Why do you punish wizards in your games by not allowing them to benefit from magical swords and other weapons? Gandalf used a magic sword.
Gandalf was also a fighter, not a wizard.
>>44534539
Gandalf was the LOTR setting's equivalent of an angel in the form of a human.
Your average wizard in D&D is frail little Joey Shitshovel the farm boy who happened to have some magical talent so his parents sent him to the city to learn to read.
Also, magic is powerful enough, it doesn't need any buffs.
>>44534574
kek, how is that even possibly true?
>>44534574
Paladin.
Healing.
Demon fighting.
Holy light spells.
>>44534539
Wizards can easily benefit from magic swords and weapons. They just have to run up and try to stab things with them. You know, like Gandalf did.
>>44534902
Gandalf's magic came from a ring of power.
>>44534574
>>44534902
Gandalf was an angel masquerading as a human.
>>44535731
Clerics and Battle Nuns do the same shit.
>>44536187
True, but...
He doesn't preach like a cleric.
He ain't a nun.
>>44536905
>He doesn't preach like a cleric
Nigga he can't go 1/3rd of the story without preaching
>>44537034
literally comes back from the dead to preach
>>44535922
No, it did not. Narya may have amplified the effect of his preaching, but his wizard powers were his own (essentially he was power-limited version of his true self, an immortal angelic entity).
>>44534574
Gandalf is a Shaolin Monk who casually beats up orcs using a sword and a quarter staff. It's especially visible in the last hobbit movie. Actually, I'm not even sure remembering Gandalf throwing any spell.
>>44534539
They can benefit from magical swords, they just have actually try to hit something with it.
The problem I tend to have with players who play casters is they tend to feel entitled to greatness, and lose their shit whenever they don't get their way.
And I'm not going to waste mine and the other players time trying to negotiate with them, so their characters usually vanish off to some library to study something urgent until the player has calmed down.
>>44539675
Gandalf is a paladin, as >>44535731 said, problem was that by the last hobbit movie he'd already fallen into despair and lost his holy powers, so he just started acting like a fighter.
>Player: Can I have this?
>GM: No.
done
>>44534539
I wish I had picture in picture so I could tell what rulebook is even being quoted.
>>44540974
No. He is literally a DMPC. The purpose of which is to move the campaign along, create plot hooks and save PCs who crit failed.
>>44534539
If that's what you want than play a swordsage.
>>44541663
This. He's a walking, talking deus ex machinae.
>>44534539
Show me one instance where Glamdring empowered one of Gandalf's spells.
>>44534539
I don't punish magic-users in that way.
But then, I don't play settings where magic is so powerful and versatile that one-on-one melee combat is the only thing wizards aren't personally superior at.
>>44539675
He casts Light and Invisibility in The Hobbit.
>>44534539
Gandalf is a Maiar. Something closer to a Solar than anything with PC class levels.
Anyways, this is part of why I don't like class based systems. Playing a GURPS game, mostly-a-wizard guy wants to know how to use a sword? Bam, literally one point spent on it, and now they at least know how not to eviscerate themselves wielding one. Sure they're not going to be nearly as effective as the people that specialize in swords, but he's not forcibly constrained to the role of exactly one archetype: the frail nerd scholar wizard.
>>44541992
That's not proof that class-based systems are worse, that's proof that a single class-based system is worse.
If you design a wizard class and don't restrict their weapons, you have exactly what you're talking about in your example. Sure, use a sword. You're awful at it but it's an option, I guess.
>>44541184
I think it's 5e D&D.
>>44534539
Because it depends on the setting and system. In quite a few, there's religious and cultural reasons.
>>44542556
Heck, many class based systems will allow you to learn to use other weapons.
What the image in OP was about, was that the magic sword said it granted a bonus to any attack, when they weren't intending it to include magic attacks. This isn't rules lawyery, it's a mistake in the rules.
>>44534539
When I DM wizards are free to use magical weapons as if they had basic proficiency in them, so long as they have the requirements to wield them. Whether they want to risk their lives hitting monsters with magic swords instead of blasting them with spells from a safe distance is up to them.
