AD&D 2e: is there any “broken” class?

[rax]

I was speaking multi-class, as a poster said it was good. It's not, or rather, is not in vanilla/PH 2e

That would be me, I think. Your statement doesn't match my experience, so I'd be interested in hearing why you think it's "not good" - a significantly lower bar than "best" or "broken", neither of which I claimed.

[CE DM]

I already did
"One is restricted to type B weapon and cannot specialize. It's actually weaker than either class singly, unless, maybe, one has an 18 for str, &/or 17+ in Con. Even then, it's generally better to just be one or the other (except at L1/ zero XP)"

I did not say you claimed it was broken or best, but indeed, I do not think it even qualifies as "good".

For a more in depth analysis, I can oblige.

THACO (the basis of combat) comparison
fighter vs cleric/fighter
they start the same (20)
thereafter, the fighter will generally stay 1 point ahead of the multi-class, until L10 fighter (9/9 C/F), thereafter, the single class will increase twice
as quickly, until L20
the single class fighter gains 3/2 attacks 1 level sooner (xp 64 k vs xp 128k) , 2 attacks/r effectively 6 levels sooner (1.25 million xp vs 2.5 million)
the fighter, however, also has choice of any weapons, including swords & bows, which in AD&D, outclass bludgeons & slings considerably.
the fighter also has weapon specialization, which is a quantum jump in combat prowess, +1 to hit, +2 to damage & +1/2 attack per round.

the single class fighter simply outclasses the multi-class

THACO: cleric vs cleric/fighter is a different story, but
being one level ahead until L10 or so, the multi-class doesn't have as great an advantage as one might expect
here is the differences in progress
cleric 3 vs 2/2...c/f one better
cleric 4 vs 3/3...back to tie
cleric 5 vs 4/4....multi one better
cleric 6 vs 5/5...multi 2 better
cleric 7 vs 6/6...multi 1 better
cleric 8 vs 7/7...multi 2 better
cleric 9 vs 8/8...multi 3 better (peak)
cleric 10 vs 9/9...multi 2 better
now the cleric is gaining 2 levels for each the MC does...
cleric 12 vs 10/10 mult 3 better (regain peak)
cleric 14 vs 11/11...multi 2 better
cleric 16 vs 12/12 multi 1 better
cleric 18 vs 13/13...multi 2 better
cleric 20 vs 14/14... multi 1 better
(this is a showing slanted to the multi, btw, cleric 19 vs 13/13 is a tie, for example, and fighters advance a bit slower, not modeled, but sure to show in play)
however, the multi class does also get 3/2 attacks at L8 vs 7/7, and 2 attacks/r at L18 vs 13/13, which are major advantages.

Then there is magic, and turn undead.
the fighter vs multi-class is no contest, the multi class has them, the fighter doesn't.
cleric vs multi-class
they start exactly the same at L1 vs 1/1
the multi-class then falls one level back, with all such consequences, until L10, or 9/9. This is noticeable, but not that big a deal.
AFTER L10, though, it's a major difference. Access to the highest level, and far more powerful, L6 & L7 spells is much more rapid for single class, and level based effects (such as dispel magic, spell duration, etc).

Other factors:
hit points: d10 vs (d8+d10)/2 vs d8. It's mostly a wash, the slight advantages are obvious, barring a con score of 17+, which would skew the result greatly to fighter or cleric/fighter. Past L9, the more rapid pace of single class will tell, but only a bit
saving throws: single class fighter starts off the worst, ends up the best
single class cleric starts off well, slowly looses ground
multi-class sometimes has an advantage, but slower advancement matters, especially as levels rise.
I'd call it something of a wash
ability scores: more classes, more MAD (to borrow the term). The single class character is more likely to have a very high attribute where it matters most for the class, though this is not guaranteed.
magic items: the multi-class has an advantage here, being able to use items for 2 classes. Cleric items are more prominent an advantage, as the fighter still has magic swords, axes, bows, spears, etc over the cleric/fighter.
level limits: if one class progression is halted, it's now advancing at half rate

conclusion: in general terms: fighter > cleric/fighter; cleric/fighter=cleric. (a slight amendment)

analysis: why this is the case, when they ought all ideally be about the same? The reason is that 2e foolishly, incorrectly denied "specialty" to multi-class characters. The cleric/fighter lacks the most potent class abilities of the fighter class...the use of all weapons, and, the key, weapon specialization. It has the cleric restrictions, without the fighter benefits. (Similar errors of judgement come up with sp mages)

One or the other & it would have been fine. I'd choose to allow WS, and keep to religious requirements, myself. Later books were slow to do that, typically goign the other path, though both eventually are possible; but we are talking the PH(only).

Last point(s): fighter > cleric/fighter, but they are both viable/playable. Cleric/fighter simply can't be said to be "good" (ie above average), when it is, if anything, slightly below average. There is also the possibility that WS is not used at all, which would narrow the gap enough to ignore it, but, while it is an optional rule (and it's bad rules/mechanics), NOBODY does that (sadly).

One can also look at editions prior & after.
The 1e cleric/fighter can use any weapon, and if the WS was used(UA), could use WS (though later that last was recanted in dragon magazine). 1e multi-class is a full merging of abilities. In this, it can be seen as being a bit too good within the standard play range of L1-10; however, level limits were extremely harsh, and for cleric/fighters, they made them nigh unplayable even in many standard game ranges (that typically end play at L10 ). 1e PH multi-class clerics were limited to L5 (1/2 elf) & L4 (1/2 orc).

3e/3.5e or 5e combine class abilities freely, but levels are gained separately/interdependently, and thus bear long term costs. Only a "dip" is generally seen as effective (and they are).

[rax]

Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from. Generally speaking though, I don't agree with your conclusions. At the most basic level, I disagree because I'm coming at this (I think) from a different perspective than yours. In my mind, the advantage of being multi-class is that it provides me with a flexibility I would have lacked by being single classed; the advantage of being a fighter/cleric over other multi-class combos is that I can use the abilities of both classes at all times, unlike a fighter/mage where I can't wear armour and cast spells, or a fighter/thief, where I can't use most of my thief abilities in armour either. I have to give up weapon specialization and access to a broad range of weapons, but losing these is not significant in my estimation (and experience). I am not specifically a worse fighter or cleric, I'm something different that draws from both and successfully integrates the abilities of both. Numbers notwithstanding, the benefits are worth the trade-offs IME.

One aspect that your analysis does gloss over though, is the matter of race. If I'm a multi-class character, I'm a demi-human and must accept level limits whether or not I'm multi-classing. Your comparison is therefore more a matter of comparing a single classed human character with a demi-human fighter/cleric. In that case your analysis is spot on in the mechanical sense, but it becomes less relevant if I've decided to play a demi-human in the first place, since the maximum levels a demi-human can achieve are the same whether or not they're single classed. In the case of a fighter/cleric, they're also significantly lower than 20th level unless optional rules are in use.

Looking at the specific case of a fighter/cleric, only three PHB races can access this combo: dwarves, gnomes, and half-elves. Their respective limits are F15/C10, F11/C9, and F14/C14. A half-elf can advance furthest in both classes, requiring 2,850,000 XP to reach F14/C14. With those XP, a single-classed human would be F19 or C20. This is the case where I feel your analysis is most relevant - a single-classed human would indeed be enjoying the benefits of being much higher level for the same XP. A single-classed half-elf would not, however, since he would have peaked far earlier at F14 or C14.

If we compare the single-classed human with a maxxed out dwarf fighter/cleric, we're looking at an XP budget of 2,200,000, which equals F16 or C17. The comparison on the cleric side is actually moot (IMO), because the dwarf was never going to be more than C10 anyway. On the fighter side, he's one level behind the human fighter, but also has the abilities of a 10th-level cleric. I can't really see how that makes him worse than a single-classed human fighter.

