Weapon/Armour Limitations, and Alternative Combat

[norse]

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!

[tombowings]

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.

[norse]

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...

[danhem]

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).

[Professor P]

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.

[danhem]

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.

[tombowings]

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.

[Professor P]

Mar 9, 2011 13:15:17 GMT -6 danhem said:

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.

Mar 9, 2011 13:15:17 GMT -6 danhem said:

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.

Mar 9, 2011 13:15:17 GMT -6 danhem said:

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.

[Professor P]

Mar 9, 2011 13:28:25 GMT -6 tombowings said:

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).

Mar 9, 2011 13:28:25 GMT -6 tombowings said:

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.

[Deleted]

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.

Just an interesting (I hope!) side-note.

[norse]

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.

Hmm, interesting note on anti-clerics DuBeers!

[talysman]

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.

[norse]

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.

[Deleted]

norse: I recently started a new blog at 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.

Just today we started to discuss your point in www.thefantasygame.org/2011/05/reading-od-from-cover-to-cover.html - and as a result of not quite agreeing with some of the posters I started my search for other discussions about this point and happened to stumble upon this posting.

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.

[cooper]

"all weapons do the same damage" is not true in 0d&d, only in basic d&d.

[talysman]

May 8, 2011 22:17:04 GMT -6 cooper said:

"all weapons do the same damage" is not true in 0d&d, only in basic d&d.

Hunh?

I guess you mean LBB + Sup I, unless you are referring to giant-sized weapons, which do damage based on size of giant.

[blackbarn]

It's things like this that every "Clone" system of OD&D has ignored completely so far, and makes them not clones of the original at all. They are all "tainted" by the later editions perceptions, sometimes strongly. The biggest charm of OD&D to me is that reading it as-is can yield such different and very valid interpretations. If you want those cleared up and set in stone, then why use OD&D at all?

brannalbin, if you are writing a clone that preserves these sorts of things, then I am very interested.

Does it make sense that one could wield a non-magical weapon type but not a magical one? Of course not, but isn't much of the D&D game's logic based on game balance, not realism? Makes as much sense as clerics of, for example, a god of war, or an evil bloody sacrificial priest... who still must wield only blunt weapons. And why do magic-users forget "memorized" spells? Besides, any of these things can be rationalized in your campaign world if you think creatively and really desire it to make sense. For most, I suspect it's enough to just play a fun game.

[cooper]

May 8, 2011 22:42:47 GMT -6 talysman said:

May 8, 2011 22:17:04 GMT -6 cooper said:

"all weapons do the same damage" is not true in 0d&d, only in basic d&d.

Hunh?

I guess you mean LBB + Sup I, unless you are referring to giant-sized weapons, which do damage based on size of giant.

uh, no. 0d&d provides 4 combat systems only two, the alternate and the fantasy did not adjust damage based on the weapon being wielded.

[talysman]

May 9, 2011 10:35:28 GMT -6 cooper said:

May 8, 2011 22:42:47 GMT -6 talysman said:

Hunh?

I guess you mean LBB + Sup I, unless you are referring to giant-sized weapons, which do damage based on size of giant.

uh, no. 0d&d provides 4 combat systems only two, the alternate and the fantasy did not adjust damage based on the weapon being wielded.

That's a different statement than " 'All weapons do the same damage' is not true on OD&D." I now see what you're saying: OD&D gave the option (via Chainmail) to adjust weapon damage, but Basic D&D, by limiting itself to the alternate combat system and not implementing Sup I, eliminated the possibility of adjusted weapon damage.

That makes sense.

[Zenopus]

Another tidbit from Gygax's letter in #15 (Oct 76):

"Specifically to the point, magic-users are not allowed to wear any form of armor or use any form of weapon other than daggers. We have amended our treatment to allow them to use staves as weapons as well. Characters able to operate in two or more classes at once do not fall under the injunction against armor and weapons. Thieves can use nothing better than leather armor, and they may never use a shield. They may use only daggers and/or swords, magical or not. I would allow them to use a garrot or sling in some cases. Likewise, I would allow the use of a fine chainmail shirt of magical nature. The point is that the DM should make such decisions."

Oct 76 is just after all of the OD&D Supplements were out. AD&D was probably in early development but this is still firmly in the OD&D-era.

Greyhawk says: "Thieves an employ magic daggers and magic swords but none of the other magical weaponry" (pg 4). His statement here indicates he meant for this to apply to non-magical weapons as well. Holmes, for some reason, changed this to "Thieves can use all the weapons of a fighting man including magic swords and magic daggers" (pg 6).

Some interesting additions from his personal campaign:
-magic-users can wield a staff (two-handed? can they cast while holding it in one hand?)
-thieves can use garrots/slings in some cases (when?)
-thieves can wear fine magic chainmail (elven?)

Earlier discussion on this topic:
Weapon Restrictions

[cooper]

A couple of things. While the rules state such and such class may not use such and such armor or weapons, it does not describe the penalties for someone doing so. Ad&d can be instructive as it states that an XP penalty can be levied. So in the case of a wizard escaping from a prison. If he doesn't use any fighter implements (sword and armor stolen from a guard for example). The DM may award him "hard mode" XP for the prison escape.

Now, if the wizard felt the need to use a sword, then perhaps no XP for the escape is granted. To a player--especially one with a long term character, sometimes survival of the PC trumps get some XP for something. Another example would be a wizard out of spells, the cleric lies dead and a vampire approaches, in many cases a PC would gladly give up the XP for the adventure to pick up the dead comrades mace of disruption and end the serious threat to his PC. In this case the DM doesn't tell a player he "can't do something". Nor does he impose such an onerous penalty (50% fumble! -10 to hit!!!) so as to make the choice no real choice at all.

A second option is to provide positive benefits to adhering to archetypes. Perhaps wizards who wield staffs throughout an adventure gets a +1 dmg/-1 saving throw bonus to his spells. His apprentice robes and hood gives him a passive detect magic etc. So too, the hammer or the mace can be an instrument of the cleric granting him bonuses to turning undead, spells, wielding a hammer of his faith grants him a passive detect evil 10' etc.

[aldarron]

If intentions are of any interest in this discussion, (and they needn't be, I admit) it's clear that Gygax intended the passage to mean no edged weapons of any kind, magical or not. In Strategic Review Gygax made fun of rival wargamer Alan Hendrik for creating a Cleric character who was armed with a mundane sword. Vol 1, No. 3, 1975 "... he had gone so far as to play a game of D&D as a Cleric, completely armed with such edged weapons as spear and arrows . . . this so called “review” was so obviously inaccurate..."