Amazing how many people can't read rules in this thread. The rules are pretty clear.
>>44534539
But wizards can use magical swords. Did you even read the picture you used?
>>44534539
>Why do you punish wizards in your games by not allowing them to benefit from magical swords and other weapons? Gandalf used a magic sword.
We're running Night Wizards. Being a heavily armed spellcaster is the entire fucking point of the system.
>pee babies
>>44534574
Gandalf was a deva cleric.
>>44534539
Let me make one thing abundantly clear; I am agreeing with the majority of the people in this thread that say "Magic swords can't bolster spells, but he is welcome to wade into melee to use it".
That said: If the people whose job it was to actually go through and edit the wording of 5e had done their job instead of fucking around all day, this wouldn't be an issue. They didn't even bother clarifying it in the errata release...
>>44544115
but the rules lawyer did get called a pee baby. and I support that.
>>44545467
If it's not the intent, then it should be erratad. I don't think it's rules lawyery to point out that the rules say what they say. It's the only way to get them fixed.
>>44542781
I'm not sure what 5e you're reading that stops DM fiat.
If he says no, it's no.
>>44546527
Oh damn, I'd responded to the wrong post and didn't notice. I'd meant to reply to this one: >>44541373
>>44534539
Wizards should have magical swords made for Wizards (=made to cast spells rather than slashing through armors). Historically, they were depicted using wands or swords to make their pentacles and stuff.
We could easily fix the balance by giving them a penalty for not being as proficient as a real fighter. It's only a problem if the sword is magical as the power of the weapon will be more than the penalty, no matter how severe.
I can see why a Wizard isn't worthy of holding Excalibur, just like the Fighter cannot use a Fireball Wand: it makes the looting way easier to handle during the game, it's like your name is written on a Christmas gift.
>>44546386
It is rules lawyery, though, you wouldn't assume a magic sword increases your to hit if you fire a bow, why would it increase your to hit if you are casting a spell?
So, has anyone posted the rule?
>>44540974
>Hobbit
>Movies
Get the fuck out you pleb.
>>44547920
There's nothing connecting a magic sword with a bow.
Magic sword, magic spell, they both have magic in common.
Using a sword as a focus for casting spells is about as common in fiction as using a wand or a staff. Using a cruciform sword as a holy icon is also a thing.
The rules actually specifically do prohibit this, Patrick Rothfuss is just a cunt who neither reads them nor feels anything negative should ever happen to wizards.
That fucking post he made about teenage girlfriends still gives me cringe.
>>44549110
Can someone actually post the text of the rule that's being referred to?
>>44549048
sword and bow are both weapons, they both have weapon in common, you use both to kill people, both require expertise to wield more effectively, both have safe parts to hold, and require someone to craft them, they have more in common that just "oh it's magic handwavium"
Not to mention, for as long as I can remember, a +1 weapon meant it was better balanced, sharper, harder, etc and not an overall enchantment on the user's body that made him into a murdermachine.
but even still, okay, let's talk about how that +1 sword wont increase your to-hit or damage of the shortsword in your off hand either.
>>44534539
Was Glamdring even magic? I can't remember.
>>44534539
I almost always allow my wizard players to have what they ask for. They are by far the best roleplayers, even without advantages. They win every encounter for the group while useless fighters and such mostly just do nothing. Wizard players are clearly the best roleplayers to the point where. I don't think my fighters could take on a single goblin without them.
>>44549914
4e impliments!
I must admit: 5e going back to 'some spells have saves, some have attack rolls' really annoys me. Pick one and stick with it. Preferably attack rolls so all classes are on the same page.
>>44549914
>you ignore half cover when making a spell attack
Does that mean that the defense bonus provided by cover is halved? Or am I interpreting that wrong?
>>44534539
Everyone in this thread is retarded. Gandalf is obviously an angelic spellsword.
>>44550074
No, Half Cover is a status itself. Doesn't help against 3/4 Cover or Total Cover.
