why is it that my sorcerer can use a 6 foot length of wood but putting a point on one end or a sharp piece of metal or sharpened stone or a horn and suddenly he has no idea what to do with the damn thing? like spear cap on quarterstaff: " omg one end is pointy now, wtf do i do with this completely new and different weapon, maybe if I joined the city watch for 2 years i could learn how this crazy thing works"? Takes metal spear tip off: "Ah now this is is totaly different" and proceeds to twirl spin feint and stab with the now blunt spear.
Lacking proficiency doesn’t mean you can’t use a weapon - you just aren’t as effective. Narratively, you may not have received training to not hurt yourself, hold up a spear properly, throw it effectively, use it in conjunction with a military unit, etc. let alone have the requisite strength over the course of a battle.
Weapon proficiencies / skills are pretty rubbish in roleplay games tbh, but it's a game balance concept, rather than any form of realism.
There are other RPGs out there where you have to separately develop skills with each weapon, so a character could be very skilled with a mace but no clue with an axe or sword.
Whilst there are many subtleties and specific things you can do with a weapon that you may not be able to to with another weapon, the basics of fighting, defending and reflexes are pretty similar.
tl;dr - yes, it's unrealistic, but so are wizards & dragons. :)
This is definitely one of those 'RPG mechanics' things. It could be applied to any weapon the sorcerer isn't proficient in. The difference between a dagger and a shortsword. A light crossbow and a heavy crossbow.
Takes metal spear tip off: "Ah now this is is totaly different" and proceeds to twirl spin feint and stab with the now blunt spear.
Fortunately, D&D also has a narrative aspect. A sorcerer is not a martial combatant. Narratively, being proficient with a quarterstaff for a sorcerer doesn't mean he can use it like Bruce Lee with a bo staff. It just means that he's familiar with it.
Narratively, I'd expect a Monk to be better at fighting with a bo staff than a Sorcerer, even though mechanically they have the same proficiency bonus.
why is it that my sorcerer can use a 6 foot length of wood but putting a point on one end or a sharp piece of metal or sharpened stone or a horn and suddenly he has no idea what to do with the damn thing?
The way you use a staff and a spear is very different. Staffs are often heavier and used to swing at targets, while spears are lighter and used to stab targets. So if you have a lot of experience swinging a staff and handling the weight of it, it doesn't mean that you suddenly know all the most effective ways of stabbing someone to death (as you most likely have no experience/training in doing so). A world class punter in American football wouldn't necessarily make for a world class soccer player either.
why is it that my sorcerer can use a 6 foot length of wood but putting a point on one end or a sharp piece of metal or sharpened stone or a horn and suddenly he has no idea what to do with the damn thing?
like spear cap on quarterstaff: " omg one end is pointy now, wtf do i do with this completely new and different weapon, maybe if I joined the city watch for 2 years i could learn how this crazy thing works"?
Takes metal spear tip off: "Ah now this is is totaly different" and proceeds to twirl spin feint and stab with the now blunt spear.
Lacking proficiency doesn’t mean you can’t use a weapon - you just aren’t as effective. Narratively, you may not have received training to not hurt yourself, hold up a spear properly, throw it effectively, use it in conjunction with a military unit, etc. let alone have the requisite strength over the course of a battle.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersWeapon proficiencies / skills are pretty rubbish in roleplay games tbh, but it's a game balance concept, rather than any form of realism.
There are other RPGs out there where you have to separately develop skills with each weapon, so a character could be very skilled with a mace but no clue with an axe or sword.
Whilst there are many subtleties and specific things you can do with a weapon that you may not be able to to with another weapon, the basics of fighting, defending and reflexes are pretty similar.
tl;dr - yes, it's unrealistic, but so are wizards & dragons. :)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
This is definitely one of those 'RPG mechanics' things. It could be applied to any weapon the sorcerer isn't proficient in. The difference between a dagger and a shortsword. A light crossbow and a heavy crossbow.
Fortunately, D&D also has a narrative aspect. A sorcerer is not a martial combatant. Narratively, being proficient with a quarterstaff for a sorcerer doesn't mean he can use it like Bruce Lee with a bo staff. It just means that he's familiar with it.
Narratively, I'd expect a Monk to be better at fighting with a bo staff than a Sorcerer, even though mechanically they have the same proficiency bonus.
The way you use a staff and a spear is very different. Staffs are often heavier and used to swing at targets, while spears are lighter and used to stab targets. So if you have a lot of experience swinging a staff and handling the weight of it, it doesn't mean that you suddenly know all the most effective ways of stabbing someone to death (as you most likely have no experience/training in doing so). A world class punter in American football wouldn't necessarily make for a world class soccer player either.