In the case of a gnome, we're looking at just 975,000 XP to reach F11/C9. That's the cost of F11 or C12, i.e. the gnome has reached the maximum level of fighter he will ever be whether or not he's single-classed, and a human fighter would also only be F11. A human cleric would outstrip the gnome by 3 levels, but going by THAC0, the gnome would have a 3 point difference in his favour and 3/2 attacks. Going by spellcasting, the gnome has fewer spells per day and can't cast 6th-level spells, but the latter isn't guaranteed for the human either, since he must have Wis 17 to cast 6th-level spells. So the human cleric is a better cleric, but the multi-class gnome is a better warrior with strong backup cleric abilities. These are acceptable trade-offs to me and don't, by my parameters, make the gnome worse than a single-classed human cleric with the same XP.

So, again, I think I understand where you're coming from, but my metrics for good/bad and better/worse are probably just different from yours.

[CE DM]

It doesn't matter, but I do not think you do.

level limits were brushed over because they tend not to be much of a factor in 2e...they are high, very high, or ignored altogether (which was also common in 1e). But that is a whole other topic.

I'd compare like to like
dwarf fighter vs dwarf cleric/fighter vs dwarf cleric
half elf fighter vs half elf cleric/fighter vs half elf cleric
gnome fighter vs gnome cleric/fighter vs gnome cleric

The cleric/fighter LOOSES good stuff. They do not fight as well as a fighter on the same terms does. It's a limited thing, certainly it wouldn't be true with Mr all 18's vs average joe; Mr 12's.

anyway, the cleric/fighter might be fun, might even be powerful, might suit a player's taste or style, etc, but they simply are not "strong", "better" or "good" compared to other classes.

The root is bad rule decisions about "specialization". fighters or specialty mages are better than fighter/mages as well (in PH/vanilla), though with PH only, it's only certain sp mages (those with spell lists to justify existence). This is not to say a fighter/mage sucks, etc, either.

[runeghost]

The most broken thing about 2nd ed for low-level play was combining kits, proficiencies and other bits of rules found in the various splatbooks. The Complete Fighter's is the start, where you can "optionally" turn your non-weapon presidencies into combat buffs. Some of the late 2nd ed Forgotten Realms material also got pretty high powered, especially when compared to the earlier stuff. The Complete Priest's Handbook vs. Faiths and Avatars of the Realms is like a drag race between a Volkswagon Beetle and a Ferrari.

[Willie the Duck]

The most broken thing about 2nd ed for low-level play was combining kits, proficiencies and other bits of rules found in the various splatbooks. The Complete Fighter's is the start, where you can "optionally" turn your non-weapon presidencies into combat buffs. Some of the late 2nd ed Forgotten Realms material also got pretty high powered, especially when compared to the earlier stuff. The Complete Priest's Handbook vs. Faiths and Avatars of the Realms is like a drag race between a Volkswagon Beetle and a Ferrari.

Oh definitely. Specialty priest with good armor and weapon proficiency in Complete Priest's Handbook? -- Two major and two minor spheres to go with. Specialty priest of Meilikki in Fighters and Priest's of the Realms? -- good weapons and armor, a nice distribution of spheres, plus fighter 18/xx Strength and Con which can grant more than +2hp/hd.

[rax]

It doesn't matter, but I do not think you do.

level limits were brushed over because they tend not to be much of a factor in 2e...they are high, very high, or ignored altogether (which was also common in 1e). But that is a whole other topic.

I'd compare like to like
dwarf fighter vs dwarf cleric/fighter vs dwarf cleric
half elf fighter vs half elf cleric/fighter vs half elf cleric
gnome fighter vs gnome cleric/fighter vs gnome cleric

The cleric/fighter LOOSES good stuff. They do not fight as well as a fighter on the same terms does. It's a limited thing, certainly it wouldn't be true with Mr all 18's vs average joe; Mr 12's.

anyway, the cleric/fighter might be fun, might even be powerful, might suit a player's taste or style, etc, but they simply are not "strong", "better" or "good" compared to other classes.

The root is bad rule decisions about "specialization". fighters or specialty mages are better than fighter/mages as well (in PH/vanilla), though with PH only, it's only certain sp mages (those with spell lists to justify existence). This is not to say a fighter/mage sucks, etc, either.

Sorry for not responding earlier, missed your reply!

So if I understand you correctly, your position is that losing weapon specialization with one weapon (the default rule in the PHB) and access to non-bludgeoning weapons makes a fighter/cleric worse than a straight fighter? In that case we really do have different metrics for good/bad, because to me having access to cleric spells, being able to turn undead, and the ability to use a wider range of magic items more than compensates for the loss of weapon access and specialization. So if a straight fighter is good, that makes a fighter/cleric better to me.

Comparing a cleric to a fighter/cleric is even more open and shut, IMO, since the fighter/cleric loses no class features at all compared to a straight cleric. Also, if level limits are irrelevant to the discussion because high level play is rare (which I agree, it was and is), then we're also not hitting the XP threshholds where a single class character ends up more than one level ahead of the multiclass character. So the single class character doesn't pull ahead enough in level-based gains (THAC0, HP, saving throws) to make them markedly superior to a multiclass character either.

So, I respect your position but I disagree with it. That doesn't mean you're wrong in any objective sense, just that we seem to attach different values to what a multiclass character gains or loses. It's been an interesting discussion, thanks for your time!

[Willie the Duck]

I think CE DM is overselling it by a country mile, but there's some merit there. Specialization is +1/+2 and 1/2 an attack/round (for melee). It is good but not vital (especially if not doing a 'specific build' like a dart-spammer). Blundgeoning only weapon is a fairly big deal. Especially with PHB-only, when you are then limited to sling and footman's mace (1d6+1/1d6) as your premier weapons. Compare it to a Longbow/Greatsword or Longbow/Longsword fighter, and there's a significant discrepancy. As to how much you gain by adding on the cleric abilities... boy is that going to depend on if your group has another cleric or maybe druid. That's why comparisons in a vacuum are so hard.

Fighter/Cleric compared to Cleric, you are definitely right. The cleric only halves their xp and locks themselves into a demihuman race by taking it.

[rax]

That's why comparisons in a vacuum are so hard.

Completely agree. Though in defence of the footman's mace, 1d6+1 is only one point less maximum damage vs. S-M creatures, so the major difference is against L creatures. But if you pick a footman's flail instead, you get 2d4 vs. L creatures, which narrows the gap a little more. Sling bullets also aren't half bad - 1d4+1/1d6+1 isn't that far off from arrow damage, the major loss is in RoF. Also, if the optional weapon type vs. armour modifiers are in use, bludgeoning weapons have the best modifiers and the difference vs. slashing weapons is particularly noticeable.

In the end though, I feel certain that these things are very much a matter of personal preference. For instance, I find the longbow/greatsword or longbow/longsword combo pretty boring, so I often pick "suboptimal" weapons and feel I get along fine anyway. And since I like playing demi-humans, playing a multiclass character in a PHB only game is generally no loss to me at all - I'm already going to have to deal with level limits, and in return I get a more flexible character. So what if there's already a cleric in the party? Now there are two, which is never a bad thing.

[Lord Torath]

The Staff Sling is a great option, too. It does have a minimum range, but it fires just as frequently as the longbow. The ammunition is a bit heavy though, at half-a-pound each (they may have changed this in PO:C&T?). Assuming a spherical stone of average density (SG:2.7), that's got a diameter of about 2 inches (50 mm). Steel sling bullets are, of course, a good bit smaller for the same mass (1.5 inch diameter).

[MeeposFire]

Strange I do not normally consider multiclasses in terms of the fighter side rather from the other class's side and essentially they all get a nice boost from multiclassing with fighter in the near to at least medium term. Only in the very long term do you really start to see a major drop off from the multiclass character from the single class character (for a long time a 2 class multiclass will be one to maybe 2 levels behind the single class character which is not bad at all). For the hypothetical fighter/cleric you do not think of it as a fighter but rather as a cleric who can fight better. From that angle it really is a win in most cases. That is also as I recall the way the 2e PHB describes it as well.

Funny though I usually need to defend the single class fighter not the multiclass one.

