Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6616394" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>You could come up with a justification for why they generally don't use swords, yes. In fact in say 4e wizards pretty much don't use swords. Most of them aren't proficient with a sword and they have better things to do with their actions. However, there is at least no rule against a wizard picking up a sword and whacking someone with it. There's VERY VERY LITTLE justification for that being IMPOSSIBLE and outside the rules. You can keep protesting that it is the same thing, but it utterly plainly is not the same thing. A fighter simply CANNOT cast a fireball, it requires a very large amount of expertise to do that, which is a highly reasonable justification. Everyone in the real world can pick up a sword and swing it, maybe not WELL, but well enough to be significantly deadly with it at a basic level. Its very hard to come up with a credible justification for that being impossible for wizards. Yes, you can make up some rigamarole 'reason', but its strained at best and is going to be something like "they don't like to do it, its against custom" or somesuch. There's always going to be a point where you say screw custom! I want rules that say "when you actually do X, here's what happens" not rules that say "I'm arbitrarily saying X is impossible for rigamarole reason Y." And don't bother with more examples of less strained restrictions, yes, there will be SOME restrictions, which model realistic sorts of narrative reasons for things.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification