Cleric/fighter: what weapons can I use? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cleric/fighter: what weapons can I use? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tilden Dyer
11-01-04, 09:55 AM I had a disagreement last night with my DM regarding what weapons I could use. My cleric just multiclassed to fighter and I thought that I would now be able to use all the weapons available to both classes. My DM, however, said that using any weapon that is not available to the cleric class (ex: martial weapons) could cause me to lose my cleric abilities. I looked through the PHB v 3.5 and I found nothing to support his argument. Am I missing something? Is there more about this in the DMG or some other reference?

As he is the DM (and a genuinely nice guy), I totally respect his decision and will follow it, but I was just curious what the rest of the D&D community thought about this issue.
Naeron
11-01-04, 10:06 AM If you are using 3rd Edition then your DM is wrong. Druids have a limitation on using weapons but clerics have no limitation on the weapons that they could use, rather they are restricted by having a limited list of weapons with which they gain automatic familiarity. Clerics get Simple Weapon proficiencies not because their deity bans then from using any other weapons but because of their limited training in combat and weapons compared to the true martial classes.

A Cleric can pick up any martial weapon and use it with the -4 non-proficient penalty by the rules.

A Cleric is absolutely allowed to pick Martial Weapon proficiency as one his feats and if he chooses the War domain they get martial weapon proficiency and weapon focus in the appropriate weapon.
salamander
11-01-04, 10:09 AM He's wrong. There's an AD&D rule that clerics are only allowed bludgeoning weapons, but there's nothing similar in 3E. Proficiencies are benefits you get from taking a level in a class. Unless there's something that specifically makes an exception to that, that's all there's to it. The cleric class makes no such exception. You could create a specific case (a deity which forbids the use of anything other than bludgeoning weapons, or one that forbids the use of weapons period, or something like that), but that'd be a campaign-specific limitation, or you could choose a personal code for your character to the same effect but that'd be a personal choice.
Tilden Dyer
11-01-04, 10:20 AM Thanks for the input Naeron and salamander. I'll have to review the game log (we play online and I save the sessions), but perhaps my DM's limitation was campaign-specific as salamander suggested. In any case, it's nice to know that I wasn't crazy or missing something in the PHB v. 3.5. Thanks again.
Seeker95
11-01-04, 12:19 PM Your DM is wrong, except...
He's the DM.
CzarGarrett
11-01-04, 12:43 PM The DM can be wrong. However, having rules and references to prove him wrong is good. Just debating the issue isn't.
Kragg Bonemeal
11-01-04, 01:31 PM I'll have to jump in on the premise that he is remembering previous versions of DnD, like 2nd Ed. Clerics were only supposed to use blunt weapons... mace, club, staff... because bashing someone over and over and over until they are dead is more humane than stabbing them quickly through the heart. :)

If this is what your DM was referring to, he will see the light quickly enough. If not, maybe it is some diety/campaign specific angle he is trying to push. Find out what his reason for this limitation is. A cleric of Kord would definitely think it was OK to swing a big two-handed sword.
Thorak
11-01-04, 01:55 PM As a long-time AD&D rules lawyer, your DM is clearly bringing in AD&D rules into 3rd edition.
caeruleus
11-01-04, 02:45 PM Druids have a limitation on using weapons

That was in 3.0, it's no longer the case in 3.5.
Seeker95
11-01-04, 03:21 PM That was in 3.0, it's no longer the case in 3.5.Yes it is.
Druids have limitations based on proficiency. :P
Zherog
11-01-04, 04:36 PM Yes it is.
Druids have limitations based on proficiency. :P

Not really. Nothing prevents a druid from using a weapon she isn't proficient with - as long as she's willing to accept the -4 penalty. ;)

Now armor, on the hand...
Darth K'Trava
11-01-04, 06:49 PM As a long-time AD&D rules lawyer, your DM is clearly bringing in AD&D rules into 3rd edition.

We've had the same thing with one of our DMs. He saw reason when we point out the 3.5 version of a rule. He was also the one who kept the party virtually penniless for a good chunk of the game and didn't give the clerics magical weapons until they started bickering about it..... Then they had to buy them! :D
Shard of Suzail
11-01-04, 07:07 PM Yup, i took a level of fighter so i could use my scythe. Well worth it.
Asmodeous
11-01-04, 10:19 PM Its called a role playing house rule. Some dm's, very few I might add, insist on rules like this from a role playing point of view, in that your character who is a cleric, is bound by the dieties/churches rules of certain behaviors etc etc.
Another example of this type of rule would be a cleric of a air elemental god who is not allowed to cast earthen type spells, even if replicated via miracle spell. (example from my own campaign)