[Corvus]

Blundgeoning only weapon is a fairly big deal. Especially with PHB-only, when you are then limited to sling and footman's mace (1d6+1/1d6) as your premier weapons. Compare it to a Longbow/Greatsword or Longbow/Longsword fighter, and there's a significant discrepancy. .

Mace and sling only for clerics? There were more choices than that in the PHB. The go to choice for all our clerics was the morning star, which was a 1 handed 2d4/1d6+1 weapon. Longsword is better against large creatures but 2d4 vs 1d8 against S/M is much of the sameness.

There were also clubs, quarterstaffs and warhammers, but they were all inferior. There were also a couple of P/B polearms if you could swing that by your DM, but again they were not quite as good as the trusty morning star, given you'd have to give up a shield for them as well.

It also discusses in the PHB (and gives examples of) giving other weapons to clerics based on deities,but that would require consultation with the DM.

[Willie the Duck]

Mace and sling only for clerics? There were more choices than that in the PHB. The go to choice for all our clerics was the morning star, which was a 1 handed 2d4/1d6+1 weapon. Longsword is better against large creatures but 2d4 vs 1d8 against S/M is much of the sameness.

There were also clubs, quarterstaffs and warhammers, but they were all inferior.

I guess I didn't feel the need at the time to explain that I was using example bludgeoning weapons, not the complete list of all possible options. I apologize for any confusion. I'll have to check my PHB when I get home, but I believe morningstars were P/B (like the polearms you mentioned), which seems to violate the basic cleric's rules (which IIRC is alternately phrase as either 'only bludgeoning weapons' or 'not non-bludgeoning weapons,' not something along the lines of 'must include a bludgeoning component'). Of course...

It also discusses in the PHB (and gives examples of) giving other weapons to clerics based on deities,but that would require consultation with the DM.

Yes, this is certainly a much bigger spanner in the analysis. It's really hard to analyze, though, because it could be any which way from sunrise. PHB-only AD&D2e just barely touches upon specialty priests (don't even think it uses that terminology yet), leaving it completely in the DM's hands on how to do it and what limits to put on it (and thus it's really hard to bring into a discussion of how 'broken' something is, since the answer is 'just about any place on the scale'). I will say, if you do multiclass as a fighter/cleric* or fighter/priest or however you want to phrase it, and they have no armor or weapon restrictions, then certainly multiclassing with them will be less of a constraint.

[LibraryOgre]

Yes, this is certainly a much bigger spanner in the analysis. It's really hard to analyze, though, because it could be any which way from sunrise. PHB-only AD&D2e just barely touches upon specialty priests (don't even think it uses that terminology yet), leaving it completely in the DM's hands on how to do it and what limits to put on it (and thus it's really hard to bring into a discussion of how 'broken' something is, since the answer is 'just about any place on the scale'). I will say, if you do multiclass as a fighter/cleric* or fighter/priest or however you want to phrase it, and they have no armor or weapon restrictions, then certainly multiclassing with them will be less of a constraint.

They are "Priests of a Specific Mythos" and "Priests of Specific Mythoi" through most of the PH.

But, if we're going to talk about Broken (and, we are moving beyond the vanilla PH, here), has anyone talked about the "Create a Class" rules from the DMG? The "make whatever class you want" rules that let you get all sorts of silly?

[Willie the Duck]

They are "Priests of a Specific Mythos" and "Priests of Specific Mythoi" through most of the PH.

Excellent, thanks. I didn't know if that terminology was coining in the Complete book or before.

But, if we're going to talk about Broken (and, we are moving beyond the vanilla PH, here), has anyone talked about the "Create a Class" rules from the DMG? The "make whatever class you want" rules that let you get all sorts of silly?

