Soultaker Dagger *spoilers*

[red255]

So...I'm playing a Fighter/Cleric.

I'm accused of killing someone with a soultaker dagger.

Now I'm assuming the hooded man placed a massive enchantment over the public and whatnot because....I'm a cleric. I COULDN'T have used the soultaker dagger to kill anyone.

really should have a defense line stating 'I last saw the soultaker dagger in Uthgard's Beard, I was not able to use it due to class restrictions, if Skie was killed with the dagger, someone else must have done it.'

Game should check to see if the player is a cleric then kill her with the soultaker club or something.

[wendigo211]

Yep, Clerics and their weapon restrictions... Must be fun at the temple feasts, "So.... Who's gonna carve the turkey?" I guess that's why they keep the Paladins around.

[red255]

I imagine they have some sort of unlisted Cause minor wounds spell that they save for eating.

[captainwiseass]

As far as I understand it, clerics take an oath not to use bladed weapons, and the game mechanics enforce it. But cut scenes aren't ruled by game mechanics (else they could have just used a Phoenix Down on Aeris), and from inside the game world, people would probably just assume you broke your oath.

[red255]

They couldn't use a PD on Aeris because the body fell into the material stream or something didn't it? you need a body to cast revive On.

3rd edition and on can used edged weapons. pretty sure the 3rd edition starts with the simple prof which includes some edged weapons, and many 3rd edition gods have edged weapons as a weapon, which means clerics would have no issue using longswords or bastard swords with a god that approves of such things.

Im not sure the reason why clerics can't used edged weapons in 2nd edition. Paladins used to not be able to use ranged weapons. Dwarf used to be a class. its just an arbitrary hold over from 1st edition. doesn't matter why. what matters is it is.

[wendigo211]

I heard a long time ago, that the reason clerics can only use bludgeoning weapons is a nod to crusades and the agreement between Richard I and Saladin that, "no blood would be shed in a house of god." Gygax took that idea (which was really about preventing desecration of holy sites and protecting non-combatants) and clerics were unable to use weapons that drew blood. I've no idea if it's true or not, but it makes as much sense as anything else I've heard.

[red255]

I assume he removed the restriction in 3rd because he actually hit some meat with a mallet.

[danconnors]

Like this: You smash someone's head to a pulp with a steel warhammer, and there's NO blood? Give me a break; there's blood all over the place. Ditto if you use a club, flail, military hammer, great hammer, mace,etc., etc.

[wendigo211]

The argument could be made that warhammers and maces are improperly classified. Warhammers should be bludgeoning/piercing depending on whether you use the hammer or beak and maces either slashing or piercing depnding on whether they are flanged or spiked. But obviously any weapon can draw blood, even punches. Just look at the ball and chain scene in Braveheart to see how bloody a bludgeoning weapon could be.

Still, the explanation I gave, is the only one I've ever heard that made some sense. If you have another explanation as to why pre-3rd Ed. clerics can only use bludgeoning weapons, I'd love to hear it.

[red255]

My explaination was 1st edition was nutz and arbitrary to get you to by the rulebook to know the rules.

2nd became less arbitrary, 3rd and so on I'd expect, never got exposed to 4th or 5th edition since they never made any games with them.

Just a couple of guys in a basement invented DnD. They could only use Blunt because thats what they came up with. and the restriction was completely removed by third edition.

they could only use blunt for the same reason paladins couldn't use ranged weapons. its just an arbitrary class restriction to make One class different from another class.