GameBanshee Forums

Hello all,

So I never did really understand this. If, say, you were a thief and dualed to a mage, you are able to use short bows even though the mage class doesn't allow you to.

Yet, if you were a fighter and dualed to a cleric, you can only use the blunt weapons restricted to the cleric class.

why don't the mage restrictions stop you from using short bows as a thief-mage like the cleric restrictions stopping you from using bladed weapons as a fighter-cleric?

Mechanically speaking...it's just how things work.

From an RP point of view - and this is from what I can remember about 2nd edition AD&D fluff - clerics have to take a vow not to draw blood with weapons; that's why they can only use blunt weapons.

As opposed to magi who "don't have time to train with weapons" so they can only use the staff, dagger, dart and sling - this limitation is removed by dual-/multi- classing with a more...martially inclined class.

Hope this helps.

From an RP point of view - and this is from what I can remember about 2nd edition AD&D fluff - clerics have to take a vow not to draw blood with weapons; that's why they can only use blunt weapons.

That's been the case since the very start in the original D&D, and has always been idiotic and ignored by every DM I've played with. Why on earth impose something that was based on an early Roman Catholic injunction, and even then not endorsed by any Pope as far as I know, on Clerics of other religions, especially when some of those have a sword as their holy symbol?

End of rant!:laugh:

PS ...and anyone who thinks a mace doesn't draw blood, try hitting someone on the head with one.

One is a limitation:

Mages, as a class only learn limited weapons to use that traditionally don't require either as much skill OR strength/dexterity/constitution to wield properly. Add a different class that has more weapons to access and presumably you have accumulated some training in a greater variety of weapons, and therefor can at least use them (..if not necessarily well).


The other is a restriction:

Clerics effectively trade their use of slashing and piercing weapons for access to divine powers. Divine magic is sourced from Gods, not the "weave" (which is the source of power for Mages and Sorcerers).

The Gods require life - and more specifically life that worships them for their continued power/existence. Undeath (overall) is anthem to all Gods in 2nd edition (..to the best of my knowledge.)

I think conceptually this power of worship by the living was "worked around" for Undead Gods (3rd Edition and beyond), either by having living worshipers, or by obtaining vast amounts of power in non-deistic fashion (..actually being more of a "Demi" God than a true God, if perhaps having as much power as true Gods).

Anyway,

*Severing* flesh and spilling large quantities of blood (considered the "spring" of life itself) is considered an abomination of life. Additionally, undead (who either do not have blood, or perhaps have the stolen blood of another), typically are somewhat immune to the mundane effects of piercing or slashing weapons. This is also true of animated non-living constructs like Golems. Basically undead and constructs are something a Cleric naturally opposes - so it's in their best interest to regularly use blunt weapons anyway.


I personally think that one of the more significant problems in the entire rationale is that many weapons that are often considered "blunt" in fact have piercing elements, and sometimes slashing elements. Case in point: maces and flails often have "spikes" which is a piercing element that would cause a great deal of blood loss (..not only seen in real life, but are often portrayed this way in games like BG2).


Beyond this you have Paladin's - basically a fighter/cleric. Paladin's have no weapon-type restrictions - so there was a need to differentiate Clerics from Paladins.

(..and I believe Clerics were actually a latter addition to D&D than Paladins. EDITED: WRONG.)

Good try Scottg, but try telling a worshipper of Freyr, for example, that he can't use his holy symbol!

I started playing D&D with basic D&D, which predated 1st edition, and there were definitely clerics in that game.

galraen wrote:Good try Scottg, but try telling a worshipper of Freyr, for example, that he can't use his holy symbol!

I started playing D&D with basic D&D, which predated 1st edition, and there were definitely clerics in that game.

Yup, did a search on it - Cleric and no Paladin. (..I played it as well, just forgot it.)


Who is Freyr (and when was he/she introduced)?

Holy Symbols (and their use by Cleircs) were at D&D inception (with Clerics)?

Holy Symbols are used for what?

Who is Freyr (and when was he/she introduced)?

Norse god, Vanir not Aesir, son of Njrd and brother of Freya. Sun deity responsible for, amongst other things, agriculture, fertility, nature and all things elven. Lives in Alfheim, where he is served by Elves. Should be venerated by all elves, half elves, also worshipped by many humans. One of the supreme triumvirate along with Odin and Thor. His main annual festival is Yule, when the ritual consumption of Gullinbursti and the giving of gifts etc. takes place to mark the winter solstice and the eventual returning of the sun.

Officially introduced into 1st edition with Deities and Demigods. His symbol is a two-handed sword.

Try turning undead or casting many spells, in any version of D&D without your holy symbol! So the idea that a priest of Freyr had to have and wield a two-handed sword but not use it in combat is patently ludicrous.