There are very few rules about this in the core books if any. its all part of the dm's campaign setting that is known as role playing. Something that is rare and almost never discussed around here. You have a good dm there. Discuss the issue with him, but I bet thats what it is. He might also inform you of other traits of your characters diety that if you want to role play, should choose to follow.
Nurgan_the_drunked
11-02-04, 08:29 AM Yup, the DM can say that you are still not allowed to use these weapons, although you should gain proficiency with them, and this may be a divine permission issue, rather than a weapon proficiency one.
If scriptures ban you from using a scythe, they ban you, regardless of whether you're really good with it. This may have been in some background he gave you about the god and his church, where these weapons are banned.
I'd talk to him. If the main reason for you multiclassing into fighter was to be allowed to use these weapons, explain that you wouldn't have done so if you'd realised this. You may get an exchange of some form (either another chance to choose, or an altered version of fighter with more useful abilities).
Seeker95
11-02-04, 09:14 AM Not really. Nothing prevents a druid from using a weapon she isn't proficient with - as long as she's willing to accept the -4 penalty.That is still a limitation.

Perhaps the word you are seeking is restriction. :D :P
Hexane
11-02-04, 12:49 PM I dont really understand why certain classes CANT use certain weapons, i agree there should be modifers etc most for the worse depending on who you are just make the character suffer for using something he/she is not supposed to.
Enalung
11-02-04, 01:05 PM I dont really understand why certain classes CANT use certain weapons, i agree there should be modifers etc most for the worse depending on who you are just make the character suffer for using something he/she is not supposed to.
What you say is false, a rogue could use a lance if she wanted, but she never really received any training with it and thus is not proficient with a lance. She may still use one if she wish, but with malus since she lacks the hability a fighter has with a lance for exemple. Not being proficient with a weapon does not mean you can't use it, it only means your not used to wielding that weapon.
salamander
11-02-04, 01:16 PM That is still a limitation.
Actually, it isn't. Non-proficiency is not a limitation, in the sense that it doesn't prevent you from doing anything. If it was, mithril armour would be even better than it already is.
Seeker95
11-02-04, 03:27 PM Actually, it isn't. Non-proficiency is not a limitation, in the sense that it doesn't prevent you from doing anything.Your definition of limitation is evidently more limited than mine.
salamander
11-02-04, 03:43 PM Your definition of limitation is evidently more limited than mine. Indeed. But I'm using the one the books use, as far as I can tell from what they have to say about mithral.
Seeker95
11-02-04, 04:56 PM Indeed. But I'm using the one the books use, as far as I can tell from what they have to say about mithral.Can't say as how the definition of mithral is very useful in defining "limitation", but if it works for you...

in the end, we aren't arguing about rules. Just the words we use to apply to the rules.
salamander
11-02-04, 05:02 PM True. The mithril example is just there because it's specifically relevant to the term 'limitation': if non-proficiency is a limitation, mithril armour counts as one category lighter for purposes of proficiency. That was never the intent of the designers, as they clarified somewhere either in a web article, a Sage Advice column or the FAQ (I can never remember which one).
nekrolog
11-02-04, 10:40 PM Yep, DM's wrong. Send him my way... I'll straighten him out. I'm 5'9" and weigh 165 lbs. Oh, wait, that's not intimidating. Nevermind. :D
Nurgan_the_drunked
11-03-04, 09:02 AM I dont really understand why certain classes CANT use certain weapons, i agree there should be modifers etc most for the worse depending on who you are just make the character suffer for using something he/she is not supposed to.

As I understand, the case in question is not actually about proficiency or capability with the weapon but about the god forbidding its use.

As I understand, rules-wise, the character is proficient with martial weapons, but use of certain weapons is still against his religious order's/ god's code. And as such by the cleric rules, he can lose cleric powers by doing so. (Arguably, practicing with one may be necessary to gain proficiency, and may still break your code)

Yes a cleric can use any weapon he wants, if he doesn't mind being a tat fighter til he gets back to a temple and promise never to do it again.
katahn
11-03-04, 10:39 AM The DM was absolutely right!

A cleric gets their special powers from their god. Disobedience to that god can result in temporary or permanent loss of abilities (unless the character converts to a new god and is accepted as clergy or gets forgiven by the old one.) If the god in question forbade the usage of a certain class of weapons, the cleric could very well anger their god by chosing to use them anyway. Its not a rules mechanic issue, its a role-play one.

However, if the religion (as it is defined in game/role-play) has no injunction about using a big honkin' 2-handed Claymore-style sword, then there is nothing in the rules mechanics that say otherwise.

