|
Post by snorri on Jan 13, 2015 11:01:37 GMT -6
Both suggestions make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 14, 2015 1:35:25 GMT -6
A couple of thoughts on the Darkness spell. Bear with me now. 1. If the clerical version of Light is equivalent to sun light, then what does that make the clerical version of Darkness? Could this spell be used to shield vampires and other creatures against the effects of the sun's rays? Could this spell be used to allow orcs to fight by day without penalty? It reminds me of the dark clouds of smoke covering the sunlight during the battle of the Pellenor fields ....
|
|
otiv
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by otiv on Jan 14, 2015 4:32:21 GMT -6
A couple of thoughts on the Darkness spell. Bear with me now. 1. If the clerical version of Light is equivalent to sun light, then what does that make the clerical version of Darkness? Could this spell be used to shield vampires and other creatures against the effects of the sun's rays? Could this spell be used to allow orcs to fight by day without penalty? It reminds me of the dark clouds of smoke covering the sunlight during the battle of the Pellenor fields .... I still can't get over the fact that those guys (in the movie) charged their cavalry straight into a pike formation.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jan 14, 2015 14:08:17 GMT -6
I can't get over the fact that they could sprint from Osgiliath to Minas Tirith.
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Jan 14, 2015 15:12:42 GMT -6
And I borrowed it from the Hexen PC game As a side note, I loved the Hexen/Heretic series. I had forgotten about them though, thanks for the memories!
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jan 14, 2015 15:18:38 GMT -6
Based on the last two posts on Middle-earth, those guys would have DEX 18, CON 18, WIS 3.
|
|
otiv
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by otiv on Jan 15, 2015 4:42:49 GMT -6
Now here's what I'm wondering: Why should anti-clerics be restricted from the use of edged weapons? If these guys are supposed to be Satanists shouldn't they have sacrificial daggers? Or red tridents? Druids are a cleric subclass, and they get daggers, sickles, crescent-shaped swords, and spears.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 15, 2015 5:46:53 GMT -6
I had a look in M&M and in Blackmoor. The Cleric description seems to apply to both Law and Chaos clerics. It makes sense if Evil priests are a sect infiltrated in the church of law as a mockery (which is one of the B2 options). In Blackmoor, no specifications about what weapons use the priests.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 15, 2015 10:34:24 GMT -6
The Cleric description seems to apply to both Law and Chaos clerics. It makes sense if Evil priests are a sect infiltrated in the church of law as a mockery (which is one of the B2 options). Yeah, that's how I like to do it. Anti-clerics don't typically have temples of their own. Rather, they are basically undercover agents who infiltrate the Church (or whatever) to subvert it from within. In addition to B2, Clark Ashton Smith's "The Holiness of Azedarac" is a great example of what I'm getting at.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jan 15, 2015 10:48:01 GMT -6
Acolyte: "This man is dying! Quick, cleric, cast Cure Light Wounds!" Anti-cleric: "Ummm..."
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 15, 2015 11:33:12 GMT -6
Stormcrow wrote:
Clever point, while not fleshed-out officially, given that circumstance imperils his very existence within the Church, I would rule it much like the Lawful cleric's use of Finger of Death, "use this spell in a life-or-death situation,misuse will immediately turn him into an Anti-Cleric (Cleric)" - or loss of spell-casting ability barring possible atonement/quest.
Otiv wrote:
This does not have to include weapon proficiency, the victim is already immobile be it by fright (paralysis/possible consequence of failed morale chk) or being bound. That is also to say, the sacrifice would meet the demands of casting a spell which would keep the whole scene within the limits of gaining experience.
As previously mentioned, this is reminiscent of the Deathmaster NPC. One could simply resolve the non-proficient use of knives, sickles and scythes as the use of ritual weapons against non-combatants (bound or unbound) for sake of spell casting. Anti-cleric chases down peasant girl in forest and cuts her down with scythe or enters village and slaughters unarmed peasants.
