[dork mode]
why can’t clerics use bladed weapons in ad&d? what’s so holy about bashing someone’s head in with a club or hammer but not stabbing them with a sword?
[dork mode off]
[can’t believe I’m such a dork mode on]
Clerics are not even required to be Lawful, they can be chaotic aligned, so I don’t think holiness really has much to do with it. As I’m sure you know, the whole point is that each class has advantages and disadvantages … it is not necessarily logical - except to the extent that they promote diversity and balance, a requirement in order to produce lasting enjoyment in the game.
[I’m a dork all the time, I can’t turn it off]
The AD&D rule on clerics is derived from the real life rule in the medieval Catholic church that clerics were forbidden to shed blood. So they used a variety of maces, scepters, etc. to crack skulls, inflict internal injuries, do anything except cut someone.
Presumably it has something to do with the sacredness of blood. On the one hand it’s a silly damn rule (in gaming and in real life), but on the other hand it makes for a limitation that makes the gameplay more interesting.
Uhm, you smash someone’s head open with a hammer and you shed a lot of blood.
Could you provide any source for such a ‘rule’ in the medieval catholic church? Frankly this reeks of gamer mythos, and makes little sense given the reality of such orders as the Teutonic and Templar Knights. Members of these orders fulfilled all the same roles (and with the blessing of the pope) as any clergy - and they also hacked people to pieces with swords and axes.
Ah, yes, the ban on edged weapons can be found in the Scriptures in Game Balance 3:16. :rolleyes:
I’ve never seen any justification for this restriction–I don’t even think it has much effect on the class power balance now (if it ever did). The first house rule of every group I’ve played in was that the restriction was not in effect, on grounds of stupidity. A lot of clerics still used maces and flails, but they didn’t have to do so.
(We usually ditch racial level restrictions and a lot of other blatantly irrational “game balance” mechanics as well. Good roleplaying provides adequate balance, in my experience.)
Here’s a reference that says clerics can’t shed blood. From Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica:
Now you might be able to interpret that as allowing the use of clubs and such. But it’s a stretch.
While I suspect that the whole thing about “bishops were forbidden to shed blood, so instead of using swords they bashed people in the head with big iron spiked clubs” (which I would think would shed at least as much blood, if not more, as skewering people with sharp pointy pieces of metal) is a Medieval Legend along the lines of the primae noctis, it may not have a Medieval Legend invented by D&D rule-writers. At any rate, it seems to have taken in the University of Technology, Sydney (Australia) and the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The mace is a traditional symbol of authority borne by (among others) bishops, which may have led to a folk-etymologyish sort of “explanation” of their presence.
I heard that when the original D&D rules were being made, they based the clerics on members of the Knights Templar, who did have some kind of restriction on bladed weapons.
This restriction does not apply to ALL AD&D clerics. Specialty priests (ones devoted to one god out of the various AD&D pantheons instead of generic good or evil) have weapons restrictions based on their god’s preferences. Priests of Cyric, for instance, can use a longsword because Cyric used a longsword to kill his friend and ascend to godhood. A god of farming or death may allow their specialty priests to use scythes.
I will have to check my books at home, but I think the restriction on bladed weapons has been weakened even further in 3rd Edition D&D (the Advanced has been dropped).
It is something of a balance issue, but not a particularly important one. There are many blunt weapons that compare favorably with the bladed ones in the rules. It’s more something to make clerics more distinguished than ‘somewhat weaker fighters who can cast spells’.
I’d just like to add that in 3rd Edition D&D, clerics are automatically proficient in “simple” weapons, which includes maces, but not swords. However, clerics can purchase proficiency in any type of weapon they desire without restriction. In fact, ANY class can purchase proficiency in any weapon if they want, with the notable exception of druids. Perhaps we should ask why druids can only use a restricted weapon list now.
I’ve heard (but do not have a cite handy) that this “clerics can’t use edged weapons” idea started with Archbishop Turpin, one of Roland’s companions (as in, Frankish history embellished into mediaeval myth through chansons de geste and on to Boiardo and Ariosto), who was, well, an Archbishop, and who is sometimes depicted using a mace. So far as I know, the Templars had no particular restrictions on hurting people.
While I don’t see how you can stretch that Thomas Aquinas passage to claim that hitting people with large heavy metal things is not “shedding blood”, ISTR that, during the various national Inquisitions, torture was not considered “officially” torture unless it broke the victim’s skin. That might be news to anyone who suffered racking, bastinado or squassation (to name but three), but those are the rules. Reputedly. (I can’t check this, I’ve left my copy of the Malleus Maleficarum at home).
