machpants
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Supersonic Underwear!
Posts: 259
|
Post by machpants on Mar 6, 2013 18:59:24 GMT -6
The morning star is a piercing weapon, which I would therefore not allow clerics to use (considering a "point" to be an "edge", as are arrows in the text). See here, for example (entry 8, halfway down). It is debatable whether the military flail ever actually existed. The agricultural flail (a tool for beating wheat) was, occasionally, pressed into military service in peasant armies however (see here), but the concept of a military flail is widely accepted in mainstream fantasy. For me, the military flail similar to a mace, but with a length of chain between the haft and the head, and allowable to clerics. If the head is spiked, the weapon would instead be classed as a morning star. For me, I think I would allow the following: * hammer (one handed), * club, * mace, * flail, * staff (one or two handed), * war hammer (two handed), * sling. And variations thereof. I have always divided flails into flails and 'morning-star flails'; flails having a short chain and being blunt (ala threshing implement) and 'morning-star flails' having a spike ball and a much longer chain, a more impressive and difficult weapon. This seems to cover history reasonably well. I see Chaotic clerics unable to use turn undead (or similar) and have them being able to use a dagger (good for sacrifice) and dart (with poison- get them unconscious for the altar!) instead. Slings are in with me for clerics. This is going a bit beyond just the 3lbbs I guess, altho I am working off retro-clones only. HURRY UP NOVEMBER!
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Mar 7, 2013 10:33:30 GMT -6
What if a cleric wielded a very dull sword? What about two swords tied together tip-to-pommel such that instead of cutting someone it would batter them with the upside-down hilt? Do flanged maces with points - not spikes per se, but just little pointed corners that stick out - violate the proscription?
|
|
|
Post by Otto Harkaman on Mar 7, 2013 11:20:07 GMT -6
I would allow priests/clerics of Set to wield poisoned daggers.
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Mar 7, 2013 11:44:51 GMT -6
Well since the weapons all do a d6 for damage... what difference does it make? OK that was a barb, and I really couldn't help myself. I think the whole issue with clerics not wielding edged weapons stems from the fact that fighters had to have some big perk, namely magic swords they alone benefited from. That aside, most of the western religious reasoning is nicely researched and sound. Kudos to you all for it!
I have always been a fan of clerics of certain gods having favorite weapons. Tridents for sea gods and spears for hunting gods and so forth. Perhaps making these weapons exclusively the only weapons their clerics may use would be a valid option? Another idea is that perhaps the cleric is an anchorite, or hermit and is only allowed to use easily obtained weapons from nature- the staff and club.
Regarding flails as weapons, many medieval flails were simple peasant weapons with or without added spikes. Reinforced bands of iron were used fairly frequently, so blunted flails, or smooth ball type flail heads are possible.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Mar 7, 2013 11:50:24 GMT -6
One thing this thread is making clear to me, at least, is that a character who signs up to play a cleric is basically asking for some kind of weird (and hopefully flavorful) restriction on her weapon choice - whether it's blunt weapons, weapons you can find in the woods, or weapons that correspond thematically to the pertinent deity. I kind of like the idea of a campaign in which the pantheon is made up of a bunch of gods of really weird things - like you can worship either the god of plankton, the god of irony, or the god of taxation. What would those clerics have to wield?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 12:42:15 GMT -6
I'm certain "Untimately" (as do I) appreciates the comments from one and all about how you handle a particular ruling in your campaign. May I point out, however, that this was his original question? [emphasis added] I know I'm being pedantic here, but I'm working on something that I would like to be useful for an arbitrary OD&D referee, and thus I would like to interpret the cleric weapon restrictions conservatively. I've no issue with thread drift, I've rather enjoyed everyone's comments, but for the benefit of the original poster ... why don't you also address how you feel this rule should interpreted "by the book."
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 7, 2013 13:45:39 GMT -6
I've no issue with thread drift, I've rather enjoyed everyone's comments, but for the benefit of the original poster ... why don't you also address how you feel this rule should interpreted "by the book." I think we kind of answered that in the first page, or at least Brendan seemed happy with the responses. The thread drifted after that. The consensus seems to be: - Magical weapons must be non-edged melee weapons (jcstephens uses just this rule and none of the others.)
- Other magical weapons are effectively non-magical for clerics, whether or not they are otherwise usable.
- Edged weapon or arrow use is going to carry a social penalty, at the very least, if not other penalties.
- Chaotics might ignore the rule.
- No agreement on slings or firearms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 14:00:54 GMT -6
No criticism implied or intended.