Possible House Rule: temporary loss of 1 pt. (wisdom/day) without committing a blood sacrifice, [wisdom 8-7: (-10% xp), wisdom 6 or less: (-20% xp) as per Men & Magic. Or (leaning on AD&D) no spell use once below wisdom of 9 and suffer mild insanity 1-4 wks and possible alignment change . If reaching wisdom of 3, cleric succumbs to permanent insanity.
|
|
otiv
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by otiv on Jan 15, 2015 12:15:37 GMT -6
Otiv wrote: This does not have to include weapon proficiency, the victim is already immobile be it by fright (see paralyzation) or being bound. That is also to say, the sacrifice would meet the demands of casting a spell which would keep the whole scene within the limits of gaining experience. I guess that justifies the use of wooden stakes against vampires as well; the wooden stake counts as an edged weapon, but the cleric is using it against a sleeping target so proficiency doesn't apply.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 15, 2015 13:04:14 GMT -6
Acolyte: "This man is dying! Quick, cleric, cast Cure Light Wounds!" Anti-cleric: "Ummm..." How about: Acolyte: "This man is dying! Quick, cleric, cast Cure Light Wounds!" Anti-cleric: "I've already cast my healing spells. I have none left in my memory. God must desire this man to go to Heaven to be with Him."
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 15, 2015 13:34:30 GMT -6
I had a neutral cleric in a campaign I masterized (mystara / becmi). She allmost never memorized healing spells - and when she did so, she kept them for herself. Very frustrating for the other players. "What ?! You're a cleric and you can't cure !"
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 15, 2015 15:05:33 GMT -6
Now here's what I'm wondering: Why should anti-clerics be restricted from the use of edged weapons? If these guys are supposed to be Satanists shouldn't they have sacrificial daggers? Or red tridents? Druids are a cleric subclass, and they get daggers, sickles, crescent-shaped swords, and spears. Maybe spilling blood in combat instead of during a sacrifice is considered cheating the blood-thirsty diabolical masters? But on the other hand, if you aren't giving them anything in exchange for losing Turn Undead, perhaps it's no big deal if they have daggers. Personally, I assume the edged weapon prohibition is connected to the healing magic: you can't heal if you spill blood. Or have trouble healing anyone. I'd make a reaction roll when casting healing spells after spilling blood, with the spell failing on a Bad result and all magic being lost on a Very Bad result.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 15, 2015 15:15:07 GMT -6
If I recall correctly, I believe the prohibition in M&M is only against magical edged weapons. These are reserved for the FM. snorri, eventually she is going to have to decide. If she makes it to 7th lvl she is going to have to choose either "Law" or "Chaos." Sounds like she has been playing her "neutral" rather "chaotically" (selfishness, etc.) anyway. You may be "choosing" that one for her, based upon how she has played her character!
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 16, 2015 7:37:20 GMT -6
As a matter of fact all weapons/armors restrictions in M&M speak only of magical weapons /armors.
p.6: "All magical weaponry is usable by fighters, and this in itself is a big advantage." "The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armor of the fighters"
p. 7:" (Clerics) have the use of magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons "
p.8: "(Elves) may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users."
The phrasing could allow clerics to use on-magical edges weapons, but , in reverse, you also could interprete that they are allowed to wear "magic armor" only ! like some do, allowing spell casting only with magic armor for the elves).
You could even argue that MU could use all weapons and armors if non-magical.
I believe that the emphasis put on magical weaponry in M&M is only here because that is the only way that weapon restrictions really are relevant : when all weapons do 1-6 hits of damage there is few difference between the F-M's sword, the Cleric's mace or the M-U's dagger (at least if you do use the Alternate Combat Tables instead of the Man-To-man rules).