Not on this thread, but about a million billion trillion times since 1989, I am sure (and saw, certainly on Usenet threads in the 90s and the first incarnation of the Wizards site. I very distinctly remember someone (probably on Usenet, but maybe on Dragonsfoot) declaring 2e AD&D the most broken game in existence because of that chart (and of course throwing a fit after the rest of the thread pointing out that it is explicitly DM-gated material). I will definitely say that the chart breaks down at both ends, particularly if you do not start out at first level* -- You can get most-all abilities for not-that-much-more xp burden on the far end, and you can create a character who will skyrocket in level simply by making something akin to a thief, but only the parts of the thief you were going to use in this campaign anyways**.
*As we've discussed with multi- and dual-classing, being 1-2 levels behind is not enough of a disadvantage to discourage doubling or tripling your xp-requirements, so drastically increasing your xp-burden isn't a huge opportunity-cost for gaining lots of features if you are spending most of your gaming time in levels ~2-12.
** And if you want to make a one-trick pony, like a character who does nothing but a single school of magic, you can make one that will level exceedingly fast, and now they can do high level spells from that one school while your regular mage would be level 3 or 4.

All in all, it is the definition of 'requires DM adjudication.' That said, in the messy middle (where you are trying to make something like 'a mage, but they get to use swords, like Gandalf,' or a cleric with move silently and hide in shadows, or the like, it's... acceptable. But yes, if the DM does not offer any oversight, it is an avenue towards broken possibilities.

[Kurald Galain]

But, if we're going to talk about Broken (and, we are moving beyond the vanilla PH, here), has anyone talked about the "Create a Class" rules from the DMG? The "make whatever class you want" rules that let you get all sorts of silly?

That's because they aren't rules. They're guidelines for a DM that wants to try something different.

It's interesting that 2E gives the DM wide authority to prevent his campaign from being "broken", such as the fact that magic items are listed in the DMG instead of the PHB, or the fact that wizards don't get to cherrypick which spells they know. 3E does away with all of that.

[Willie the Duck]

That's because they aren't rules. They're guidelines for a DM that wants to try something different.
It's interesting that 2E gives the DM wide authority to prevent his campaign from being "broken", such as the fact that magic items are listed in the DMG instead of the PHB, or the fact that wizards don't get to cherrypick which spells they know. 3E does away with all of that.

Point of order-magic items are in the DMG in 3e (and I think specialist wizards in 2e got to choose some spells). However, in general terms, you are right. There were different narratives going on when each was made. When 1e was being written, the Monty Haul DM was the biggest bogeyman. When 2e was being crafted, the rules lawyer player. With 3e it was the jerkass DM. So each one has language and admonitions and Dragon magazine articles trying to craft the experience to protect against one or the other of these threats.

[LibraryOgre]

All in all, it is the definition of 'requires DM adjudication.' That said, in the messy middle (where you are trying to make something like 'a mage, but they get to use swords, like Gandalf,' or a cleric with move silently and hide in shadows, or the like, it's... acceptable. But yes, if the DM does not offer any oversight, it is an avenue towards broken possibilities.

I'll point to the "Lone Wolf Thief" discussion in the Complete Thief's handbook, where they suggest you use that for making "interesting characters"... and, of course, you've also got fun stuff like just choosing Alteration and Illusion for your schools, which will cover about 90% of what you want to cast, anyway.

Since we're talking "Ways to break the game", may I point to Combining Spells and Magic and the DMG create-a-class option XP table?

[Willie the Duck]

I'll point to the "Lone Wolf Thief" discussion in the Complete Thief's handbook, where they suggest you use that for making "interesting characters"... and, of course, you've also got fun stuff like just choosing Alteration and Illusion for your schools, which will cover about 90% of what you want to cast, anyway.

Stripping down/paring off bits and pieces you weren't going to be using anyways is a great place to save points in those kind of point-buy games (like GURPS, this little table, or Player's Options 2e). It's either part of the character creation, or 'cheap'/'broken,' depending on whether your group finds it exploitative or the point.

[Algeh]

That's because they aren't rules. They're guidelines for a DM that wants to try something different.

It's interesting that 2E gives the DM wide authority to prevent his campaign from being "broken", such as the fact that magic items are listed in the DMG instead of the PHB, or the fact that wizards don't get to cherrypick which spells they know. 3E does away with all of that.

