Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Combat « Thread Started on Mar 8, 2011, 7:50pm »
This has probably been done to death, but I couldn't actually find a discussion about this anywhere. And it just came up in a play by post game. I don't want to start any arguments, but I do think it's worthwhile discussing.
So to basically copy what I posted in the out of character section...
--------------------------------
I'm not going to argue that we should be allowed to have clerics that have edged weapons, it's your campaign But it is worth discussing it out of character I think!
I don't believe there were any printing changes. I have a physical copy and several different pdf's. And they all say exactly the same thing:
"Clerics gain some of the advantages from both of the other two classes (Fighting-Men and Magic-Users) in that they have the use of magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons (no arrows!), plus they have numbers of their own spells."
It directly states *only* magical weapons, and mentions absolutely no restrictions on non-magical weapons. It could tenuously be inferred from this statement that Clerics should therefore be unable to use normal edged weapons as well. But it's dangerous to assume anything about the game that is essentially tinged by what we know of later systems; it's difficult to separate what became standard because the rules are a bit all over the place from what was intended. As a result, when I run LBB games I always go by exactly what is written, not what can be inferred. And this is why I brought the matter up in the first place, my point to Danhem was to not assume contentious things like clerical weaponry until the DM voices an opinion
Another interesting note that very rarely gets noticed is the Magic-User restrictions:
"The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armor of the fighters (see, however, elves); Magic-Users may arm themselves with daggers only."
Notice the semi-colon? That's very important. It indicates that it is a connected statement part of the same sentence, and thus is *still referring to enchanted items*. This is backed up to an extent by a statement later on under Elves:
"They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users."
Connected with the previous statement, it seems clear to me that the only restrictions on weaponry and armour until a later date (the game was constantly changing after all) are based solely and entirely on Magic Items. But then you have to take into account the relatively huge numbers of magic items given away in treasure. To not be able to make use of magic weaponry that isn't a dagger is a pretty big thing in campaign play. Also this allows Gandalf
You might wonder then what advantage the first level fighter has. Well, in Chainmail that Man+1 is a biiiig difference... For some reason this isn't generally carried into the Alternative System where the chart shows that all first level characters use the same attack column. However, if you look at the examples and clarifications in Strategic Review number 2, it's clear that the Fighting Capability is intended to be used with the Alternative System too. So just as a Swordsman would get 3 d20 rolls to hit, a first level Veteran fighting at Man +1 would receive a plus 1 to his single 20 sided roll to hit using the Alternative table, as well as when using Man to Man or Mass Combat.
As to whether the game balances better one way over another is an entirely different matter. I don't say this is the way the game *should* be played by everyone. Or that it's better this way. It appeals to me though!
However, I admit it's possible that your copy instead states something like:
"Clerics gain some of the advantages from both of the other two classes (Fighting-Men and Magic-Users) in that they have the use of armor and all non-edged weapons (no arrows!), plus they have numbers of their own spells."
I don't know. I have never encountered that sentence without the word magical in it somewhere, but it *is* possible that you have perhaps a different printing to any that I've read! In which case I will have to re-evaluate my opinion on things, depending on the date of your printing.
Oops, this has turned into an essay now! Sorry. But I thought it was worth going into ooc. I repeat, I'm not trying to argue you into giving Fighters a +1 to hit or allowing Clerics and Magic-Users to use any non-magical weapons and armour they like! This is just how I interpret the rules precisely as written using only directly contemporary sources.
-----------------------------------
Personally, I think it makes real sense for only magical armour to affect a Magic-Users spellcasting abilities. Why? Because all that magic permanently surrounding him is in the way. Nothing to do with iron (which doesn't fit the rest of the game either).
As for clerics and blunt weapons, I don't believe it was anything to do with the papal ban on clerics using edged weapons until later.
Before anyone calls me a rules-lawyer... I'm not. But I do think it's important with these particular 3 little brown books to read them EXACTLY AS WRITTEN with absolutely no influence from later editions. What you do with them afterwards is entirely up to you, I have no beef with DM's not allowing Magic-Users to wear armour!
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Joined: Nov 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 517 Location: Corvallis, OR Karma: 13
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #1 on Mar 8, 2011, 8:03pm »
I've ran a couple of games where I followed those rules to the nose and it worked just fine in play. An early levels, before magic armor is given out, magic-user spells don't give them a huge leg up on fighters and not allowing them to use armor makes them very weak. Similarly, when all weapons deal 1d6 damage, there is little point in restricting the use of certain weapons to certain classes.
