• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

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

Voadam

Adventurer
So, a different thread about druids and metallic armor in 5e has repeatedly referenced the way Druids were in OD&D / 1e, and how there wasn't really a rule about classes and so on so forth.

Anyway, with the usual caveat of "Everyone played AD&D/OD&D" in a different way, I was looking to do a thread to see how people actually played OD&D and AD&D from 1976 - April 1985.*

So here's the questions to answer, along with my answers, in the following parts:

1. Could Druids wear metallic armor? If they did, what happened?


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


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


Actual AD&D play from 81-85. It never came up except in the technical sense of multiclassed clerics who used weapons with no problem (and whatever the odd god specific exceptions from the Greyhawk boxed set allowed).

Nobody tried to violate the class restrictions in the games I was in so the issue of what would happen never needed to be answered.

I fully allowed the cleric/M-U to use daggers in my campaign.

I thought about the restrictions a little and considered them dumb but I mostly played fighters so it did not affect me that much so it was not that big a concern.
 

ccs

39th lv DM
There are some things you can tolerate in polite society; Unearthed Arcana is not one of those things.
I think it really depends upon what 1/2 of the book you're using & what side of the screen you were sitting on. :)

Barbarians breaking loot, Drow as PCs, weapon specialization/double spec, Chevaliers, changes to paladins & rangers.... :(

Thief-acrobats were a wash - and to date the only PHB/UA class option I've NEVER seen played.

Expanding the PC race/class options though, that was good. Except for that bit about allowing Drow....

The back 1/2 of the book though was gold. We got much fun out of the additional magic items & spells. And we finally had pictures for all the &**% pole-arms!
 

ccs

39th lv DM
If you looked at the book, the binding fell apart.

That's right- the book itself would fall apart if you viewed it. It's like a Schrodinger's book; it both lived and didn't live while it was unread, but the second you began to read it, IT DIED!
And then 30 years later the process repeated with the 5e PHB. Ahh, the nostalgia....
 

Lanefan

Hero
Restrictions:

Druids/Nature Clerics using metal armour: we allowed it up to ring mail but nothing heavier. No idea what the rationale was - maybe because ring was the same base AC as studded? I know we've allowed them to use metal weapons for ages.

Clerics using edged weapons: absolutely yes for War Clerics, otherwise yes only if the deity has a known association with that weapon e.g. Corellon and longswords - Corellon Clerics can and must take longsword as a proficiency but that's the only edged weapon they can use.

Monks using vials of oil: I never knew about this one but had it ever come up I'm sure I would have allowed it as I can't see any good reason not to. Paladins, however, would be banned from using vials of oil as such is not chivalrous.

I've still got a copy (or 2?) of UA in quite decent shape, though I'm not sure which printing they are. As for the contents: there's some overpowered crap, there's some very good and useful stuff, and there's some garbage. The hard part - which fortunately only had to be done once - is going through and sorting out the good stuff, tweaking things in order to salvage what can be salvaged from the marginally bad stuff, and then producing the relevant houserule documents.
 
I don't believe I ever knew about this prohibition for Monks.

<snip>

They can throw a flask of holy water (and all thrown weapons) but not one of flaming oil...maybe you could story-it-up as it being a 'dishonorable" way of attacking and that...would throw the monk's spiritual purity/enlightenment/soul into inner turmoil -misalign his chakras, what have you- which would interfere with the effective practice of their abilities. So, again, atonement, meditation, maybe take a quest to regain your "honor'/realign your mind-body-soul to regain your abilities.
Monks couldn't use flaming oil in 1e? That seems a weird restriction. Why weren't they allowed to?
I dunno the reason, but I assume it's related to their inability to use potions (PHB p 32):

Magic items usable by monks include all magical varieties of weapons listed (unless proscribed), rings, and those miscellaneous magic items which are usable by thieves. No other magic items of any sort may be employed by monks.​

Holy water isn't mentioned, but I think it would fall under this same prohibition.
 
