Feature Inheritance: Elf, Magic-User in 1e

[Scott308]

A cleric, by the class rules, are prohibited from using edged weapons that shed blood.

This one doesn't make sense to me. I can tell you that blunt force trauma to the head can absolutely cause scalp lacerations and fractured skulls, potentially tearing the middle meningeal artery, which will cause MASSIVE bloodloss. If you hit an unhelmeted victim in the head with a mace, there will be blood shed. Hit them in the body and you'll get internal bleeding or broken bones from extremity hits, neither of which are as likely to cause external bloodshed, but the scalp is easily cut and bleeds heavily.

[Quonundrum]

Yeah, it's another one that never made any sense to me. I mean, cutting? No, bad cleric, lacerations are violently icky.

Now, blunt force trauma with massive contusions and compound fractures? No problem!

[Inferno]

The first thing to remember when playing any version of D&D, if going for any sort of realism, don't use D&D.

[Inferno]

A cleric, by the class rules, are prohibited from using edged weapons that shed blood.

This one doesn't make sense to me.

Me neither! An evil Cleric has to make a human sacrifice without a sacrificial dagger!

[Rex]

This could go on a long time.

[Quonundrum]

This could go on a long time.

I see you've visited the Dragonsfoot forums?

[Rex]

Very rarely.

[OGRE MAGE]

This could go on a long time.

[Inferno]

This could go on a long time.

Not if you jinx it like that.

[Inferno]

Absolutely, but I think there must be some rational basis to hang your imagination on. I'd prefer that our poor magic-user wielding a bohemian ear spoon has at least a chance of hitting a slowed, held, stunned, and blinded goblin.

RAW to the rescue!
On DMG p.67 it says magically held creatures may be automatically slain at a rate of one per round. No weapons are mentioned.

Good ol RAW. We never doubted you.

[rredmond]

Imagine the MU doing that with their bare hands!!
The horror...

[Starbeard]

Absolutely, but I think there must be some rational basis to hang your imagination on. I'd prefer that our poor magic-user wielding a bohemian ear spoon has at least a chance of hitting a slowed, held, stunned, and blinded goblin.

RAW to the rescue!
On DMG p.67 it says magically held creatures may be automatically slain at a rate of one per round. No weapons are mentioned.

Good ol RAW. We never doubted you.

No weapons indeed. We've all seen those 80s action movies and know just how easy it is to insta-kill someone with a quick neck snap!

A cleric, by the class rules, are prohibited from using edged weapons that shed blood.

This one doesn't make sense to me.

Me neither! An evil Cleric has to make a human sacrifice without a sacrificial dagger!

I know no one asked, so I'll just voluntarily hoist my neckbeard into the wind here: rather than being a game mechanic designed to limit who is allowed to get the fancy magic swords (a frequently used argument), the "no drawing blood = no edged weapons" rule was supposed to reflect what Gygax & Co. thought was a historical restriction of the medieval clergy, as witnessed in epic poems and canon law from the period. They didn't realize that it isn't historical at all, it was just Victorian romanticized poppycock that got perpetuated in the popular history books they would have had access to at their public libraries. See here: https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/view ... 5#p1868305

So the whole "because they're clerics" criteria for their weapon restrictions is cool and flavorful and iconic D&D fantasy, but had Gary known that historians already discredited the myth decades prior, the rule wouldn't have been there at all! So feel free to house rule away with clear conscience.

[dmw71]

...the "no drawing blood = no edged weapons" rule was supposed to reflect what Gygax & Co. thought was a historical restriction of the medieval clergy, as witnessed in epic poems and canon law from the period. They didn't realize that it isn't historical at all, it was just Victorian romanticized poppycock that got perpetuated in the popular history books they would have had access to at their public libraries. See here: https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/view ... 5#p1868305

So the whole "because they're clerics" criteria for their weapon restrictions is cool and flavorful and iconic D&D fantasy, but had Gary known that historians already discredited the myth decades prior, the rule wouldn't have been there at all! So feel free to house rule away with clear conscience.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

[Rex]

I agree on that 100%, but I am a huge fan of house rules anyways. The last time we played 1e at the table my group allowed anyone any weapons and used the weapon groups from 2e fighters book. To balance it we did damage = HD, 1 better for 2 handed weapons and 1 worse for light weapons. Everyone loved it. As far as multi-class went, we did away with it and used dual-class for everyone, but lowered the requirements from 17/15 to 15/13 for demi-humans and 13/11 for humans. humans started with max HP, demi-humans had to roll. No level limits for demi-humans. Everything worked just fine.

[Starbeard]

I haven't encountered the max hp for humans house rule, that sounds great.