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #2 on Mar 8, 2011, 8:31pm »
Ah, thanks for joining in tombowings!
I agree with everything you say, with an extra point:
The vision of Magic-Users being unable to use weapons effectively seems utterly wrong to me.
Dungeons and Dragons in it's earliest form is a thoroughly Mediaeval game. And the sort of High Magic that Magic-Users make use of definitely puts them firmly, to my mind, at the Nobility strata. A noble of any rank would have been taught (generally by his uncle in England) to fight from a very young age. The taking up of magic might slow their progress in weapon skill, but they would still have that early training. Notice that on the fighting capability chart a first level magic-user fights as well as any ordinary soldier...
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #3 on Mar 9, 2011, 8:48am »
Norse, I went back and looked at my copy of Men and Magic again. It does indeed say non-edged 'magic' weapons. For some reason my eyes have always glossed over the word magic. Perhaps it is a result of reading them through my 'Holmes glasses.'
Still, I don't see why a cleric would be able to use a normal sword, axe, or spear but not a magical one except for the sake of game balance. The weapons (normal and magic) are not any different after all. But, since all normal weapons do 1d6 in damage (until Greyhawk at least), the restriction to non-edged weapons would not be significant until the distribution of magic weapons from a treasure came into consideration. The cleric has to wait until a +1 mace or club turns up and the magic user a +1 dagger. This is perhaps why only magic items are the only type of equipment discussed in each character class description.
But as you say, this ultimately comes down to the DMs decision. The OD&D rules are after all a largely incomplete framework which require personal refinement (in my opinion at least).
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 94 Location: A stale, dusty library Karma: 1
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #4 on Mar 9, 2011, 1:22pm »
It never made sense to me why a cleric (or mage) could not wield a sword or spear as a last resort. If a cleric was in the middle of a fight with an enemy of his patron deity and his mace broke, would his deity smite him if the cleric were to pick up a spear and run the enemy through? I rather doubt it. He might have to atone later on (through gp or a quest), but to not be able to use it just does not make sense to me.
Of course, magic weapons are a different matter altogether. I can certainly understand (or at least make up) the rationale for a cleric not being able to use a magic sword. Perhaps it was enchanted by magic that was considered foul by the cleric's deity, or some such.
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #5 on Mar 9, 2011, 2:15pm »
In my mind it comes down to training Professor P. Fighting with a mace, warhammer, or club is different than fighting with a sword, axe, or spear. Clerics have a restriction on the weapons they can use, therefore they were only trained to use certain weapons. Maybe they could pick up a sword and fight with it, but without ever having been trained to use one they would be hard pressed to wield it effectively if at all.
As far as the the magic weapon rationale goes, I could buy that, but couldn't there then be a magic sword enchanted by magic not abhorrent to the cleric's god and maces that are? That seems to open a whole new set of problems for the DM rather than just restricting weapons from the start.
Again, since all weapons do 1d6 damage in the LBBs, there is no real penalty to a cleric using normal weapons; as long as the appropriate weapons are available of course. But that is part of resource management which is also at the heart of the game.
Joined: Nov 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 517 Location: Corvallis, OR Karma: 13
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #6 on Mar 9, 2011, 2:28pm »
Yes, but while I have no idea how to effectively wield as axe, I would rather pick on up against a dragon instead of trying to grapple with it despite having studied jujitsu (although my best bet would be running through the small door I could find).
On another note, I'm much more comfortable with allowing mages the use of any weapons than clerics. Maybe I just see the cleric weapon restrictions as making more sense, I don't know.
In my mind it comes down to training Professor P. Fighting with a mace, warhammer, or club is different than fighting with a sword, axe, or spear. Clerics have a restriction on the weapons they can use, therefore they were only trained to use certain weapons. Maybe they could pick up a sword and fight with it, but without ever having been trained to use one they would be hard pressed to wield it effectively if at all.
This is true, but the attack matrices also address this issue. A cleric is not as good as a fighting-man with any weapon, whether it is edged or not.
As far as the the magic weapon rationale goes, I could buy that, but couldn't there then be a magic sword enchanted by magic not abhorrent to the cleric's god and maces that are? That seems to open a whole new set of problems for the DM rather than just restricting weapons from the start.
You're right, this would be DM dependent. An example, a cleric's patron deity's favored weapon is a spear. The cleric is allowed to wield all non-magical weapons or only non-edged weapons plus the spear (whatever the DM rules). Since the patron deity's favored weapon is the spear, the deity's clerics would be trained in spear use.