Yeah, the Create-A-Class stuff isn't just in the DMG rather than the PHB, it's called out as a optional rule even within the DMG, with specific mention that not all things mechanically possible to create with the system should be allowed. It's got multiple nested levels of "you cannot just show up to a new table with one of these on your character sheet and expect that to fly" written all over it.

I'm one of the relatively few people who didn't play D&D until after being pretty used to GURPS, so my default "how RPGs work" mindset is that character creation systems have plenty of ridiculous results, and it's the GM's job to go through and sanity-check character sheets before play begins, where the end result is more of a negotiated process. This looks like a system from that kind of mindset rather than the "if it's RAW, that's good enough for me" mindset that seems fairly common in a lot of players of more recent D&D editions. (I know we used to have the DM go over and negotiate about our characters back in 2e AD&D as well as in GURPS, but, you know, we were mostly GURPS players so I have no idea if that habit was "native" to most 2e AD&D groups at the time or not.)

[Beelzebub1111]

Bards. Wizard casting and Fighter weapon masteries with the thief experience table. Single class human Bards shortly outclass everyone. Look up the kits in the bard's handbook to see if any of the themes suit you. I can't recommend the class enough.

[CE DM]

Mace and sling only for clerics? There were more choices than that in the PHB. The go to choice for all our clerics was the morning star, which was a 1 handed 2d4/1d6+1 weapon. Longsword is better against large creatures but 2d4 vs 1d8 against S/M is much of the sameness.

There were also clubs, quarterstaffs and warhammers, but they were all inferior. There were also a couple of P/B polearms if you could swing that by your DM, but again they were not quite as good as the trusty morning star, given you'd have to give up a shield for them as well.

It also discusses in the PHB (and gives examples of) giving other weapons to clerics based on deities,but that would require consultation with the DM.

mace & sling ARE the best for clerics (PH). war hammer, due magical ones & throwing ability, is to be picked up at L4 or 8 (or at L1 for a cleric/fighter). Staff is also desired past L1, as magical staves are common & potent enough, although at a glance they are poor indeed. A staff of striking is usually the first +3 weapon a group encounters. Either sort of snake staff is a potent add to a cleric's early or mid level arsenal.

monsters quickly become mostly size large & up. the d12 vs a d6 becomes a tremendous factor. The bow's ROF matters greatly. Anyone who has actually played AD&D (any) KNOWS the comparison is a joke. Yes, SOMETIMES a type B weapon is key, and yes, S/M monsters exist at all levels (primarily due to leveled NPCs), but even if one played an outlier campaign & missed this obvious fact once, it's beyond credulity that one could have played 2 or more campaigns & not realized this truth.

The only way is if one played B/X or d20, etc, instead...nobody can play all that much AD&D without realizing swords & bows are king there, even if the DM pushes back against them as best possible (which I do/did).

as others have noted, morning star is not allowed to clerics of the PH. If one wants to go outside the parameters of the PH, sure. 2 handed swords, katanas, lances & composite long bows are possible for (some) sp priests.

As to the fighter vs cleric/fighter...yes, WS is all important, as the # of attacks is the most important factor, and this only explodes the difference when the damage per attack is doubled as well. cleric/fighters (per PH)...do not actually fight very well.

[Corvus]

as others have noted, morning star is not allowed to clerics of the PH. If one wants to go outside the parameters of the PH, sure. 2 handed swords, katanas, lances & composite long bows are possible for (some) sp priests.

Just checked my 2e PHB - the morning star is only listed as B, making it perfectly legal as a weapon. Maybe they changed it in a reprint at some stage to make it B/P.

[Willie the Duck]

Just checked my 2e PHB - the morning star is only listed as B, making it perfectly legal as a weapon. Maybe they changed it in a reprint at some stage to make it B/P.

Hey, excellent, someone actually pulled out their book.
Interesting. That might explain the differing impressions people have of the situation. I'll have to dig out my books as well. I'm guessing morningstars were listed as P/B somewhere in 2e (second printing, Arms&Equipment, PO: Combat, etc.). Or it could be mis-rememberings from other editions (or artwork).