As it happens the first real AD&D campaign I played in was based on Ragnarok, and making sure things didn't end quite the way it was foretold, mainly by retrieving Freyr's sword so he would have it at Ragnarok in order to defeat Loki. We won!

galraen wrote:Norse god, Vanir not Aesir, son of Njrd and brother of Freya. Sun deity responsible for, amongst other things, agriculture, fertility, nature and all things elven. Lives in Alfheim, where he is served by Elves. Should be venerated by all elves, half elves, also worshipped by many humans. One of the supreme triumvirate along with Odin and Thor. His main annual festival is Yule, when the ritual consumption of Gullinbursti and the giving of gifts etc. takes place to mark the winter solstice and the eventual returning of the sun.

Officially introduced into 1st edition with Deities and Demigods. His symbol is a two-handed sword.

Try turning undead or casting many spells, in any version of D&D without your holy symbol! So the idea that a priest of Freyr had to have and wield a two-handed sword but not use it in combat is patently ludicrous.

As it happens the first real AD&D campaign I played in was based on Ragnarok, and making sure things didn't end quite the way it was foretold, mainly by retrieving Freyr's sword so he would have it at Ragnarok in order to defeat Loki. We won!

I couldn't find any mention of Freyr except perhaps 3rd. (..also, my only memory of the late 70's edition was of a white pamphlet.. pretty sad, I know.)



Ah, but is a holy *symbol* the actual item or a representation? Say perhaps a figurine on an amulet, a hilt, a scabard, etc..

And are holy symbols for general use (or the general use of the object)?

I'm pretty sure most "clerics" would be aghast at such a thought. You want to use my most sacred object as WHAT?

Also - what's the holy symbol made of?

Holy Symbol (definition), Silver or Wooden:

A holy symbol focuses positive energy. A cleric or paladin uses it as the focus for his spells and as a tool for turning undead. Each religion has its own holy symbol.


I'm thinking a full-sized Silver or Wooden Two-Handed sword isn't going to be terribly effective.

Again you're imposing Christian, and mostly catholic, ideology on non-christian religions. Why does it have to be silver or wood? As for telling a priest of Bhaal that he or she can't spill blood!

galraen wrote:Again you're imposing Christian, and mostly catholic, ideology on non-christian religions. Why does it have to be silver or wood? As for telling a priest of Bhaal that he or she can't spill blood!

I'm not imposing Christian ideology. The general definition of symbol is:

sym·bol/ˈsimbəl/

Noun:
A thing that represents or stands for something else, esp. a material object representing something abstract.
A mark or character used as a conventional representation of an object, function, or process, e.g., the letter or letters standing for a...



Religious *symbols* (of any religion - Norse included), aren't going to be the objects that they represent, and are usually going to be a small figure or "picture". Ex.:

Norse Symbols, Asatru Symbols

And sure enough - amulets were common for Norse symbols, and were often made of wood or silver. Freyr in particular? Pine.

..and the limitation of silver or wood isn't mine - it was sourced from a D&D definition link for Holy Symbols.



Now the Priest of Bhaal or any Murder God - sure, murder is their "thing" - and perhaps even spilling blood to do so (..though strangulation and poison surely would be appropriate as well). It is however somewhat different to do something for your God, than for yourself or even for your cult/priesthood. Said differently - severing flesh to spill blood as a form of sacrifice is different than spilling blood to protect yourself (as in a fight). The act of Murder (for a Murder God), or the result of Death (for a Death God) - ultimately cherishes life, in this case its end.

I have no problems envisioning a Cleric of Bhaal preforming ritualistic murder with a dagger on unwilling victims, but say a group of Paladin's bust into the room to free the sacrifices and kill the Clerics? Is the Cleric going to use the dagger in their hand that was intended for their sacrifices, or pick up their personal Flail?

I also have no problem with a Necromancy God, (or perhaps just an evil God), raising the dead for aid - even though it to is an abomination of life. I could even see a God's greater priests becoming undead (Lich, Mummy, or even Baelnorn). What wouldn't work IMO would be if their worshipers were mostly composed of undead.

Basically there are numerous exceptions - but these exceptions necessarily need to have some limitation.

Good discussion guys, and I appreciate the feedback.

Weapons are a big part of RPing my characters, and I prefer bladed weapons (especially longswords). The character I want to play is a berserker dualed to a cleric but it drives me nuts not being able to use daystar (he's an undead hunter build). I know I could do paladin for that, but I'd love to play with clerical spells.

But I digress. Thanks guys!

Personally, I have a lot of problems with basically all weapon restrictions, from a roleplaying point of view.

