Blunt weapons and Clerics

[Sterm]

Why Clerics tend to use blunt weapons?

[Raging Gene Ray]

To hammer the faith into the heads of nonbelievers!

[daggaz]

Its a hold over from the older versions of dungeons and dragons. Back then, there were more class restrictions related to weapons.

Clerics could use blunt weapons, Wizards used daggers or quarterstaffs, Rogues used daggers or shortswords, but couldnt backstab with the shortsword, etc, etc... Fighters got to use whatever, but big swords were generally the best.

[FujinAkari]

It goes back to the middle ages... hopefully I don't get in trouble for discussing real world religions for telling you this, but there's a line in the Bible somewhere that talks about how it is evil to draw the blood of your fellow man...

Well, monastic orders took that line a bit literally and decided if you merely clubbed your fellow men with a blunt object, you wouldn't be drawing their blood (like you would if you stabbed them with a sword and then drew the sword back out) so many of the real world religious orders disdained the use of edged weapons.

Just wormed its way into D&D due to it being accepted and expected in real-world histories of the time.

[Weimann]

I think it's a technical pacifist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.TechnicalPacifist) thing.

They swear not to draw blood, so when they tie their prisoner up and methodically bust every joint in his body, they still haven't broken that promise.

At least that's what I always thought.

Edit: Curses befall the ninja!

[daggaz]

Huh, interesting. You learn something new every day. (I think getting smacked upside the head with a mace would make most people bleed, tho :smallfrown:)

[FujinAkari]

Huh, interesting. You learn something new every day. (I think getting smacked upside the head with a mace would make most people bleed, tho :smallfrown:)

Ah, but you didn't -draw- the blood out... details! ^_^

[daggaz]

Heheh... they say the devil is in the details, you know.. :smallamused:

[Katana_Geldar]

Akari is right, it goes back to a middle ages thing. I think there was some bishop who accompanied Charlemange who carried a mace.

I think it's also a reference to the Bible about drawing a sword and dying by it.

[Ancalagon]

Akari is right, it goes back to a middle ages thing. I think there was some bishop who accompanied Charlemange who carried a mace.

In fact, there were many bishops who participated in battles. Good they got rid of that stupid restriction or D&D in 3.0, some RL-world inspired guideline on what weapons a cleric could use for made-up religions in a fantasy-setting was always... simply wrong.

[Berserk Monk]

Why Clerics tend to use blunt weapons?

In D&D, they're proficient with it and it's the weapon of their god.

And as FujinAkari said, clerics preferred to subdue their opponent than kill them.

[Marcsin]

In D&D, they're proficient with it and it's the weapon of their god.

And as FujinAkari said, clerics preferred to subdue their opponent than kill them.

Plus, if you don't kill em, you can torture em in the inquisition to make em convert.

[Zolkabro]

Bishops were not allowed to draw blood, on pain of death. So in the Crusades they would march in to battle and smash someone's skull instead.
Because that makes it so much better. :smallamused:

In Medieval times you were also not allowed to draw blood it a church, but in the 1300s a traitor appeared in a church, and nobody complained in the slightest when a knight killed him, as the knight had used the flat of his blade and did not draw blood.
True story!
:biggrin:

[Malkar Grumbo]

Plus, if you don't kill em, you can torture em in the inquisition to make em convert.

That's it! All Elan needs to do to get Banjo more worshipers is annoy (torture) people until they convert! It's so simple!

[Comet]

The cleric fluff was probably my favourite part of the ye olde D&D rulebooks.
First off, the book basically tells you that you should never discuss the religion of characters in the game. This rule is there because religious themes could offend some players and they get in the way of the actual adventuring, or so they say.

This causes the whole cleric class to be delightfully vague about their power and their code of conduct. They even named them something akin to "Knight templar" (at least in my translated version).
This was also the place where I first ran into the whole "Clerics can only use blunt weapons because their religion prevents them from wielding blades".

Notice the word "religion" there? Even though religions shouldn't be a part of the game at all? Yeah, I love the outright gamistic elements of older editions and how they try to make them sound vaguely plausible. It's so naive and pure :smallsmile:

[Kish]

In D&D, they're proficient with it

Ahem. You mean "2ed AD&D," right?