Besides, there's Gygax' answer to a bad review of D&D in an issue of the SR, where he mocks the reviewer for having played a sword-wielding cleric, that lets to suppose that the weapon restriction were intended for all type of weapons, not just magical ones.
in the other hand, I agree that there is logic in granting edged weapons to Evil clerics: not just because of sacrifical daggers (still, the Sword& Sorcery imagery is full of cultists armed with twisted ornated daggers), but because , when worshipping evil gods/demons, you (and your deity) probably would adopt a "no holding barrels" mentality when it comes to hurt people
.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jan 16, 2015 9:22:40 GMT -6
Besides, there's Gygax' answer to a bad review of D&D in an issue of the SR, where he mocks the reviewer for having played a sword-wielding cleric, that lets to suppose that the weapon restriction were intended for all type of weapons, not just magical ones. "Haha! foolish reviewer. You have read my words and not my mind as you were supposed to do!" Lesson one of reading High Gygaxian: never read between the lines. Lesson two of reading High Gygaxian: make up the between-lines stuff yourself, and never proclaim it as Truth. Lesson three of reading High Gygaxian: never listen to anyone else quoting High Gygaxian.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 16, 2015 9:34:35 GMT -6
Besides, there's Gygax' answer to a bad review of D&D in an issue of the SR, where he mocks the reviewer for having played a sword-wielding cleric, that lets to suppose that the weapon restriction were intended for all type of weapons, not just magical ones. I just asked Michael Mornard if clerics could use non-magical edged weapons in their pre-1977 D&D games with Gary, and he said no.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 16, 2015 9:52:16 GMT -6
I use weapon restrictions (such as Clerics not using swords) but I don't see that it has a big effect on the game since all weapons do 1d6 damage anyway. I suppose if you use Greyhawk's variable damage system I'd stick more tightly to the by-the-book interpretation of weapon restriction.
Having said that, I think that the real effect comes into play with magical weapons so if I choose to relax the restriction "for the good of the character's persona" I would still stick fast to the restrictions on magic.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 16, 2015 11:17:26 GMT -6
If using weapons factors (Chainmail, 3LBBs, or PHB), the restrictions play a large role.
Moreover, depending on the campaign milieu, it does not always make sense to have clerics fitted in heavy armor or proficient with weapons. Their defining quality is spell-casting and turning/beckoning, though I realize this view puts them at risk in a campaign focused around dungeon exploration.
The difficulty in interpreting the 'anti-cleric' lies in the requisite to make him an 'adventuring cleric', thus having to conform to the requirements and exigencies of dungeon exploration, including a high density of monsters that incur much greater risk than the surface world of normal men.
One approach is to reverse the demands: dungeons hold a low-density of monsters, while the surface world holds a high density of normal men who are adversaries.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 16, 2015 12:40:47 GMT -6
Even with 1d6 damage for all weapons and without weapon speed factors, there's three ways in which the weapon restrictions have a game effect.
(1) The obvious magical weapon prohibition.
The most powerful magic weapons, as noted many times, are swords. Most of the other magic weapons are unusable by clerics.
(2) Mundane usefulness
You can't cut a rope with a mace. You can't use light weapons or even most edged weapons to chop/bash through a door. There are no rules for these things, but it was always implied that GMs would make rulings on whether or not an action would work, based on tools available and situational factors.
(3) Ranged Attacks
Clerics are straight up forbidden from using ranged attacks, although you could rule that they could throw blunt objects. Even without considering reach, this eliminates a significant tactic for clerics. Clerics basically have to put themselves in danger to attack, but fighters can potentially eliminate threats without personal risk. (interesting how the hit point ranges relate to positioning... fighters have 1 hd per level and can attack at the longest range, minimizing the damage they take; clerics are roughly 3/4 hd per level and have to melee; magic-users are roughly 1/2 hd per level and have to fight in close quarters without armor.)
In keeping with these intended restrictions, it might be best to allow anti-clerics to use daggers but not other edged weapons, like axes.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 16, 2015 17:29:27 GMT -6
Even with 1d6 damage for all weapons and without weapon speed factors, there's three ways in which the weapon restrictions have a game effect. Depending on which of the rules you choose to employ, weapons are differentiated by: 1) who can use them, 2) cost, 3) encumbrance, 4) reach and/or range, 5) whether they require one or two hands, 6) the initiative rules, 7) the number of blows that can be struck per round, 8) armor penetrating capability, 9) parrying capability, 10) whether they do normal/double/treble damage against a charge, 11) the number of figures that can fight across a 10ft wide front, 12) the frequency with which they occur on the treasure tables, 13) whether magical weapons will adjust attack, damage, or attack and damage rolls, 14) whether magical weapons will have additional powers. Something else?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 16, 2015 21:11:29 GMT -6
Material - A metal sword is going to be vulnerable to a Rust Monster or Grey Ooze, but a wooden club or staff will not. Wood but not metal is dissolved by Ochre Jellies. Both wood or metal are vulnerable to a Black Pudding or Green Slime, but a stone weapon would not be.