I don't see a consensus, but I wouldn't expect one. The strength of OD&D is the take it and make it your own or, as the author of a similar game put it: imagine the hell out of it.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 7, 2013 18:03:14 GMT -6
Well, by "consensus", I'm just talking about the bits people agree are the most conservative interpretation of the original rules. Each of us has a little bit extra, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 18:39:56 GMT -6
Extra is what makes it fun!
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 18, 2020 9:25:16 GMT -6
David defeated Goliath with a slingshot, so I think slings are OK for clerics.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on May 19, 2020 0:47:19 GMT -6
And then he cut off his head with his own sword
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 19, 2020 9:45:00 GMT -6
haha, good point. Still think slings are OK though.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on May 19, 2020 9:54:30 GMT -6
So do I David just wasn't a cleric. But D&D clerics can surely indicate this biblical excerpt to explain why they use slings & stones.
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on May 20, 2020 8:39:26 GMT -6
I believe that if you follow the rules as written and don’t bring your knowledge of subsequent additions and clarifications with you, it is clear that Clerics are only prohibited from using magical edged weapons. The parenthetical, no arrows, is referring to the preceding sentence which only discusses the use of magical items.
Contrast with the description for the magic user where it is clearly stated that magic users may only use daggers. The fact that this is specified for magic users calls into question an interpretation that the intent of the section pertaining to clerics was meant to refer to all weapons.
Ironically, as written it appears that magic users may use non-magical armor This is because the text says that magic users May use any enchanted items save the arms and armor of the fighter and then goes on in the next sentence to say “magic users may Arm themselves with daggers only.” As There’s no reference made to magical daggers, The literal interpretation is that magic users may not use magical weapons, may not use magical armor, and may not use any non-magical weapons except for daggers.
I do not believe this was the authors intent. However, if this was a legal case I would argue that intent doesn’t matter. In criminal law This is referred to as the void for vagueness exception. A criminal statute cannot be interpreted to prohibit conduct that is not clearly delineated in the statute as it fails to put defendant on notice that the act they are accused of committing was illegal
In such cases the remedy for the legislature is to rewrite the statute to be more clear. We know that Gary did that because we have access to subsequent additions to the core game. Of course he does that in an infuriating way by suggesting that we should’ve understood his intent all along.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on May 20, 2020 12:38:38 GMT -6
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I take the passage literally. Clerics may use any non-magic weapon they please, but only non-edged magic weapons. Why? Because it's MAGIC! As long as it's consistent, it doesn't have to make sense. Same thing with magic-users, they can use non-magical weapons and armor but the enchanted stuff doesn't work for them. If they try, the enchantments fail and they get no bonuses nor abilities. I use this too, but depending on setting, certain adherants (for different gods) may receive bonuses or have restrictions. Like one gets a bonus to healing but is forbidden from resurrection. Another may be forbidden edged weapons but start with an extra 1st level cleric spell. I'm of the opinion that unless there is a mechanical impact on the rules as intended, players should be unrestricted wherever possible, and somewhat accommodated if novel.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 21, 2020 5:47:27 GMT -6
when I bought those rules and read them there were no other rules editions or supplements, D&D was something completely new. And in my cold reading, I interpreted this rule as a poorly written sentence meaning clerics couldn’t use any edged weapons. This was my situation as well. It seemed clear to my group at the time that the intent was to dis-allow all edged weapons, which didn't matter much for non-magical weapons but was a clear limitation for magical weapons. (So yes to hammers but no to swords. That kind of thing.) Remember that the "rules lawyer" wasn't invented until AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 21, 2020 7:21:46 GMT -6
My question is why it is an important setting details that clerics use non-edged weapon? Or rather why is it important limit clerics or any other class to a specific set of weapons.
For me, I accept the limitations of the magic user and thief because their training not as expansive as the fighting man when it comes to melee combat.
For clerics, their limitations is also fine if that how it works in your setting. It is not how it works in my Majestic Fantasy Realms. Instead it depend on what religion, the cleric is an adherent of. In the churches of Mitra or Set, their clerics learn pretty much what fighters learn. They have certain weapons they favor through editions for example Priest of Set like to use morning stars while Priests of Mitra use the broadsword.
In contrast Priests of Dannu (goddess of Healing) don't focus on weapon training and thus have more limited list of weapons they can learn to use.
I view that there are elements of OD&D that are part of the system like the 1d20 to hit roll, and others that reflect how Gygax and Arneson viewed the settings of their respective campaigns (clerics not being able to used edged weapons).