In 3ed and on, there's no particular reason for a cleric (who is proficient in all simple weapons) to favor blunt ones over sharp ones.

[The Dark Fiddler]

In Medieval times you were also not allowed to draw blood it a church, but in the 1300s a traitor appeared in a church, and nobody complained in the slightest when a knight killed him, as the knight had used the flat of his blade and did not draw blood.
True story!
:biggrin:

ORLY? Sauce?

[HealthKit]

ORLY? Sauce?

Second.
Not trying to be rude, just genuinely curious. :smallsmile:

[MReav]

I heard that the blunt object restriction was largely a myth, but one that wasn't widely disproven at the time.

In 3rd Ed., clerics prefer blunt weapons because they're easier to use.

[whitelaughter]

I heard that the blunt object restriction was largely a myth
ditto, or that it was one specific individual.

[Phexar]

I found this on the origin of Clerics whilst looking around before: http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=5787205&postcount=27


In CHAINMAIL there were wizards that functioned as artillery.

Then there was Dave Arneson's first miniatures/roleplaying campaign. Some players were 'good guys' and some players were 'bad guys' and Dave was the referee.

One of the 'bad guys' wanted to play a Vampire. He was extremely smart and capable, and as he got more and more experience he got tougher and tougher.

This was the early 70s, so the model for 'vampire' was Christopher Lee in Hammer films. No deep folklore (involved).

Well, after a time, nobody could touch Sir Fang. Yes, that was his name.

To fix the threatened end of the game they came up with a character that was, at first, a 'vampire hunter'. Peter Cushing in the same films.

As the rough specs were drawn up, comments about the need for healing and for curing disease came up.

Ta da, the "priest" was born. Changed later to 'cleric'.

The bit about edged weapons was from Gary's reading the old stories about Archbishop Turpin, who wielded a mace because he didn't want to shed blood ("who lives by the sword dies by the sword").

[Tannhaeuser]

In the Chanson de Roland (ca. 1040-ca.1120) (and its Middle High German cognate, the Rolandslied (ca. 1175), Bishop Turpin wields a sword , called in the Chanson “Almace” (which itself may be derived from Old French “mace”=“a club” combined with an Arabic definite article), as well as a lance. At very roughly the same time the Chanson was written, the famous Bayeaux tapestry depicted Bishop Odo, the brother of William the Conqueror, wielding a club at the Battle of Hastings. The idea that mediaeval clerics did not use edged weapons seems to have been largely a 19th century invention; numerous mediaeval illuminations depicting clerical warriors holding swords and lances were apparently overlooked. The real mediaeval objection was to clerics fighting at all; when they did so anyway, they were likely to be treated like the infamously warlike Philip of Dreux, Bishop of Beauvais, who was captured in full armor and thrown into prison by Richard the Lion-Heart; when the king of France appealed to the Pope for his release, Celestine replied, “He has put on the coat of a son of Mars, rather than the miter of a son of ours, let Mars therefore deliver him.”

[SoC175]

Akari is right, it goes back to a middle ages thing. I think there was some bishop who accompanied Charlemange who carried a mace.
Actually this guy, named Turpin and also being one of the archetypes of the D&D cleric class, fought with a sword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almace).

The main technical reason for the cleric weapon restriction was game balance. Clerics were the second best fighters in the game (better than rogues, only worse than fighters) and had the same armor than fighters and almost the same hp than fighters. Restricting their weapon choice to the weapons with a lower damage dice was supposed to help fighters staying at the top during the first few levels until the THAC0-advantage started to kick in.

There's a lengthy article about it in Dragon Magazine Issue 52 (August 1981).


Legendary heroes such as Archbishop Turpin are undoubtedly the inspiration of the cleric character class in the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS games. Turpin was not a meek temple priest, but a warrior and adventurer whose skill at arms was matched only by his devotion to his God.
[…]
The cleric-adventurer is not a meek priest; he is a warrior who has spells and magical powers to aid him as he destroys the enemies of his god. Like Archbishop Turpin, he can use his powers to bless and support his comrades, and he is an able fighter in his own right, second only to a professional warrior in skill.
[…]
Cleric-adventurers are trained warriors; they fight better than trained men-at-arms, are comfortable with armor, and are bold enough to enter places no cynical mercenary would dare come near. They are warrior-priests, and it should show in their outlook. This warlike outlook is evident in a properly motivated cleric player character. Why does a cleric-adventurer go on adventures? Certainly not just to play medic; he could do that where it’s safe — people get hurt everywhere. Not just for greed; if he concentrated solely on personal ambition, he’d soon be bereft of spells. His motives are basically aggressive: he wants to destroy his god’s enemies,
[…]
The portrayal of the cleric-adventurer as a crusader for his god makes him sound suspiciously like an AD&D paladin. Granted; but if players had used clerics as something other than combat medics, perhaps the need for the paladin subclass would have never surfaced.
[…]
Clerics were perhaps limited to blunt weapons because the class was created with medieval Catholicism in mind, and to reduce the cleric’s effectiveness in melee; in the Greyhawk supplement, the best one-handed weapon a cleric can use is a mace, which does 1-6 points of damage on man-sized opponents, but fighters can use a sword for 1-8 points. The difference in damage helped separate their fighting ability at low levels

So while the RL-reasoning is mentioned there, it also gives the game balance reason.

[daggaz]

btw, this thread should really be moved to role playing games instead of the oots discussion area.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That's it! All Elan needs to do to get Banjo more worshipers is annoy (torture) people until they convert! It's so simple!

The Elannish Inquisition!
He really needs to see The History of the World, Part 1 to learn that song. And then modify it.
That would be funny.

[Kish]

In 3rd Ed., clerics prefer blunt weapons because they're easier to use.
In 3rd Ed, clerics have no preference for blunt weapons. Now, why Durkon uses a hammer is another question.

[petersohn]

Durkon uses a hammer because Thor uses a hammer.

Clerics prefer blunt weapons in DnD 3e because they are proficient only in simple weapons and the most powerful one-handed simple weapon is the morning star (or the heavy mace). For light weapons, the light mace.

[Acero]

Durkon uses a hammer because Thor uses a hammer.

he uses it because it is a family hierloom. clerics do not have to use the weapons their gods use. Loki wielded a sword, but Hilga doesn't.

[yanmaodao]

he uses it because it is a family hierloom. clerics do not have to use the weapons their gods use. Loki wielded a sword, but Hilga doesn't.

Also, because Dwarves only wield axes or hammers. A few use crossbows, but it's mostly axes and hammers.

[Acero]

Also, because Dwarves only wield axes or hammers. A few use crossbows, but it's mostly axes and hammers.

in many games, i have fought sword and picaxe wielding dwarves

[Dixieboy]

in many games, i have fought sword and picaxe wielding dwarves

I think you misunderstand (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDwarvesAreAllTheSame)

[veti]

he uses it because it is a family hierloom. clerics do not have to use the weapons their gods use. Loki wielded a sword, but Hilga doesn't.

There's a difference though. Thor is very closely identified with his hammer. (Marvel got that right.) You never see him without it.

But Loki isn't particularly associated with any weapon - the sword is just what he happens to be using when we see him fighting. There's nothing in the mythos to suggest that it's any special sword, with its own name and powers.

So I think Durkon's choice is directly related to his god, whereas Hilgya's may be just personal preference.

[Cracklord]

Pope Leo bludgeoned some of his enemies to death with a giant cross. But he was awesome beyond the ability of words to express.


There's a difference though. Thor is very closely identified with his hammer. (Marvel got that right.) You never see him without it.

But Loki isn't particularly associated with any weapon - the sword is just what he happens to be using when we see him fighting. There's nothing in the mythos to suggest that it's any special sword, with its own name and powers.

So I think Durkon's choice is directly related to his god, whereas Hilgya's may be just personal preference.

Doesn't he steal Heimdal's during Ragnorak? I remember reading something about that...

[Dixieboy]

Pope Leo bludgeoned some of his enemies to death with a giant cross. But he was awesome beyond the ability of words to express.



Doesn't he steal Heimdal's during Ragnorak? I remember reading something about that...

That's not his though.
And I don't believe so.

He is too busy with the whole "Sailing to Asgard on a ship built from the nails of all the dead people, ever" and "Murdering everyone" to steal stuff.

He has a magic weapon if I remember correctly though...
But I'll be damned if I can remember it.

[krossbow]

Maces and hammers are just ingrained in most people's minds by now as religious classes main weapons, disregarding any original reason for this. If you look at most artwork of clerics, priests and the like, they'll almost always be drawn with a mace; to break with that tradition would make the art look off.


At this point, its mainly a tradition thing. Just as rogues are always thought of as using daggers, Priests and clerics are always thought of as using blunt weapons.
In addition, it makes it easier to differentiate between artwork of paladins and clerics this way.

[Bagelz]

I think part of this can be attributed to minmaxing in 3.x.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons
heavy maces/morningstars do the most damage out of onehanded simple weapons, so you can use that and a shield as a cleric, where better weapons would require extra proficiency feats.

[Trobby]

It also doesn't hurt that Dwarves, for no particular reason, seem to be the most common Cleric class I've seen in 3.5 games. As such, they are allowed to use the-...oh, wait, that's a WarAXE, not a hammer. Huh.

Honestly though, the use of bludgeoning weapons, and pretty much things that are not swords, by clerics is from the tradition at the time of Knights being the only people who used the "elegant" sword, while everyone else could only use...not-swords. And since an axe was more useful as a tool than a weapon, a bludgeoning instrument was more often than not the first pick. (After all, how hard is it to find something heavy and sharp and stick it on a stick?)

[Thanatosia]

3rd ed uses a 'Favored Weapon" for each Diety approach, and Pelor was presented as the most popular and widespread diety, who used maces as his Favored Weapon.

But following different dieties had different favored weapons, Corallan, the chief Elven diety for example, favored the longsword so his clerics would tend to use those.

[Hitorijun]

This may have all ready been said, (I didn't want to read them all ... got bored) but I personally thought it was because cleric were used for healing and dealing with undead. Wouldn't undead include using blunt weapons because slashing and piercing do half damage to skeletons and such?

Just my 2 copper pieces.

[Acero]

This may have all ready been said, (I didn't want to read them all ... got bored) but I personally thought it was because cleric were used for healing and dealing with undead. Wouldn't undead include using blunt weapons because slashing and piercing do half damage to skeletons and such?

Just my 2 copper pieces.

time for my 2, again.

Clerics are not designed to kill undead, that's what a Paladin is.
i have seen maybe... 3 Paladins that wield blunt wewapons, and none are in OOTS. they seem to stick to katanas.

i personally enjoy using spears in most games while fighting undead.
stab 'em through the ribs, and pin 'em to the wall. good fun

a copper for your thoughts.

[krossbow]

time for my 2, again.

Clerics are not designed to kill undead, that's what a Paladin is.
i have seen maybe... 3 Paladins that wield blunt wewapons, and none are in OOTS. they seem to stick to katanas.

i personally enjoy using spears in most games while fighting undead.
stab 'em through the ribs, and pin 'em to the wall. good fun

a copper for your thoughts.

not quite sure where your getting your information from there; a 3.5 cleric was much, much better equipped to deal with undead than any paladins. a paladin gets sub-par turning and a couple smites a day. A cleric turns undead far better, and has a host of spells that can wreck them.

not quite sure about the spears idea; spearing an undead to the wall basically lets you do what amounts to coup de grace moves at will. you'd have to impale them then bullrush them into the wall without being torn to shreds by what should be threatening enemies.

[Cleverdan22]

Shouldn't this be in the Roleplaying Games section? Unless he means the clerics from the comic.

[t_catt11]

Why Clerics tend to use blunt weapons?

I think the question was why do D&D clerics tend to use blint weapons. This has been answered - in earlier versions of D&D, they pretty much HAD to do so (though you'll note that even 2e clerics could use edged weapons if the DM created a specific mythos/religion for them that called for such... but the DM *was* encouraged to remove other abilities to balance said mythos), and the tradition has carried on. That, and the fact that the best simple weapons are blunt.

Of course, if the question had more to do with real world reasons, that's been asnwered, as well. Yay internet!

[Scarlet Knight]

As long as there are miniatures of clerics with weapons other than blunt ones, people will be coming up with reasons to roleplay them...