Level-0 characters and Weapons Training
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:46 am
"All 0-level characters are trained in the one weapon they
possess from their former occupation."
"Generally, using a weapon without training imposes an attack
penalty. However, this penalty is waived for 0-level
characters."
"It is assumed that their naturally poor combat
abilities reflect equal incompetence with the martial use of
all weapons. (Not to mention that in playtests, applying
the attack penalty increases the 0-level death rate to absurd
proportions.)"
Can someone explain this. Give insight into the developers mind here?
To me it appears that players will have their level-0 characters drop their trained d4 weapons as soon as they can find, purchase or steal a better weapon (such as a Longsword). While I completely understand that applying the "attack penalty" of being reduced to a d10 instead of a d20 would completely kill off that character's survival chances...
... why aren't less catastrophic attack penalties ever discussed?!
I mean, being reduced to a d10 sounds completely unplayable, as in very close to "no you can't use that". Theoretically it isn't a firm prohibition, but as these playtests show, in practice it really is. I would have thought a -2 penalty for untrained use, or perhaps more in the style of DCC, reducing the d20 to a d16, would suffice. It would mean the choice between your "trowel (as dagger)" and a handaxe, say, or a spear would be actually an interesting one.
Being asked to roll a d20 for d4 damage, or a d10 for a d8 damage, is no real choice. That much everybody seems to agree on. But why then skip the idea of a penalty altogether, instead of, you know, realizing the penalty is far too drastic, and reducing it?! My question is: why is this made out to be a binary choice: to keep the draconian untrained usage penalty or not use it at all? Why is the game still (in its 8th edition) not considering that maybe the penalty is unplayably high and that something more moderate would fix all problems including "applying the attack penalty increases the 0-level death rate to absurd proportions".
I honestly don't get it. I do realize there must be a reason, since the rules remain so harsh. Yet, I cannot see it. So I am respectfully asking y'all - what am I missing here?
possess from their former occupation."
"Generally, using a weapon without training imposes an attack
penalty. However, this penalty is waived for 0-level
characters."
"It is assumed that their naturally poor combat
abilities reflect equal incompetence with the martial use of
all weapons. (Not to mention that in playtests, applying
the attack penalty increases the 0-level death rate to absurd
proportions.)"
Can someone explain this. Give insight into the developers mind here?
To me it appears that players will have their level-0 characters drop their trained d4 weapons as soon as they can find, purchase or steal a better weapon (such as a Longsword). While I completely understand that applying the "attack penalty" of being reduced to a d10 instead of a d20 would completely kill off that character's survival chances...
... why aren't less catastrophic attack penalties ever discussed?!
I mean, being reduced to a d10 sounds completely unplayable, as in very close to "no you can't use that". Theoretically it isn't a firm prohibition, but as these playtests show, in practice it really is. I would have thought a -2 penalty for untrained use, or perhaps more in the style of DCC, reducing the d20 to a d16, would suffice. It would mean the choice between your "trowel (as dagger)" and a handaxe, say, or a spear would be actually an interesting one.
Being asked to roll a d20 for d4 damage, or a d10 for a d8 damage, is no real choice. That much everybody seems to agree on. But why then skip the idea of a penalty altogether, instead of, you know, realizing the penalty is far too drastic, and reducing it?! My question is: why is this made out to be a binary choice: to keep the draconian untrained usage penalty or not use it at all? Why is the game still (in its 8th edition) not considering that maybe the penalty is unplayably high and that something more moderate would fix all problems including "applying the attack penalty increases the 0-level death rate to absurd proportions".
I honestly don't get it. I do realize there must be a reason, since the rules remain so harsh. Yet, I cannot see it. So I am respectfully asking y'all - what am I missing here?