To wrap it up I will repeat my initial question, why is having cleric use only non-edge weapons an important setting detail for your campaigns?
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on May 21, 2020 11:57:15 GMT -6
robertsconleyOD&D clerics are simply Christian priests, so they are not allowed to shed blood.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 21, 2020 13:32:05 GMT -6
robertsconleyOD&D clerics are simply Christian priests, so they are not allowed to shed blood. So is it important they remain Christian priests for your setting and campaigns? Or is it a case of good enough? Which is fine as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 16:20:25 GMT -6
A good gods-fearing Cleric can not shed blood by using a sword, of course, so like a pious choir-boy he simply turns the goblin's head into a puddle of good with his mace. Okay, that's the cheeky answer and the first thing that comes to mind whenever someone brings up the no bloodshed thing. I can assure you, you can bloody someone pretty fast with the humble quarterstaff. You can get a tremendous amount of momentum and impact with one of those bad boys, and if you're fighting a humanoid and whack him across the nose, blood will surely be had. So, my personal interpretation for my own unique campaign world eschews the "no blood" explanation and simply relies on a twofold explanation for the blunt weapons my Clerics use. 1 - On an entirely practical level, the Cleric as an Undead-hunting specialist chooses tools that are more likely to easily damage skeletons, the most commonly encountered low level undead. 2 - The mace, staff, warhammer and sling all have ceremonial and religious significance in the churches that dot the landscape of my campaign world. There's a rough David vs. Goliath analogue, for instance, and similar stories. Also, all swords in my setting have some small degree of internal magic, even if they're not true magical swords, and they simply will not be held by non-fighters. Someone must be a true and tested Veteran at the very least to wield one. One attempts to circumvent this at one's own risk.
|
|
|
Post by Piper on May 21, 2020 16:29:25 GMT -6
A good gods-fearing Cleric can not shed blood by using a sword, of course, so like a pious choir-boy he simply turns the goblin's head into a puddle of good with his mace. I read an interesting take on this rule once upon a time. I no longer recall the source, though it was probably the Dragon mag. Anyway ... The fellow stated in his campaign Clerics couldn't use edged weapons, but Anti-Clerics were required to draw blood when they attacked. So those who followed Chaos carries spears, morningstars, etc. It seemed like a fun idea to me, so I thought I'd share.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 18:21:33 GMT -6
A good gods-fearing Cleric can not shed blood by using a sword, of course, so like a pious choir-boy he simply turns the goblin's head into a puddle of good with his mace. I read an interesting take on this rule once upon a time. I no longer recall the source, though it was probably the Dragon mag. Anyway ... The fellow stated in his campaign Clerics couldn't use edged weapons, but Anti-Clerics were required to draw blood when they attacked. So those who followed Chaos carries spears, morningstars, etc. It seemed like a fun idea to me, so I thought I'd share. It's a fun idea and it evokes a certain setting, which is, I think, what we ought to be doing with the framework of OD&D. It's amorphous enough that we're left to interpret the rules and imagine them in the context of a setting that's not strictly defined. You could create a seemingly infinite number of worlds that technically follow the rules but interpret them very differently.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 21, 2020 18:41:16 GMT -6
For those you who follow my blog and posts here now I been tinkering with OD&D and other systems for quite some time. My view is that there are mechanics that is the system which makes it what it is. Then there is the list of stuff, things that ready made to be useful for a campaign. Spells, equipment, magic items, monsters and even classes. I find that a lot of the stuff can be altered while keeping the system basically the same. The result is that it is still OD&D but with a completely different setting. Clerics not being able to use edged weapon is what I consider stuff.
But to be clear folks can like the stuff just as much as the system and it is an important part of what they enjoy about OD&D. Which is OK as well.