I really don’t know. I always thought that was silly myself as a club or mace is going to draw quite a bit of blood if you smash someone over the head with it. But you’ll be happy to know that they changed those rules in AD&D second edition. Certain clerics were permitted to use bladed weapons if their god allowed it. For example the God of Agriculture might allow one to use a sickle in combat. In third edition the restrictions on bladed weapons isn’t an issue.
Marc
Druids are, in a way, specialty priests, who have restrictions based on their mythos. Since they are common to almost all campaign settings, they are included in the core rules. In supplements for various campaign settings, there are faith-based restrictions for various specialty priests.
Simple: Clerics (and most churchly types) weren’t weaponsmiths. It’s much easier to fashion a mace rather than the effort to forge a sword. Since they spent most of their time in studies or with their duties, they weren’t around sharpening weapons. At least that’s my take. I studied religion and history for a long time, trying to figure out what the real reasons were behind alot of things. This is one of those things where it’s like “they didn’t do A because B” but you look at it and it just doesn’t seem right.
NEwho, back to staring at my cubicle wall…
I can’t speak for historical correctness, but the reason that D&D restricts clerics from using edged weapons is that 1st edition clerics were a serious kludge. If you happen to have a 1st Ed. (AD&D) Players’ Handbook around, you can see
for yourself: clerics are based on “certain holy orders who fought in the crusades” (in other words, the Templars and Hospitallers), and the description of them as, specifically, battlefield priests, reinforces that. In other words, the original priest class was sort of a proto-paladin, with physical statistics almost as good as a fighter’s. Later, Unearthed Arcana changed that: it introduced the true paladin, and made the priest class more general by implication- but the original stats were never changed. To this day, no matter what sort of priest you play in D&D, their stats will automatically be better than a thief’s, and almost as good as a fighter’s, because the system is so entrenched.
Oh, right, you wanted to know about the edged-weapon thing, specifically. Simple: Gygax & Co. needed some way to limit their original priest class to balance the to-hit tables they had made for the class. Most of the heavier-damage weapons in D&D are bladed, so restricting them means that a priest is only half as effective a fighter as an, erm, fighter.
Have to agree with one thing, though: Any D&D game I’ve ever been involved in, that was the first rule out the window.
Well overall the rules of D&D and AD&D are more than a little “wacked” in my opinion.
When Clerics first arrived on the scene they were basically limited to the non-edged weapons both as a method of a game balance and to identify the character. For example, you see a character wearing robes, armor, and carrying a mace… chances are he is a Cleric.
Later on, the mythos of a Cleric’s deity would determine weapon choice. It is logical that followers of Thor would use hammers.
In the times I played, Cleric spells were stereotypical. No matter what deity the Cleric represented, he still was viewed as a walking-talking “first aid kit” and called upon to use healing spells. Many a DM has allowed a cleric of a death god to cast a healing spell. Not to mention when you have a party with two clerics with opposed deities (Thor and Loki) the clerics worked together to heal the party of its ills.
I can remember one time playing a cleric of Loki (deity of strife and fire), and I couldn’t cast a single fire spell. Didn’t make a lot of sense to me.
In closing, just to illustrate how you shouldn’t try to make sense of D&D… A huge red dragon can have 50 hit points, yet a 10th level Fighter can have 75 hit points. I asked TSR about it and they said hit points were a combination of luck and skill and not mere body mass… Then Clerics can heal luck and skill…
I just made a trip to the "http://www.higgins.org/"higgins armory a few weeks ago, and part of their little presentation was about priests on the battlefield. At first the priests on the battlefield (for last rites) were unarmed, but the enemy had no problem taking a wack at an unarmed priest, so they began carrying weapons. They used maces because of the ‘rule’ against shedding blood. Sorry I didn’t ask them for a cite ;). I think smashing somebody in the face with a mace has the possibility :rolleyes: to draw blood, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the church (or anyone else for that matter) ‘bent’ the rules to serve their purposes.
As far as D&D goes, it is for game balance.
The way I read the explanation of hit points— A sword attack that caused ten points of damage would be a deadly blow to a level one fighter, but the 10th level fighter would dodge most of it and just get a minor wound
I swear I hit the preview button :wally:
Therefore if hit points represent dodge ability, then dexterity should figure into hit points and not constitution.
[Moderator watch ON]
OK, folks, fun is fun, but we are in General Questions here. Discussion of the actual, historical restrictions (or lack thereof) on priests in combat is fine. Discussion of the rules for same in Dungeons and Dragons isn’t really GQ territory, though. The GQ answer to why clerics can’t (or rather, couldn’t) use certain weapons in D&D is that Gygax and company decided that they couldn’t, and the reason that they now can is that Gygax and co. changed their minds. End of story.
RainbowDragon, Not dexterity but fighting (and dodging) skill gained through experience. Per Chronos request, this is the last post I make in this thread regarding D&D.