Feels like I got screwed...
HalfOrcBeastmaster
Member Posts: 301
Not an error report, this. No, just a general lamentation of something.
Most of you know the Enhanced Edition comes with some items that crossover with/reference Icewind Dale such as the Defender of Easthaven or Everard's Morning Star +2. One of these items is the Axe of Hrothgar +3, a neat little number which gives a +1 to Wisdom and Charisma on equip. My lament is that my half-orc fighter/cleric, despite being perfectly suited to frontline combat, will be unable to use this axe because as most of you also know, nobody with cleric as a class is allowed to use axes or other pointy weapons.
Honestly, whose genius idea was it that all cross-class combinations in 2e except fighter/mage should be forced to take the weapon selection which was the wimpiest? Because of that bright idea, this is happening. +1 to Wisdom is worthless for any class other than a cleric or druid, so it's a pretty big oxymoron.
Most of you know the Enhanced Edition comes with some items that crossover with/reference Icewind Dale such as the Defender of Easthaven or Everard's Morning Star +2. One of these items is the Axe of Hrothgar +3, a neat little number which gives a +1 to Wisdom and Charisma on equip. My lament is that my half-orc fighter/cleric, despite being perfectly suited to frontline combat, will be unable to use this axe because as most of you also know, nobody with cleric as a class is allowed to use axes or other pointy weapons.
Honestly, whose genius idea was it that all cross-class combinations in 2e except fighter/mage should be forced to take the weapon selection which was the wimpiest? Because of that bright idea, this is happening. +1 to Wisdom is worthless for any class other than a cleric or druid, so it's a pretty big oxymoron.
2
Comments
Anyway, Clerics are holymen, bound by religious oaths to forego bladed weapons in keeping with their faith.
Druids are insane babbling treefolk, who for some reason cannot use a katana, wakisashi or ninjato, despite the latter two being identical to scimitars.
Neither of these restrictions is in any way to do with martial ability (or, for the record, wimpiness, cleric weapons include some of the best gear in my opinion), but a fundamentally important aspect to the class. A cleric who used bladed weapons would violate their oaths and become a fallen cleric (I vaguely recall this happening in one of the books) and no longer get spells or be able to turn undead.
I could see the restriction be in place for certain deities, for various flavorful reasons. But as a general ban for ALL clerics? That just seems incredibly contrived.
Also, I guess the +1 CHA is sometimes useful for warrior types seeking to maximise store discounts.
But on the whole, I agree that the Axe of Hrothgar is frustratingly useless. I've always assumed it was a joke by the original devs.
For example, a highly martial cleric (aka one with access to metal armour and several useful types of weapon) could choose Major Access (access to any level of spell) to two spheres (for example, Necromancy for stuff like Raise Dead/Finger of Death, Healing for Cure Light Wounds, Protection for Armour of Faith, Combat for Insect Plague etc.) and Minor Access (access only up to level 3 spells) to two others. Likewise they could use Spears and tridents as servants of Umberlee, swords and axes in service to a war god, and so on.
Meanwhile clerics that got more equipment restrictions for their faith generally got access to more spheres in general, both Major and Minor, so one that could only wear cloth and use staves, for example, might get Major access to six spheres and minor access to six others - probably enough to know and use every divine spell that's available in BG.
BG clerics, on the other hand, were heavily simplified, and as such get the best of both worlds, since they get extremely wide access to spells, while being restricted to default weapons which still include extremely useful weapons like maces and flails, but they get none of the variety as a result.
There are a few dialogues where a wisdom check is important, too.
"An ice blade can pass through (be swept across) parrying weapons and obstacles such as trees without being stopped by them. Its touch lacerates for 3d4 points of damage and chills for an additional 1d6 points of damage. "
It makes some sense that most non-warrior classes (all except Bards) have some weapon restrictions to represent the point that learning weapons isn't the primary purpose of their class, and the exception for Bards also makes some sense because they're explicitly supposed to be jacks-of-all-trades. The particular restrictions chosen for each non-warrior class are somewhat arbitrary and arguable, but that doesn't affect the principle of having some restrictions, and it certainly adds flavour and distinctiveness that different non-warrior classes have different weapon restriction rules (except that Mage and Sorcerer share the same tight restriction rule).
Obviously it'd be a refinement if different Cleric kits had individually-defined weapon restrictions appropriate to the deity served, but kits didn't exist when BG was first published and the devs evidently decided it was too much trouble to implement individualised rules when kits were added to the game. (Maybe that was merely a lazy short-cut, but also maybe the original restriction was hard-coded in a way that genuinely made it an excessive amount of work to parameterise, I don't know.)
The specific choice of blunt-only weapons for Clerics seems to be inspired by theological arguments in medieval Christianity that "the Church should not spill blood". Edged weapons are deliberately intended to spill blood, whereas blunt weapons are mainly intended to cause damage in other ways (even though they might "incidentally" spill blood), so blunt weapons could be argued to be "less sinful". It's rather a weak theological sophistry, and totally irrelevant to the pagan scenario of the Forgotten Realms, but nevertheless it still manages to convey some "priestly" flavour (at least to players from a western culture), so I reckon it's a fairly comprehensible choice of restriction rule. And conveniently, since there are several excellent blunt weapons and since blunt tends to be the most advantageous form of damage in-game, the limited choice isn't a serious handicap.
But I suppose with mods and editing you can just fix it, so there's that.
But in 2E the advanced option was presented right in the core books; that EACH PRIESTHOOD would have its own restrictions, its own spell access and its own special powers. In essence, each priesthood becomes its own class. So an evil warrior cleric may have access to any weapon imaginable but no healing spells. A cleric of a healing deity may have all healing magic, and even have bonuses in some cases, but have extreme weapon and armor restrictions. The variations are really unlimited.
But an implementation choice was made for BG that there would be only one cleric class; and it would conform to a particular set of restrictions and abilities. And this really is "classic" D&D gaming. The generic cleric is what AD&D players were all using UNTIL 2E came along and blew the doors wide open. Although my own PnP game is more "modern", I really enjoy what a traditional game BG is.
A lot of folks harp on 2nd edition as being silly and restrictive, but I think it streamlines the character building process and lets you jump into role-playing. It also helps with the group dynamic, because everyone has a pretty good idea of what each other can and/or is supposed to do.
With 3rd Edition, they sort of caved to pressure from the other more "open" game systems and allowed folks to let their characters develop whatever skills they wanted. No longer was it easy to "stereotype" your fellow adventurers and sometimes it was hard to remember who was playing what, especially when playing with a group for the first time.
I will not speak of the later editions.
So just walk away from it and move on.
Wisdom also improves your Lore.
I would see a Bard or Skald totally loving Hrothgar's Axe.