entangled enemy is subject to surprise strike, but crossbows can be used while crammed into all sorts of hiding places, so long as it is already loaded.
Troubadour: They get access to throwing weapons. I'm not sure what tipped the balance in that direction, but I don't see any reason why they would specifically have missile weapons either, so that's fine, I guess.
Warrior: They get access to missile weapons. Here I have to disagree; I would consider warriors to be among the more defensively-oriented melee disciplines, which means a shield, but even if they use other standard melee options (two weapons, two-handed weapon) it still favours throwing weapons. They aren't dedicated to ranged combat like an archer, so even though the missile weapons are the more powerful weapons, I don't see that as being a compelling argument; in a ranged fight, the Warrior is going to try to close range rather than attempt to engage an opponent in an archery duel. Obviously they would want *some* method of returning fire until they do get into range, but that option being missile weapons feels out of place to me simply because it requires that they set aside their preferred equipment to do so; a Warrior who switches his halberd to his off-hand and throws a javelin while closing fits in a way that a Warrior firing arrows at someone while closing range does not, to me.
Weaponsmith: They eventually get access to missile weapons. That makes sense to me. Throwing weapons would involve a lot of forging to be up to their standards (meanwhile you only need to "forge" a single missile weapon), and the missile weapons are the more effective weapons. I could see some Weaponsmiths preferring shields, but seeing as how this isn't really a major part of their discipline to begin with, I'd say it's fine.
And I said I'd come back to Beastmaster, so here we are... not for the Beastmaster itself, but for the "homebrew" Master of the Hunt discipline which is mentioned as having come from more splitting off a concept from the Beastmaster on a site owned by what I'm pretty sure is one of the dev team (I'm not sure of real name, but I'm assuming it's Panda on these forums). I'm guessing it's not headed for print any time soon (lower on the priority list than Boatsman, evidently, which I would've guessed was not high ) but it has access to missile weapons but not throwing. To me, that feels backwards, because throwing weapons are better for setting up your allies, and for that matter they also eventually get access to surprise strike which throwing weapons does a better job of setting up too.
So, those are my thoughts. What about the rest of you? (I'm not expecting an essay back addressing each of those points, but feel free to if you want to).
And, for that matter... are there any other design decisions that seem odd to the rest of you? I haven't dived too deeply into it yet myself, but it seems possible there would be other things that seem strange