Can a multi-classed fighter/cleric use a sword? But it has been so long since I have even looked at 1E that this might be a non-question and was allowed by the rules or if this was interpreted differently by different groups. I just don't remember for sure any more.
PHB p 32:

Cleric combinations (with fighter types) may use edged weapons.​

Personally I'd probably also allow it with cleric/thieves and cleric/assassins. For cleric/MUs I'm not sure there's a lot at stake unless you want to be a darts-thrower.
 

R_Chance

Explorer
So, a different thread about druids and metallic armor in 5e has repeatedly referenced the way Druids were in OD&D / 1e, and how there wasn't really a rule about classes and so on so forth.

Anyway, with the usual caveat of "Everyone played AD&D/OD&D" in a different way, I was looking to do a thread to see how people actually played OD&D and AD&D from 1976 - April 1985.*

So here's the questions to answer, along with my answers, in the following parts:

1. Could Druids wear metallic armor? If they did, what happened?


Not really. If they did, no magic for them. Mother nature did not approve :)



2. Could Clerics wield edgd weapons? If they did, what happened?


Again, not really. Unless you wanted to go without magic. A bit dense for Clerics to offend their gods.



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



I don't recall this one coming up. Other than firing up the remains of trolls that is.


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.


That said, I am curious as to what other people's experience were.

Note- this is descriptive only. If you want to argue about what the rules ARE, go to the other thread. I'm curious about actual play experiences prior to 1985.

I agree with you but my players were wargamers. They needed "reasons". If I hadn't said "gunpowder doesn't work" and the internal combustion engine is not happening they would have tried to blow up dragons and build tanks.... this type of thing did inspire me to dump modern "scientific" explanation for anything and develop different reasons for everything :D
 
1. Could Druids wear metallic (sic) armor? If they did, what happened?
I'm assuming you actually mean 'non-metallic armor'. No, they couldn't. And, I don't know, because they never tried. If they did, I would have probably ruled it interfered with their druid-ness and they would have lost all class abilities until they Atoned, similar to a Paladin or Ranger violating their class strictures. In the event no atonement was possible, they are now a bad fighter permanently. This is probably part of, they maybe the smaller part of, why no one tried.

2. Could Clerics wield edged weapons? If they did, what happened?
No, they couldn't. And, I don't know, because they never tried. If they did, I would have probably ruled it interfered with their cleric ability and they would have lost all class abilities until they Atoned, similar to a Paladin or Ranger violating their class strictures. In the event no atonement was possible, they are now a bad fighter permanently. This is probably part of, they maybe the smaller part of, why no one tried.

[/B]3. Could Monks use flaming oil? If they did, what happened?


No, they couldn't. And, I don't know, because they never tried. In fact, I never had a player play a monk in a game I ran, and I only can remember ever gaming with 1 AD&D monk. However as with the rest, I would have probably ruled it interfered with their monk-ness and they would have lost all class abilities until they Atoned, similar to a Paladin or Ranger violating their class strictures. In the event no atonement was possible, they are now a bad thief(!) permanently. This is probably part of, they maybe the smaller part of, why no one tried.

The bigger part of why no one tried IMO was simply that it was against the rules and we didn't question the rules much or even for that matter enough. I didn't really start questioning the rules until 2e AD&D came out, and then because word processors weren't a thing at the time, I ended up getting frustrated with attempting to fix the rules and simply leaving AD&D. When 3.0 D&D came out, it looked very much like what I had wanted the rules to 1e AD&D to actually look like, and as such I came back.
 
Last edited:

ccs

39th lv DM
I didn't really start questioning the rules until 2e AD&D came out, and then because word processors weren't a thing at the time, I ended up getting frustrated with attempting to fix the rules and simply leaving AD&D.
??
You're parents never introduced you to a TRS-80 & accessories I take it.
 

Advertisement

Top