Although, wizard's could wear plate mail armor if the house rules allowed for it or didn't care about arcane spell failure. Just because something is printed in the rules doesn't mean it has to be so.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tilden Dyer 11-01-04, 09:55 AM	I had a disagreement last night with my DM regarding what weapons I could use. My cleric just multiclassed to fighter and I thought that I would now be able to use all the weapons available to both classes. My DM, however, said that using any weapon that is not available to the cleric class (ex: martial weapons) could cause me to lose my cleric abilities. I looked through the PHB v 3.5 and I found nothing to support his argument. Am I missing something? Is there more about this in the DMG or some other reference? As he is the DM (and a genuinely nice guy), I totally respect his decision and will follow it, but I was just curious what the rest of the D&D community thought about this issue.
Naeron 11-01-04, 10:06 AM	If you are using 3rd Edition then your DM is wrong. Druids have a limitation on using weapons but clerics have no limitation on the weapons that they could use, rather they are restricted by having a limited list of weapons with which they gain automatic familiarity. Clerics get Simple Weapon proficiencies not because their deity bans then from using any other weapons but because of their limited training in combat and weapons compared to the true martial classes. A Cleric can pick up any martial weapon and use it with the -4 non-proficient penalty by the rules. A Cleric is absolutely allowed to pick Martial Weapon proficiency as one his feats and if he chooses the War domain they get martial weapon proficiency and weapon focus in the appropriate weapon.
salamander 11-01-04, 10:09 AM	He's wrong. There's an AD&D rule that clerics are only allowed bludgeoning weapons, but there's nothing similar in 3E. Proficiencies are benefits you get from taking a level in a class. Unless there's something that specifically makes an exception to that, that's all there's to it. The cleric class makes no such exception. You could create a specific case (a deity which forbids the use of anything other than bludgeoning weapons, or one that forbids the use of weapons period, or something like that), but that'd be a campaign-specific limitation, or you could choose a personal code for your character to the same effect but that'd be a personal choice.
Tilden Dyer 11-01-04, 10:20 AM	Thanks for the input Naeron and salamander. I'll have to review the game log (we play online and I save the sessions), but perhaps my DM's limitation was campaign-specific as salamander suggested. In any case, it's nice to know that I wasn't crazy or missing something in the PHB v. 3.5. Thanks again.
Seeker95 11-01-04, 12:19 PM	Your DM is wrong, except... He's the DM.
CzarGarrett 11-01-04, 12:43 PM	The DM can be wrong. However, having rules and references to prove him wrong is good. Just debating the issue isn't.
Kragg Bonemeal 11-01-04, 01:31 PM	I'll have to jump in on the premise that he is remembering previous versions of DnD, like 2nd Ed. Clerics were only supposed to use blunt weapons... mace, club, staff... because bashing someone over and over and over until they are dead is more humane than stabbing them quickly through the heart. :) If this is what your DM was referring to, he will see the light quickly enough. If not, maybe it is some diety/campaign specific angle he is trying to push. Find out what his reason for this limitation is. A cleric of Kord would definitely think it was OK to swing a big two-handed sword.
Thorak 11-01-04, 01:55 PM	As a long-time AD&D rules lawyer, your DM is clearly bringing in AD&D rules into 3rd edition.
caeruleus 11-01-04, 02:45 PM	Druids have a limitation on using weapons That was in 3.0, it's no longer the case in 3.5.
Seeker95 11-01-04, 03:21 PM	That was in 3.0, it's no longer the case in 3.5.Yes it is. Druids have limitations based on proficiency. :P
Zherog 11-01-04, 04:36 PM	Yes it is. Druids have limitations based on proficiency. :P Not really. Nothing prevents a druid from using a weapon she isn't proficient with - as long as she's willing to accept the -4 penalty. ;) Now armor, on the hand...
Darth K'Trava 11-01-04, 06:49 PM	As a long-time AD&D rules lawyer, your DM is clearly bringing in AD&D rules into 3rd edition. We've had the same thing with one of our DMs. He saw reason when we point out the 3.5 version of a rule. He was also the one who kept the party virtually penniless for a good chunk of the game and didn't give the clerics magical weapons until they started bickering about it..... Then they had to buy them! :D
Shard of Suzail 11-01-04, 07:07 PM	Yup, i took a level of fighter so i could use my scythe. Well worth it.
Asmodeous 11-01-04, 10:19 PM	Its called a role playing house rule. Some dm's, very few I might add, insist on rules like this from a role playing point of view, in that your character who is a cleric, is bound by the dieties/churches rules of certain behaviors etc etc. Another example of this type of rule would be a cleric of a air elemental god who is not allowed to cast earthen type spells, even if replicated via miracle spell. (example from my own campaign) There are very few rules about this in the core books if any. its all part of the dm's campaign setting that is known as role playing. Something that is rare and almost never discussed around here. You have a good dm there. Discuss the issue with him, but I bet thats what it is. He might also inform you of other traits of your characters diety that if you want to role play, should choose to follow.