I been doing some work with 5th edition because of one of the groups I play with. One of the nice things about OD&D compared to 5e is that there less mechanics to fiddle with to make something different to fit one's idea for a campaign. So if you want something different with the clerics is fairly straight forward to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on May 22, 2020 9:58:41 GMT -6
I believe that if you follow the rules as written and don’t bring your knowledge of subsequent additions and clarifications with you, it is clear that Clerics are only prohibited from using magical edged weapons. I’m going to disagree with this. First, all one need do is read the discussion here to see it isn’t clear at all. Over 40 years down the road and people are still arguing about it. Second, when I bought those rules and read them there were no other rules editions or supplements, D&D was something completely new. And in my cold reading, I interpreted this rule as a poorly written sentence meaning clerics couldn’t use any edged weapons. This isn’t a legal contract or a court case, it's a game. And sometimes you have to decide what an author was trying to tell you as opposed to what he actually wrote. Failing that, you have to simply decide what makes the best sense to you in light of the body of rules. There is certainly nothing wrong with either reading, pick one and run with it. But clear? No. I assume we have these discussions because it’s part of the fun of playing such a wonky edition! I don't mean to argue that my interpretation is "god's truth." To the contrary, if there was an absolutely 100% right answer, there would be nothing interesting to discuss. I also seriously doubt that there was ever any real argument about this issue until the last decade and the rise of literalist interpretation of 3LBB “as written.” I like thinking about the rules that way because it leads to counter-intuitive results which suggest a different game than "vanilla" D&D. Mind you, I'm 42, so I was not there "back in the day" and have no nostalgia for OD&D - this very much an intellectual exercise for me. The games I play are generally "rules lite" when I DM and I never argue with the DM when I am player about the rules. In any event, consider a grammatical analysis: On Fighting-men: “They can only use a limited number of magical items of the non-weaponry variety.” On Clerics: “They have the use of all magic armor and all non-edged magical weapons (no arrows!).” The two sentences are functionally equivalent, in that they both limit the type of magical treasure available to the class. Yet no one seriously argues that fighting-men are limited in the number of non-magical items they can use. Everyone “understands” that the first sentence is referring solely to the fighter’s use of “magical” items. However, when the same grammatical construction is used on the next page it is cited as evidence restricting the cleric’s use of both magical and non-magical weapons. Why? I posit that the inconsistency in interpretation is explained by the fact that most readers unconsciously interpret the rule in light of subsequent editions/rule clarifications/etc. Anecdotal evidence of how it was done “back in the day” likely carries this unconscious bias with it. We know that by the time Greyhawk came out that class-based restrictions on non-magical weapons and armor were “just part of the game.”
|
|
|
Post by Piper on May 22, 2020 16:52:35 GMT -6
In any event, consider a grammatical analysis: Thanks for the reply. You've obviously put a lot of thought into this and I believe our discussion boils down to this: we see the intent in the words an amateur writer put down on paper decades ago somewhat differently. You see them as clear while I feel they are at times ambiguous. Thanks for the lively discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 17:19:35 GMT -6
In that vein, I think one thing OD&D fans can universally agree upon is that the three little booklets would probably be less...hmm...intensely debated for nearly half a century if they'd gone through a couple more editors and proof-readers. For better or worse. I personally find the ambiguity has a certain timeless charm and I'm glad they're the way they are, but I can also see why "clarifications" were needed both by TSR and the fan community. What I truly find fascinating is how certain West Coast groups straight up rejected some of the official clarifications even back in 1975. You have to ponder how the hobby would have evolved differently if D&D had never become "advanced" nor "basic" and simply remained "D&D". That's a fun alternative timeline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 18:41:47 GMT -6
Ha. I get it.
That's a fun thought experiment, too. Is there anything we actually can all agree on here, other than "This is a game." (Actually I listened to a podcast earlier today that argued it isn't so I guess that doesn't qualify either. D'oh!)
|
|
|
Post by delta on May 22, 2020 20:07:59 GMT -6
In that vein, I think one thing OD&D fans can universally agree upon is that the three little booklets would probably be less...hmm...intensely debated for nearly half a century if they'd gone through a couple more editors and proof-readers. For better or worse. I personally find the ambiguity has a certain timeless charm and I'm glad they're the way they are, but I can also see why "clarifications" were needed both by TSR and the fan community. What I truly find fascinating is how certain West Coast groups straight up rejected some of the official clarifications even back in 1975. You have to ponder how the hobby would have evolved differently if D&D had never become "advanced" nor "basic" and simply remained "D&D". That's a fun alternative timeline. I often muse on it maybe being the other way around. Like: Maybe the ambiguities, the gaps that required personal interpretations/additions/investments, and in turn generated debates and even arguments that got people more emotionally involved... maybe that was specifically part of what gave it cultural legs, forced evolution, and made it eternally fresh. Like, in contrast I feel like a significantly simpler/cleaner game like Tunnels & Trolls may not have been able to make the same impact if it had come first. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on May 22, 2020 20:13:51 GMT -6
Agreed. The dynamics of partisanship are an asset in D&D. Pick a rules system. Create a world. Determine cleric weapons. Take a stance. Face the opposition. Be the ball, Danny!
|
|