Putting aside the points well made by the learned gentlemen above, the functioning of priests as a class is strange in D&D : instead of being learned sages, shepherding their people (or committing unspeakable atrocities), they are all more or less knights in armor using clubs. Strange, as the gods come in all sorts, and even if such battle-priests make sense for dwarfs and some humans, they're really silly when they're elves.
(The spells are idiotic, too. First, we have the story on how the follower needs to connect to her deity, act in a way that pleases the deity in question on pain of losing all powers and all that... and then, we have a set of formulaic spells, each producing a single, determined effect. Which has to be prepared and memorized just like a wizard spell and, once used, is exhausted. End of story, end of possibilities, end of divine guidance.)

As to mage weapons selection, it's even dumber. I am all for the idea that wizards "have no time to train swordfighting", at least pure wizards - swordsmanship or archery are very time consuming skills that take years to develop, I should know - but why on earth can they use slings, then? It would make much more sense for wizards to use crossbows, which are fairly simple in use (I don't mean being an expert marksman, I mean relatively-reasonable-use) and, as a mechanism, could appeal to their analytical minds. Slings, on the other hand, are a primitive invention that requires much training, dexterity and accustoming to and even then can be a bit wild.

As to the evil clerics not being able to use sharp and pointy things... Well, I suppose their gods just like their human sacrifices to be delivered smashed into a bloody pulp. Or something.

Why can't non-humans dual class? Why can't humans multi-class? My can't gnomes/halflings/dwarves be mages? Why can't elves be druids? There's a lot of stupid things with D&D - the blunt weapon restriction for clerics is the least of them.

I personally like the limitations - makes build-planning more interesting.

I've always thought the 3rd edition rules (and rules since then) are less interesting. You tend to end-up with a minor variation on a build. (..there isn't much difference from one race to the next with 3rd edition.) Also the change in the AC system totally "nerfed" the power and uniqueness of weapons and armor (..even though the new system is a LOT easier to understand).



As for the Divine spell-casting system, I don't think "spells" are conferred by Gods (..though D&D sources specifically uses the word "spells"). Perhaps their *learning* is (as opposed to casting), or more likely the spells are just really easy so you learn them all before progressing in power (..like a Wizard with cantrips). Certainly casting them without spell-failure other than concentration is a product of a "divine" nature - but is it affirmatively granted by the God, or a by-product of something the God has already done?

I tend to think of Divine power as energy.


Energy system:

1. The Weave or Shadow (new "bizzaro" version of the Weave), is directly used by Life itself (or creates life), Wizards, and Sorcerers.
2. Life is directly used by Druids (again, it's specifically called "divine" - but I don't think of it that way in that it's not offered by any God), and transmuted by the Gods to Divine power.
3. Divine Power is used by Clerics.

(..note that at each alteration of energy there is less chance for spell-failure with regard to armor. i.e. use the Weave, and ALL armor restrictions apply to spell failure. Use Life itself, and (necessarily because of the armor restriction itself), only a few restrictions apply to spell failure. Use Divine power and there are no armor restrictions to spell failure.)

Storage of Energy:

A. Sorcerers pull directly from the Weave or Shadow. Unlike the other "proactive casters" they are "retroactive" in their use - they deplete their natural ability to tap the energy of the Weave/Shadow for a day, and then replenish. (..the other casters must first "store-up" the energy in a specific manner.)
B. Wizards pull small amounts of power from the Weave or Shadow and then imprint that power as spells to items for later use, (spell book, scrolls.)
C. Druids pull power from life itself and effectively use their own life force (..*Will* it) as an imprint for spells.
D. Clerics pull power from their Gods divine pool of energy and again use their own life force (..*Will* it) as an imprint for spells. Turn Undead however isn't a "memorized" effect so there is no "imprint" - in this case they are acting more like Sorcerers but pulling energy from a divine pool rather than the Weave or Shadow (..and releasing it in a "raw" divine state).


As far as skill and the actual spells - I don't think they are "divine" at all, rather like all the other classes they are created by users over time. (..of course Clerics and Druids are more modest in their inventions - and don't apply their own names to the spells.) Of course learning a spell and creating one are two entirely different things.

The later addition of spontaneous casting is however "divine" - basically unraveling ("on the fly") an "inscribed" spell and directly transmuting that spell's divine energy into positive or negative energy.



Somewhat ironically, Galraen mentioned Christian ideology as a reference.. but I personally think of it as a quasi "infernal pact" type of arrangement. i.e. You give me some of your life force (via worship), become a walking advertising campaign in an effort to obtain more life force from other worshipers, on very rare circumstances do something I request - and in return I'll let you tap my divine pool of energy. I don't even think that "level" is something the God "allows", rather it's a skill that the Cleric obtains with use - as they get better they can tap into the divine pool better to cast higher level spells. Stop worshiping the God (or have the God "cut you off"), no more divine pool or energy to craft into spells, therefor no more spell casting ability. (..you can still perform the same actions of the spell - but without the energy you are just mumbling.) Start worshiping another God - right back to casting the same spells you could before, just tapping a different pool of divine energy.