Bronze does not rust, so bronze weapons could be ruled immune to Rust Monsters.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jan 24, 2015 18:36:48 GMT -6
The main importance of the prohibition on swords and magic swords is not obvious until you start playing and finding magic; by far the most common and best magic weapons are swords. I think this is niche protection for the fighting man.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 20, 2015 12:22:42 GMT -6
The Cleric description seems to apply to both Law and Chaos clerics. It makes sense if Evil priests are a sect infiltrated in the church of law as a mockery (which is one of the B2 options). Yeah, that's how I like to do it. Anti-clerics don't typically have temples of their own. Rather, they are basically undercover agents who infiltrate the Church (or whatever) to subvert it from within. In addition to B2, Clark Ashton Smith's "The Holiness of Azedarac" is a great example of what I'm getting at. A further thought: All clerics would be familiar with the complete set of cleric spells available from God/Mitra/The Man Upstairs/whatever. But clerics would NOT be familiar with the complete list of anti-cleric spells available from the Devil/Set/Old Scratch/whatever. Why would they? Are the anti-clerics going to nicely provide this information? The forces of darkness grant spells to anti-clerics, and more than half of these spells mimic the spells of the clerics. That is more than enough to fool the Church, enough to allow anti-clerics to infiltrate the Church and subvert it from within.
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Feb 20, 2015 15:36:21 GMT -6
If I were to suddenly start up a strongly ODnD-influenced campaign and wanted to include alignment-based versions of the cleric, this is what I'd do:
Cleric - Pretty much vanilla. Lawful, all armour, blunt weapons (specific gods might allow access to other weapons, too), turn undead, only cast the "good"/"positive"/"default" versions of reversible spells.
Cultist (because sorry, "anti-cleric" just sounds stupid) - Chaotic. - All armour allowed. Can wield daggers (incl. sickles), shortswords (incl. khopeshes), staves and tridents. - Only casts the "evil"/"negative" versions of reversible spells. - No turn undead. Instead, Control Undead ability. Same process, but a Turned result means the undead follows the cultist's simple orders for a couple of hours, Destroyed means permanent control. Warning: if the number of controlled undead exceeds the Cultist's levels, he has to make occasional saving throws or the creatures will turn on him. The Cultist can also use the same procedure to Repel Demons (incl. devils, creatures of the Outer Dark, etc.): a Turned result means the creatures can't approach the cultist or direct attacks at him; a Destroyed result means the demons flee.
Mystic - Neutral. - Only leather armour allowed. Allowed weapons are one-handed axes*, flails**, staves, bows*** and whatever else resonates with historical mystics. - Can cast both versions of reversible spells. - Can turn elementals and other similar creatures that originate from other planes and are not explicitly undead or demonic. - Much weaker "support organisation" than the churches of clerics or the cults of cultists.
* See the tabarzin of dervishes. ** Fancy and outlandish enough. *** See Zen archery.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 20, 2015 20:05:59 GMT -6
Cultist (because sorry, "anti-cleric" just sounds stupid) That's precisely what they're called in James Maliszewski's Dwimmermount: cultists. If I could go back in time to 1973, I'd lobby Gary to call clerics "crusaders" and to call anti-clerics "cultists".
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Feb 21, 2015 3:32:09 GMT -6
I'm going to call the anti-cleric not a separate class. "Anti-" class figures occur in Chainmail, in the form of Anti-Heroes, which are explicitly part of the Hero class of figures, not a separate type, and which appeared in Blackmoor, as did clerics. Anti-clerics are just an extension of this.
|
|