The only magical weapons the cleric could wield would be magical non-edged weapons and magical spears that have been blessed by the deity. Perhaps clerics of <Patron Deity> are given a Blessed Spear of <Patron Deity> +1, +3 vs. Undead upon reaching Curate status, or some such.
Again, since all weapons do 1d6 damage in the LBBs, there is no real penalty to a cleric using normal weapons; as long as the appropriate weapons are available of course. But that is part of resource management which is also at the heart of the game.
Agreed. In the end, it is all dependent on DM rulings for his/her campaign.
Yes, but while I have no idea how to effectively wield as axe, I would rather pick on up against a dragon instead of trying to grapple with it despite having studied jujitsu (although my best bet would be running through the small door I could find).
My thought exactly (especially the running away bit).
On another note, I'm much more comfortable with allowing mages the use of any weapons than clerics. Maybe I just see the cleric weapon restrictions as making more sense, I don't know.
I guess it just depends on one's point of view. To me, whether a cleric or a magic-user, I (my character) would pick up the axe to attack rather than trying to punch/kick/grapple it. Unless there was the option of running away, of course.
Joined: Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,555 Location: Austin TX USA Karma: 152
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #9 on Mar 9, 2011, 3:05pm »
An interesting bit about anti-clerics, once upon a time in Dragon magazine there was a column (or maybe a letter to the editor) in which the writer said evil clerics in his campaign were forbidden to use edged weapons in his campaign. They were, however, required to draw blood. Therefore, anti-clerics favored spears and morning stars as weapons.
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #10 on Mar 9, 2011, 5:12pm »
Game balance is a part of it. But also it's part of the rationale of magic weapons. Edged weapons have an intelligence of some sort. Being weapons designed for war, with motivations to match, they will want to be wielded by warriors and leaders of men.
I agree, I'm more ok with magic-users using any weapon and armour than clerics, assuming a catholic background for clerics in my campaigns. With a different religious basis I really don't see any need for the restriction for clerics either, except for the above notions of magic item intelligence.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 664 Karma: 19
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #11 on Mar 9, 2011, 5:35pm »
My own interpretation (not necessarily BtB):
Clerics and M-Us know how to punch and kick, if necessary. M-Us also know how to use knives and daggers as a side-effect of using them in magical preparations, and Clerics are trained in club and staff, which translates easily to other bludgeon-type melee weapons. Neither have any training in edged weapons, pole weapons, missile weapons, or any other combat techniques. Furthermore, Clerics are forbidden to draw blood in combat, although anti-clerics are allowed to draw blood during a sacrifice.
Anyone can pick up and use a weapon they have no training with, but they attack as would any ordinary mercenary (as a 0-level man.) Clerics and M-Us increase their chance to hit only when using the weapons they were trained with. Lawful clerics may lose their ability to turn undead if they draw blood in melee.
Magic weapons will only bestow their benefits on the class they were made for; if a magic-user picks up a magic sword, he uses it as if it were an ordinary sword wielded by a 0-level mercenary.
Training in *individual* weapons may be possible. Otherwise, the only way around the 0-level limit is multi-classing.
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #12 on Mar 9, 2011, 5:42pm »
There's a problem with actually forbidding clerics to draw blood in combat: they will never fight at all. The papal ban on which the rationale for limiting clerical weapons is based was utterly ridiculous, blunt weapons draw blood.
I like your decision to allow them to attack as a normal man with weapons they are unfamiliar with.
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Re: Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Com « Reply #13 on May 8, 2011, 3:45pm »
@norse: I recently started a new blog at http://www.thefantasygame.org and I wholeheartedly agree with your views concerning arms and armor. The goal of the blog is to write a clone of OD&D from the viewpoint of someone in 1975 with the will to clear any ambiguities enough to be able to play with less guesswork.
One of the most interesting things in this experiment is to interpret OD&D without any preconceptions from later editions or what we have grown accustomed to. This really opens up new doors and your point IMHO is one of them.
I am totally amazed how different a beast OD&D becomes if one ignores later edtions of xD&D. It's so much more open, epic and heroic that I find it totally amazing how limiting and strange (compared to OD&D) later editions have become.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_u00qWD-_dM4/TNyW0RtBXkI/AAAAAAAAAI4/pHmT9bbqfrk/s400/backswords%2526bucklers.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
But it is worth discussing it out of character I think!
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.artistsuk.co.uk/acatalog/frank_frazetta_atlantis.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://pic.pimg.tw/wowtvman/e3c5cf1aedda9fcaa5f4c0a0a7cfec02.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/3500/3509/p_19_th.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")