Nurgan_the_drunked 11-02-04, 08:29 AM	Yup, the DM can say that you are still not allowed to use these weapons, although you should gain proficiency with them, and this may be a divine permission issue, rather than a weapon proficiency one. If scriptures ban you from using a scythe, they ban you, regardless of whether you're really good with it. This may have been in some background he gave you about the god and his church, where these weapons are banned. I'd talk to him. If the main reason for you multiclassing into fighter was to be allowed to use these weapons, explain that you wouldn't have done so if you'd realised this. You may get an exchange of some form (either another chance to choose, or an altered version of fighter with more useful abilities).
Seeker95 11-02-04, 09:14 AM	Not really. Nothing prevents a druid from using a weapon she isn't proficient with - as long as she's willing to accept the -4 penalty.That is still a limitation. Perhaps the word you are seeking is restriction. :D :P
Hexane 11-02-04, 12:49 PM	I dont really understand why certain classes CANT use certain weapons, i agree there should be modifers etc most for the worse depending on who you are just make the character suffer for using something he/she is not supposed to.
Enalung 11-02-04, 01:05 PM	I dont really understand why certain classes CANT use certain weapons, i agree there should be modifers etc most for the worse depending on who you are just make the character suffer for using something he/she is not supposed to. What you say is false, a rogue could use a lance if she wanted, but she never really received any training with it and thus is not proficient with a lance. She may still use one if she wish, but with malus since she lacks the hability a fighter has with a lance for exemple. Not being proficient with a weapon does not mean you can't use it, it only means your not used to wielding that weapon.
salamander 11-02-04, 01:16 PM	That is still a limitation. Actually, it isn't. Non-proficiency is not a limitation, in the sense that it doesn't prevent you from doing anything. If it was, mithril armour would be even better than it already is.
Seeker95 11-02-04, 03:27 PM	Actually, it isn't. Non-proficiency is not a limitation, in the sense that it doesn't prevent you from doing anything.Your definition of limitation is evidently more limited than mine.
salamander 11-02-04, 03:43 PM	Your definition of limitation is evidently more limited than mine. Indeed. But I'm using the one the books use, as far as I can tell from what they have to say about mithral.
Seeker95 11-02-04, 04:56 PM	Indeed. But I'm using the one the books use, as far as I can tell from what they have to say about mithral.Can't say as how the definition of mithral is very useful in defining "limitation", but if it works for you... in the end, we aren't arguing about rules. Just the words we use to apply to the rules.
salamander 11-02-04, 05:02 PM	True. The mithril example is just there because it's specifically relevant to the term 'limitation': if non-proficiency is a limitation, mithril armour counts as one category lighter for purposes of proficiency. That was never the intent of the designers, as they clarified somewhere either in a web article, a Sage Advice column or the FAQ (I can never remember which one).
nekrolog 11-02-04, 10:40 PM	Yep, DM's wrong. Send him my way... I'll straighten him out. I'm 5'9" and weigh 165 lbs. Oh, wait, that's not intimidating. Nevermind. :D
Nurgan_the_drunked 11-03-04, 09:02 AM	I dont really understand why certain classes CANT use certain weapons, i agree there should be modifers etc most for the worse depending on who you are just make the character suffer for using something he/she is not supposed to. As I understand, the case in question is not actually about proficiency or capability with the weapon but about the god forbidding its use. As I understand, rules-wise, the character is proficient with martial weapons, but use of certain weapons is still against his religious order's/ god's code. And as such by the cleric rules, he can lose cleric powers by doing so. (Arguably, practicing with one may be necessary to gain proficiency, and may still break your code) Yes a cleric can use any weapon he wants, if he doesn't mind being a tat fighter til he gets back to a temple and promise never to do it again.
katahn 11-03-04, 10:39 AM	The DM was absolutely right! A cleric gets their special powers from their god. Disobedience to that god can result in temporary or permanent loss of abilities (unless the character converts to a new god and is accepted as clergy or gets forgiven by the old one.) If the god in question forbade the usage of a certain class of weapons, the cleric could very well anger their god by chosing to use them anyway. Its not a rules mechanic issue, its a role-play one. However, if the religion (as it is defined in game/role-play) has no injunction about using a big honkin' 2-handed Claymore-style sword, then there is nothing in the rules mechanics that say otherwise. Although, wizard's could wear plate mail armor if the house rules allowed for it or didn't care about arcane spell failure. Just because something is printed in the rules doesn't mean it has to be so.