[1e and OD&D] How did you handle Druids and Armor? Clerics and Edge Weapons?

lowkey13 · Jun 24, 2019

*Deleted by user*

JonnyP71 · Jun 24, 2019

1) No. It's not an option so don't even try. My players accepted the rules so they didn't.

2) No. It's not an option so don't even try. My players accepted the rules so they didn't.

3) No. It's not an option so don't even try. My players accepted the rules so they didn't.

I guess I've been lucky to mostly avoid the vile, insidious, lesser-spotted rules lawyer - it doesn't appear to have been common in these parts.

Sacrosanct · Jun 24, 2019

My answer is pretty much the same as Jonny’s. Rules said you didn’t, so you didn’t. That simple. Extra incentive for clerics to follow the rules, because if they didn’t, they lost spell casting ability (as described in the PHB under spells).

mach1.9pants · Jun 24, 2019

Yeah we just accepted that was the physics of the game world. Especially wierd when multi class clerics can use edged weapons!

Nowadays I would change things up, in that these are religious restrictions that would curtail powers. And wouldn't bother with the burning oil monk restriction.

ccs · Jun 25, 2019

lowkey13 said:
1. Could Druids wear non-metallic armor? If they did, what happened?

Of course they could! Their choices were leather & wooden shields. If they did their AC improved.

The questions that we did have to answer concerning Druids & armor were for studded leather & padded. Especially padded.
We eventually decided upon yes to both of those. Though for padded armor it's only ever been a point of discussion as I've never seen a PC - of any sort - ever choose that option.

As for the metallic armors - chain, plate, etc? No. And the book told you why the class lacks that option. Pretty much the end of that discussion.
Except....

But what about for some RP purpose - like disguises?
Believe it or not, that type of question did come up. We ruled:
A) As per the description in the PHB it spoils with your magical powers - wich we decided meant virtually every class ability, not just your spell casting.
B) The best AC you'd get would be = to studded leather, maybe, & determined by the DM on a situational basis. And any magic properties wouldn't function. Yeah, you're wearing better armor. But you don't know how to use it effectively.
This wasn't meant to encourage wearing forbidden armors, it was in case we needed to know an AC is some misc circumstance while you were disguised etc
C) Metallic shields simply wouldn't work at all for you AC wise.

lowkey13 said:
2. Could Clerics wield edged weapons? If they did, what happened?

In general, NO.
Sometimes though we'd change this up depending upon the deity chosen/campaign reasons.
Trying to use a forbidden weapon would result in failure. And you couldn't use any magical properties.

lowkey13 said:
3. Could Monks use flaming oil? If they did, what happened?

No. Though I don't remember what if anything happened. But monks have always been rarely used, then or now, in our 1e games.
I suspect that back then we did as we do today - we look at that restriction on the chart, shrug, & go "OK, because...reasons." (and then pick a different class

)

lowkey13 said:
So, my answer to questions 1-3 is simple- no, they couldn't. There was no grand, epistemological debate ("what if a monk had to pretend to be an oil thrower"), this was just a feature of the class- asking these questions was the same as asking, "What if the Assassin wasn't evil," or "What if the Thief wants to wear plate?" or "What if Paladins weren't stupid and terrible?"

Because of that, there was no need to answer what happened if they did.

Yeah, that pretty much describes our approach.

Fenris-77 · Jun 25, 2019

I said no, and they said ok. Or he said no and I said ok, depending on what side of the table i was on.

There wasn't really so much twisty optimizing going on back then though. You played a class and lived with the restrictions. Really, the only class whose restrictions got moneyed with was the Paladin, because, yeah, LG blech.

Hriston · Jun 25, 2019

I played a half-orc fighter/cleric that wielded a lucerne hammer because it was a hammer, right?

LordEntrails · Jun 25, 2019

We played the rules as written (EDIT: or at least as we understood them), and didn't worry about it or try to justify loop-holes. So, no metal armor, no edged weapons, no flaming oil.

Tony Vargas · Jun 25, 2019

Yes, why wouldn't they? Leather, wooden shields... one unusual magic item was scalemail made of enchanted autumn leaves. But, like Glassteele or something, no.

Clerics, no, loss of spell-casting, IIRC, though it never came up. But, even back in 1e I'd customize priesthoods, so some could. A Priestess of Teema, for instance was only supposed to use light-bladed weapons.

...and WTF? It occurs to me that no one ever played a Monk in one of my games, so that odd proscription never came up.