[JoeJ]

Hey, excellent, someone actually pulled out their book.
Interesting. That might explain the differing impressions people have of the situation. I'll have to dig out my books as well. I'm guessing morningstars were listed as P/B somewhere in 2e (second printing, Arms&Equipment, PO: Combat, etc.). Or it could be mis-rememberings from other editions (or artwork).

It has morningstar at P/B in my Arms & Equipment Guide.

[rax]

And the morning star is P/B in my version of the PHB as well - the revised 2e PDF from 2013.

[CE DM]

it's both in most, but yes, there are some B (only) in some early PHs. I do not think it's anything but P/B or B/P in later sources though.

I suppose that explains it for some folks

lucern hammer is listed as P/B even in the old version(s), though, which is a bit funny considering the context of the game across time. Back in the 1e days, clerics had an actual list, not merely "type B", and "hammer" was listed, and this led to a fair # allowing the use of the lucern hammer. B/X was blunt, though they mark (*) cleric-ok weapons. Note that in 1e AD&D clerics do not get the use of the sling, whereas they do in B/X & in 2e.

It's kinda funny, though, as a "war hammer" itself was almost never blunt on both sides (if it was on either side)! Flails often/typically have spikes, etc.

Guess it all depends where & when u bought books, played, etc.

For those with morning stars as normal cleric fare, 2d4 /d6+1 becomes the "best". I always loved "morning stars" (the RL weapons, etc), so it certainly isn't any dislike on my part, but in AD&D, the problem remains with the "long sword" & damage vs size: large+, which typically becomes all important, as well as the chances to find magic items (even with DM intervention). Some people do not use variable size/weapon damage though.

I do not think morning star OR lucern hammer changes the cleric/fighter vs fighter issue of the PH only period...or even later on/past PH, if great club, maul , boomerang, bolas, chain, cestus, pellet bow, jitte, sai, tetsubo, nunchaku, or sap are used, they do not change that fact. They improve things, of course, more is better. I quite like the "big holy symbol" WS 5 d6/d3, but key, it is size small, so might make for a 2WC weapon for a cleric/fighter or cleric/ranger limited to type B. If so placed by a DM, one can imagine cool magic item/weapon versions too.

[JoeJ]

And the morning star is P/B in my version of the PHB as well - the revised 2e PDF from 2013.

It's only B in For Gold & Glory, though, which is a modern 2e clone. I'm not an expert in medieval weaponry, but from the pictures I've seen, it looks to me like P/B is more appropriate.

[Willie the Duck]

It's only B in For Gold & Glory, though, which is a modern 2e clone. I'm not an expert in medieval weaponry, but from the pictures I've seen, it looks to me like P/B is more appropriate.

There's some level of 'which of these historical objects fit into the category' to deal with. Perhaps Zeb Cook thought some knobbed warclubs or the like fit into the category. Or it was some confusion with flails, given that Castlevania also assigned 'morningstar' to balls on chains. Or it was a typo (given that it was P/B before then and after).
*or honestly whomever was in charge of filling out the weapons table for the first printing 2e PHB. Attribution during the Lorraine years of TSR is a tricky business.

Regardless, I think the point has been made. With or without morningstars, fighters MCing with bludgeoning-only clerics are making a sacrifice* -- in terms of specializing, in terms of weapon damage (whichever B weapon you use, compared to longswords or greatswords, particularly against Size L opponents), in terms of rate of fire (for missile weapons), and in terms of magic weapon drops. None of these are deal-breakers, nor are they as onerous as most other multiclasses (where you generally can't do your mage- or thief- abilities at all while wearing fighter-grade armor). However, they still exist. And, as previously mentioned, the math changes again when you throw specialty priests into the mix.
*outside the basic 'halving xp' and 'choosing race capable of multiclassing' sacrifices inherent to the option.

[Jay R]

It's not over-powered, but I would always prefer a multi-class thief/magic-user to a mere thief. A thief who can fly and turn invisible is inherently much better at moving silently and hiding than one who can't.

Note: do not consider this a party wizard. He is an enhanced thief.