3e Cleric Weapon Usage

Remove all ads!

My experience with D&D is limited to playing the computer games so I'm by no means a rules expert. I'm confused with the ability of a cleric to use edged weapons. Im pretty sure my multi classed clerics in NWN and TOEE have not been able to use edged weapons, similar to BG 2nd edition rules. However, in IWD2 Im also pretty sure that I had a dwarven cleric running around with a great sword. What exactly are the 3rd edition rules concerning clerics and edged weapons.

[ October 04, 2005, 15:05: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Clerics can use any weapon they like. Whether they are proficient in a weapon is another matter.

 

Clerics are proficient in all simple weapons. If the cleric chooses the War domain (if his/her god/dess has it), the cleric is proficient in his/her deity's weapon.

Simple Weapon List:
gauntlet, unarmed strike, dagger, punching dagger, spiked gauntlet, light mace, sickle, club, heavy mace, morningstar, shortspear, longspear, quarterstaff, spear, light crossbow, heavy crossbow, dart, javelin and sling.

3e changed the 'rule' of clerics being unable to wield bladed weapons. The CRPGs would be IWD 2, ToEE and NWN. Depending on whether you multiclass your cleric, they may have more proficiencies in weapons - a F/C can wield simple and martial weapons.

 

Why was it in the first way, that clerics couldn't wield edged weapons in 2nd edition?

 

It was an injunction not to spill blood, also this way in 1e. From 1e ADnD PHB, p. 20:

All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/or pointed weapons which shed blood.

I've got other CRPGs with a similar rule.

 

I find this kinda faked explanation to add distinction and limitation to a class. Injury is injury, none knows that better than clerics, with their healing gifts.
Besides, if we get technical, blood is still shed, just not visibly right away, on the outside. The bruise forms later, what other than blood is that?

 

Yea, and verily the people in a medieval setting know ALL about biology, physiology, the science of medicine and understanding of trauma that we do nowadays. A contusion is very different in appearance to a laceration or incision.

The nature of the injuction makes sense when you recall that "This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times." (AD&D PH, again, p.20)

Further the line from the rulebook reads (per the post above):

It's still possible to cause enough injuries to a body by bludgeoning to break the skin and cause external bleeding, but a metal ball on a stick is less likely to do so than a three-foot long blade. *shrug*

FWIW; AD&D 2nd Ed. had a little more flexibility - in addition to regular Clerics, another class was the Specialty Priest (of a given deity) - a Sp.Priest of a war god like Tempus, Kord or Ares would likely have more 'allowed weapons' than one of a peaceful god like Eldath. (In that Edition of the rules, Druids got relegated to being Specialty Priests of nature gods)

 

heh, guess I wasn't paying very much attention to my cleric in TOEE

I kind of like the idea of a cleric not being able to use an edged weapon, but that's probably because I'm biased towards BG2

 

I remember it going back to the earliest days of D&D. Even then we wondered "what if your cleric's evil?" but of course it was all about game balance.

Since clerics got some spells, make them use the 1d6 weapons while fighters could use the 1d8.

Of course, there was nothing to stop a DM (or CRPG designer) from giving a cleric a Mace of Doom +10 (+5d6 of fire damage), making the whole notion of balance kind of silly.

 

Considering half the various priests and clerics i have read about in various books have used sacrifical daggers, and even as weapons, i always resented that "no edged" thingy. 3E's definition sounds much better, they simply knows the weapons that is the simplest to learn to use, not beeing as Martial themed as a fighter.

 

Of course, those same clerics are still able to wear the heaviest armor in the game, which is just silly... I far prefer the Cloistered Cleric from UA to the standard tank

 

What Sir Fink said. Someone designing OD&D must have stumbled upon some sub-group of knights templars who thought they could work around the New Testament's general condemnation of violence through the rather lame "shedding blood" loophole, and then thought it would be a good way to balance out the cleric. Then the "clerics only use blunt instruments" notion stuck. Tho of course, if you were some medieval guy about to be executed, and had the choice between a guy cutting your head off with a sharp axe or getting your skull crushed with a heavy mace, which would seem more humane to you?

 

MrNexx: I asume the heavy armor thing is once again a reference from the old knightly order thingy?

When players have asked me to make custom cleric or priest classes, i have pretty much cut away the heavy armor proficiency right away without any further discussion. chainmails seems much better fitting than full plate. Been considering making a houserule that cleric do not get heavy armor proficiency, but its difficult enough as it is to get those i have played with to pick cleric... and they need the healing.

 

Clerics are the most powerful class in the core game, bar none. Wizards and druids have places where they can shine, but a fully-loaded cleric can destory a fair amount of territory, especially if they have the Magic domain (and are thus able to use all wizard spell-trigger items, like wands and staves).

And, truthfully, don't go easy on them if they don't have a cleric. We played a game without a cleric, and got trounced... and thereafter, always had a cleric.

 

Done that, they get beaten, badly (i dont go easy on them). And they all still just tried to make "thougher warriors", all of them loved warriors, heh oh well. dont play nowadays so.

 

Wow, you guys make me worry that our group does not have a cleric (we have a druid instead, although the DM was grumbling a little about it)... Overall, will one divine spellcaster suffice?
The 2nd edition was not allowed anything heavier than chain mail, right? This seemed natural enough - after all, unlike the paladin, the cleric him/herself is usually not a warrior per se. Some faiths, perhaps, could be allowed more, some less.

 

A druid can do enough healing, if he/she is set on it. but he/she will probablly be anoyed that he/she will lose so many memorsation spells on keeping you people alive. where a cleric can convert existing other spells to healing, leaving him more options for memorising other spells he wants to use.

And Cleric has been able to use anythin from leatherarmor to full plate mail in 2E and 3E and 3.5E all.

 

By the way: Druids are considered the most powerful class in 3.5e. With the cleric close on its heels.

 

Really? Why in 3.5 ed, I haven't seen much change from what I know of 3rd edition?

 

In 3.0 also. It's the Wildshape. A Druid excells at spellcasting and melee combat. And he does not need to boost his stats with spells like the cleric.