Why Did The Cleric Have Spells?

The balancing factor for a cleric gaining spells was the limit to blunt weapons (most of which capped a 1d6, vs 1d8 or 1d10 for most swords) and the fact they had little or no combat-ready spells (excluding cause/inflict X wounds).

Since originally all weapons did 1d6 damage, I think the limitation on weapons was more to keep the cleric from claiming magic items the game intended to go to fighters.

It amounts to the same thing, though. The best, most common magic weapons were swords giving the fighting-men an advantage in melee over the clerics and magic-users.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

. . . He wasn't allowed to use a sword because of the prohibition again shedding blood (I can't remember if this reason was debunked as an urban legend later on or not) for monastic orders. . .

Yeah. I don't know if this was ever the "official" reason behind the design but this was what I was always told too. Never made much sense to me though. I mean, any mortal wound is horrible, but the relatively clean and surgical wounds from a sword compared to the absolutely brutal damage of a mace just never allowed this reason to jive with me (especially since weapons like maces were designed because of, and to combat, plate armor, not be a more "humane" form of killing - but that's another thread:o).

I've toyed with the idea of making a cleric with the abilities Scribble talked about rather than having spells, but then I'm not sure how to diferentiate a Cleric from a Paladin (other than weapon choice, again).
 
Last edited:

As stated, they were originally "religious knights" who learned to emulate various religious miracles (fun fact: until AD&D 1e, clerics got their first spell at 2nd level. They had no spells at first.) The first miracle they got was Turn Undead (vaguely based on the idea of a cross repelling a vampire) and then they got spells used to represent the miracles.

It's been awhile since I looked at the rulebooks, but didn't the BECMI cleric have to wait until 2nd level to learn a spell?
 

Yeah. I don't know if this was ever the "official" reason behind the design but this was what I was always told too. Never made much sense to me though. I mean, any mortal wound is horrible, but the relatively clean and surgical wounds from a sword compared to the absolutely brutal damage of a mace just never allowed this reason to jive with me (especially since weapons like maces were designed because of, and to combat, plate armor, not be a more "humane" form of killing - but that's another thread:o).

This is one of those "fact is stranger than fiction" details. Yes, Gary and Dave included this restriction because clerics were "forbidden from shedding blood." Thing is, they didn't make that up. That "logic" was actually used by some warrior-priests during the Crusades--yes, in the real world--to get around prohibitions on priestly violence and bloodshed.
 


This is one of those "fact is stranger than fiction" details. Yes, Gary and Dave included this restriction because clerics were "forbidden from shedding blood." Thing is, they didn't make that up. That "logic" was actually used by some warrior-priests during the Crusades--yes, in the real world--to get around prohibitions on priestly violence and bloodshed.
Which only goes to show that rules lawyers actually pre-dated D&D. ;)
 

This is one of those "fact is stranger than fiction" details. Yes, Gary and Dave included this restriction because clerics were "forbidden from shedding blood." Thing is, they didn't make that up. That "logic" was actually used by some warrior-priests during the Crusades--yes, in the real world--to get around prohibitions on priestly violence and bloodshed.

I always explained the priestly focus on bludgeoning weapons as a philosophical one. When asked about their maces and staves, the creationists clerics of my homebrew would cite an oft-quoted adage: "You may cut the flesh, but you must break the bones."
 

This is one of those "fact is stranger than fiction" details. Yes, Gary and Dave included this restriction because clerics were "forbidden from shedding blood." Thing is, they didn't make that up. That "logic" was actually used by some warrior-priests during the Crusades--yes, in the real world--to get around prohibitions on priestly violence and bloodshed.

Yeah, I can see that. Probably kind of how the Templars got around "Usury" with their "Banking" system.
 

A History professor of mine used to use that allegory about priests using maces to "avoid shedding blood" whenever he was noting that someone was "missing the point" of one of his lectures. :)
 

You know, I was so glad when they ditched the blunt weapon restrictions for clerics.

Yup! it was barmy, lol.
In the "Pools of Radiance" novel, the clerics of Tyr had this ritual in which it was proved the "sword ruled you" kind of schtick, but other weapons didn't. Not very believable.

Meh, weapons are inanimate objects, they do not force you to use 'em (contaray to load of bunk in RL).
I have no problems with a god banning their use for his priests, but weapons are only ever TOOLS.
(unless a fantasy world or DM says otherwise)
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top