So, this little rules gem occurred to me earlier today... an optional weapons-proficiency-variant for clerics or any character with the Acolyte background.
The Oath of St. Cuthbert You gain proficiency with all weapons that inflict bludgeoning damage, but lose proficiency with all weapons that inflict slashing or piercing damage.
This is obviously meant to reinstate some of the weapon-restrictions from the TSR era, but in an optional way that doesn't push anything on anyone.
Whatcha think?
Sailing_Pirate_Ryan wrote:
Very nice, very flavorful. Love Greyhawk. 
You should post it to the house rules thread. It started out as a group list but has now morphed into a general thread for sharing.
Nicodaudel wrote:
That's pretty groovy, Ryan! I like it.
I love Greyhawk. I'm hoping little gems like this make it into Dragon. The 2e rulebooks had some neat customisations for some of the gods including unique spells. I could live with it if features like this plus signature spells made it into domain lists for particular gods.
I like the idea, but doesn't that just turn into a cheap way for clerics to get proficiency with the maul? Restrict it to 1H bludgeoning weapons and I'd be on board.
Maybe better: You gain proficiency with the club, greatclub, light hammer, mace, quarterstaff, sling, flail, and war hammer, but you lose, and cannot gain, proficiency with weapons that deal piercing or slashing damage.
But the idea of rules like this for different backgrounds is awesome, I love it.
I'm not familiar with Greywak, and thus not a fan of it, and I am also not a fan of the bludgeoning weapon restriction on clerics. However, I do like your idea. It provides a nice bit of optional flavor and makes backgrounds potentially more interesting by expanding them into also being able to customize a character's class benefits.
jaelis wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Sailing_Pirate_Ryan wrote:
This topic reminds of of players in 3.5 homebrewing dieties with Favored Weapon: Warmace.
Mirtek wrote:
Very cool, thanks for sharing.
Sailing_Pirate_Ryan wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
JC999 wrote:
I do not like racial weapon proficiencies. They incentivize players to pick races for the wrong reasons. I want someone to choose a dwarf because they think dwarves are awesome, not because it grants their cleric use of a battle axe. I would much rather see players get weapon proficiences based upon design of this sort, which puts story first.
If all Clerics have shield proficiency, and most battle clerics have proficiency in 1 martial weapon, then there's really no issues with letting them go up to a martial two-hander; unless you're saying the two-handers aren't balanced against the one-handers.
Really this seems like a case of "WHAT? My human cleric doesn't get a d8 weapon? We'll see about that..."
JC999 wrote:
JC999 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Sailing_Pirate_Ryan wrote: