RAW or RAI: rogue/cleric and weapons

[Cliff Sedge]

So, I'm trying to decide for my 3.5 Forgotten Realms campaign how to rule on allowed weapons for a rogue who later multi-classed as a cleric.

From my research of both 2nd and 3rd ed. materials - core rulebooks and the Forgotten Realms campaign setting - it seems that starting with 3rd edition there are no weapon restrictions for clerics. Though, if I were to use the 2e specialty priest rules, then there would still be a restriction.

I like mixing in a little 2e stuff, but mostly default to 3.5 - If a rogue who uses a short sword for backstabs and such finds religion in the CG Lady Luck Tymora, would his religion restrict the weapons he may use?

[Saintheart]

Under 3.5, no, because as you say they mostly tossed restrictions on what weapons certain religions can or can't use. It's now a question of whether you're proficient with the weapon or whether you have to take a class or a feat to gain that proficiency. Clerics are deemed proficient with all simple weapons, but if he's taken rogue levels before levels in cleric, he'll have short sword proficiency from rogue.

[Cliff Sedge]

Under 3.5, no,
... It's now a question of whether you're proficient with the weapon ...

Thanks!

That's all I could find too under core rules. And the only thing I could find for Forgotten Realms specific for the goddess Tymora is her dogma, which says nothing about weapons. "Fortune favors the bold." etc.

Multiclass rogue/cleric (Tymora) is pretty common too, apparently.

So, a man of the Tymoran cloth dual-wielding short swords and catching backstab bonuses like a boss is just being 'lucky' right?

[Cliff Sedge]

If I did, for game balance reasons, want to restrict the weapons allowed to a cleric under 3.5, what would be a good way to do that?

[mabriss lethe]

If I did, for game balance reasons, want to restrict the weapons allowed to a cleric under 3.5, what would be a good way to do that?

Honestly? There wouldn't be a "good" way to do it. I really don't see how restricting weapons could positively affect game balance. I'd recommend against it, as it would come off as a needless and somewhat petty restriction.

Given what clerics can do in 3.5, stabbing things with a short sword or even two is barely worth noting.

[Cliff Sedge]

Honestly? There wouldn't be a "good" way to do it. I really don't see how restricting weapons could positively affect game balance...

Then why did early DnD editions and other RPGs do it?

Let's pretend I'm the kind of game master who considers roleplaying opportunities, game world flavor, and having a PC's choice of patron deity actually matter to be important. And game balance to me means more than damage output per round.

Then what would be a good way to do it?

[Calthropstu]

Tymora is actually often followed by rogues. I remember reading a book where Mirt the Moneylender called out to Tymora, and he wields a dagger, albeit one enchanted with spell turning. In fact, fighter/clerics were allowed to use any weapon in baldur's gate if I remember correctly. Only druids' restrictions were strict in that manner.

[Maat Mons]

In general, I don't think adding class levels should remove capabilities. So I'd come at it from the opposite angle. Don't make class features that tell you you can't do something. Make class features that give you a reason to do something else.

For example, Favored Soul is a Cleric-like class that encourages characters to wield the Favored Weapon of their deity. It doesn't do this by assessing penalties for using other weapon. It does it by giving special benefits that only apply when wielding their deity's Favored Weapon.

[InvisibleBison]

Then why did early DnD editions and other RPGs do it?

The Bayeux Tapestry depicts Bishop Odo wielding some sort of club. This gave rise to an utterly ahistorical idea that priests were forbidden from spilling blood, and so would wield bludgeoning weapons when they went into battle. Gygax incorporated this myth into the original priest class, and like many other things from the early days of D&D the idea soon spread to other RPGs.

[El Dorado]

The Bayeux Tapestry depicts Bishop Odo wielding some sort of club. This gave rise to an utterly ahistorical idea that priests were forbidden from spilling blood, and so would wield bludgeoning weapons when they went into battle. Gygax incorporated this myth into the original priest class, and like many other things from the early days of D&D the idea soon spread to other RPGs.

Druids, on the other hand, could learn some edged weapons which helped distinguish them from clerics, but they had poorer armor choices.

Just make a house rule like single and multi-classed priests are restricted in their weapon selections. If you want it to have teeth, you could implement a penalty (like druids) if they use a non-cleric weapon. If you want to go easier, allow a single weapon from the rogue list (the church understands the need for a sharp sword).

[Saintheart]

Another thought - maybe a house rule that they can gain a free Weapon Focus-ish feat in a certain weapon (i.e. Tymora's favoured weapon?) if they forever forswear the use of a weapon they had proficiency in until they turned cleric.

(I totally get where you're coming from on priest restrictions on weapons, though. My gateway drug to D&D was the old potboiler novel Pool of Radiance, and there's a moving if unsubtle scene where one of the protagonist cleric characters - of Tyr - is formally inducted into the faith of Tyr by means of a martial test in which a psychological rationale is given for why they don't use swords. In particular, because there's something uniquely bloodthirsty about a sword; it masters a man. And a cleric of Tyr has no master but Tyr. Ergo, clerics of Tyr do not use swords. Loved it as a kid; still have warm feelings for the idea now.)

[DdarkED]

unless you have also house ruled Sneak attack into Back stab from 2e, then he will still Sneak attack with whatever weapon he does use.

i may be wrong but it seems like your trying to lower his melee output, and as already stated, a clerics melee output is the on the low end of what a cleric can do.

[Telonius]

I use these as houserules; they might be along the lines of what you're looking for.

- Use the "Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm)" variant (from Unearthed Arcana). This means that Clerics generally only get Simple weapons and Light armor.
- Each Cleric automatically gets proficiency in the Favored Weapon of their deity.

Just those two are usually enough to steer a Cleric into a particular sort of weapon. Eating a -4 proficiency penalty is not something most players are willing to do. Unfortunately that doesn't help with any kind of multiclassing.

If you want to get any fancier or more specific than that, you'd have to design some sort of religious order-specific list of prohibited weapons, and have that be part of the Cleric's set of rules. There are already a few Prestige Classes that do similar things (Sacred Fist for example), but you'd need to spell that out beforehand in the houserules so the players aren't surprised. Making particular weapons part of the Cleric Code of Conduct is probably the hardest "No" you can give on this. Clerics can fall, too; while it's not as famous as a Paladin fall, gross violation of the deity's code of conduct is grounds for revoking spellcasting and class features.

[Doctor Awkward]

Druids, on the other hand, could learn some edged weapons which helped distinguish them from clerics, but they had poorer armor choices.

...Which was also drawn from myth, specifically from the book "Natural History" by Pliney the Elder which describes the ancient Celtic druids and the ritual of the oak and the mistletoe. The most popular depiction of that ritual shows the druid holding a sickle, which Gygax wrote in the original class description as a "curved blade weapon". The players in turn translated this into the only curved sword that most of them knew of: a scimitar. And that's why a scimitar is on a list of druids permitted weapons in 3.5.

[Maat Mons]

Not to nitpick but ... the 3.0 to 3.5 transition removed Druid weapon restrictions.

[Lorddenorstrus]

If I did, for game balance reasons, want to restrict the weapons allowed to a cleric under 3.5, what would be a good way to do that?

I don't mean to sound rude.. but I'm going to A, assume you aren't under gestalt rules. So this cleric has sacrificed levels of spellcasting for rogue levels. Severely hindering his capability as a character already self weakening. But you still think the actions he's taking are somehow to good and need to be 'balanced'? This says your experience in the 3.5 system is basically at a beginner level. None of that is broken, TWF is actually bad and no what ever DPS he's able to output per round isn't even that high. I guarantee it. Even ignoring Pounce chargers doing 1000+ damage in a single round near lvl 10 ish range. There's multitudes of other builds that can output absurd DPS, generic TWF + sneak attack isn't high damage. Rather than try to.. balance the game. Which isn't inherently balanced on it's own that's why there's a class tier system for possible levels of theoretical power. And your base question was something answered from just the players handbook much less.. the million splat books. You and your players need to just spend time learning 3.5 not "fixing" 3.5 you're not there yet.

[Particle_Man]

One restriction that isn’t one is to have the church reward the cleric/rogue with two cool magic weapons, which would be suitable for a cleric in general or a cleric of that deity. Include a cool history of all of the clerics of the faith that used them previously. I would rather use a pair of +5 holy light maces than a pair of masterwork short swords.

[icefractal]

Honestly, the blunt weapon restriction never made sense to me thematically. Being beaten to death with a blunt object is not "gentler"! If anything, I think it might hurt more than using a sharp blade - I've heard that people can bleed out from knife wounds without realizing they've been cut (under the effects of adrenalin).

Now if it was "subdue instead of kill", that would make sense (for some gods anyway). But "smashing someone's bones with a hammer is A-Ok, stabbing them with a knife is ungodly" ... :smallconfused:

[Analytica]

If you want this, let it be like arcane spell failure chance for cleric spells if you wield a non-favoured weapon. Because failing to emulate your deity makes you doubt and then your spells might fizzle.