| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vikramaditya |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 05:18:44
This might be a silly question, but does a cleric HAVE to use the deity's favored weapon? I've just created a cleric of Shaundakul who's rather weak, and would rather wield a longsword than a greatsword (Shaundakul's weapon..). Would this be acceptable?
Also, what would happen if the cleric becomes a very high ranking member of the church? (It's a loooong campaign...). Would he, as a highly influential member of the church, still use a non-favored weapon? Besides, What would happen if his deity gives him the favored weapon as a gift?
|
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zanan |
Posted - 30 Mar 2006 : 09:21:59
Generally ... I would not become too obsessed with "favoured weapons". Many faiths demand weapons not on a cleric's list and one would hope that at least the favoured weapons would make an appearance there. Not that hard to do. Remember that some faiths' clerics would have to shed even two feats to acquire said PrC, one for the Weapon Proficiency, the other for Weapon Focus. And as we all know, feats are not aplenty for clerics. And multi-classing is not always a good or wanted option either. Speaking of which ... options that is ... there are not even that many open-to-all faiths (and useful) PrC for clerics around either.
Thus, a decent debate with the DM would be needed here. If the character has shown enough devotion to the cause and spent feats / skills accordingly, I would not demand of him/her to meet all - and especially doubtful - prerequisites of a PrC. Traditionalists may bulk here, but there you go. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 27 Mar 2006 : 11:11:48
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
Then it would a Longsword, no matter what you called it then.
Its either a Longsword or a Greatsword, there is such thing as a customized Greatsword that can be used one-handed.
In terms of statistics, you are again correct, it is a longsword shaped like a greatsword with a grip designed to be held two-handed. However, if a character only had the greatsword proficiency, I'd allow them to use it two-handed without penalty.
From a non-mechanics perspective, it would be very obvious that the sword is a two-handed sword (but a small one). It would also be accepted as representative of Shaundakul's favored weapon, the greatsword.
Re-read just the original post. I was under the impression that the character had a strength of about 8 and was trying to come up with an alternative that wouldn't look quite so rediculous on a puny cleric. At the same time, my natural suspicion of min-maxing came into mind.
My initial worry was that the poster only had levels in cleric and had to spend a feat on greatsword to qualify for a prestige class, but would rather use a sword and shield due to better armor class. My fear was that he was claiming his character was too weak to wield a greatsword in an effort to snow his DM into allowing proficiency in longsword to count towards his prc and then once approved would begin using sword and shield.
My thought was to still require him to take the greatsword proficiency, but allow him to wield a smaller and lighter version of it. This seemed to be a very good compromise. The character stays true to his claimed reason for not using a greatsword and no rules are broken.
I don't like coming up with houserules, but I do like creative solutions that are logical and bend the rules enough to allow for all sides to be happy. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 27 Mar 2006 : 02:23:21
quote:
Originally posted by Sarta
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
For that scaled down Greatsword, he would be using a Small Greatsword, and therefore would be at penalties for using a Weapon that isn't sized for him.
If he was using a greatsword sized for a halfling, again, you would be correct. If however, he were using a custom made sword with a full sized hilt he would be using a weapon sized for a medium creature that is used just like any other great sword. The weapon penalties come into play when one is attempting to use a weapon not designed to be used by someone of a character's particular size.
In this case, the custom build would make it sized for medium and grant no penalties.
Then it would a Longsword, no matter what you called it then.
Its either a Longsword or a Greatsword, there is such thing as a customized Greatsword that can be used one-handed. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Mar 2006 : 01:11:07
Let's keep it civil fellow scribes  .
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 26 Mar 2006 : 22:46:42
Some study recently said that half of flame wars started because of misunderstanding what was written.
Yes there are differences between D&D weapons and WR weapons of the same name. When it comes to roleplay within the game some do look for believiblity. The Greatsword weighes 8 pounds in the game it should be useable by any character that has two hands, weight is not a problem. It should also have a reach feature but does not appear to have one (the blade should be about 6 foot long and should have a reach of 8 foot or more). RW useage of the armor breaking, steed killing, etc. blade does not matter that much.
It though is sometimes useful to consider for roleplay purpose.
A PC only needs to eat 0ne pound of food a day and drink one gallon of water (more in deserts or other dry regions) but rarely does the game concern itself with how much water is carried. |
| Denoples |
Posted - 26 Mar 2006 : 21:11:03
I am not sure what you are trying to do. I wasn't sarcastic and that was pretty clear. It seems that in all the cases we had a discussion you don't actually disagree with me but you did type out replies to my posts for some reason. I thought I saw points in your posts, but it seems I was wrong, so now I don't see any. I don't see where you disagree with what I said, what your suggestion to the TS would be and how the whole gun-analogy plays in with that. Let alone where I quoted you incorrectly.
It seems to me that you read my post and that for some reason you just wanted to disagree with it somehow, but you weren't sure how. So you typed a whole message about things you didn't have thought out yet.
Or maybe you were trying to add nuances I left out because they are irrelevant to the D&D combat system or to the situation of the TS.
It is pretty silly to argue that changing weapon is a dramatic thing to do, which everyone would naturally realise and was never a point of debate, when the combat system already either handles or intentionally ignores this and while one of the weapons in question is actually largely a fictional weapon that would be rather useless in the real world anyway.
Furthermore, look back at what happened and reflect. I was trying ot help out the topic starter by giving both suggestions and adding historical/real life perspective.
You claim that my whole post is 'apples and oranges', then you discredit everything I said about history because I just selectively fished it off the net to support my point. Then you argue I must be wrong because the D&D combat system has weapon catagories, so it must be true. They exist for a reason, yes. But maybe the reason is to make the game a better functioning game. Still, it is unclear what you actually disagree with. Then you give a very bad example because you used something that is just very different from what we are talking about, making your whole argument more confusing.
Then I reply, trying to figure out what you meant and assuming the most logical to be true. So I explain it a bit more and I add some details because you seem to lack the knowledge or the will to verify them.
Then you reply, claiming that I misunderstood your example, which is not suprising but I couldn't have said that your example was just a bad one, that would be ad hominem. You ignored everything else I said. So then I admit I just don't understand what you are trying to say and you claim it is a personal attack of some sort. Ironically, it seems that you are constantly considering the debate may become personal, at least you keep eluding to it and even send a PM about that. The result is that it has now become personal because you suggested that it already was.
I am sorry, I do not really understand what went wrong. I normally don't have much trouble debating constructively but here it went wrong somehow. It seems we just can't have a functioning debate. I guess it is just a big misunderstanding or something.
But then again, if I read back all the posts one could claim you were doing this consciously, in one case clearly misreading and claiming I got confused. Maybe your signature gives the final answer.
I guess I will just have to give up. |
| scererar |
Posted - 25 Mar 2006 : 22:31:27
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
Then it seems that your points continue to elude me.
In the realms the system is crude and clear. So what is your point?
sly comments like that are unuseful. If you do not understand a point that I am making, and you would actually want an understanding, ask and I will show the same respect to you. If you just want to argue a point for no other reason then to argue, please keep the sarcastic comments to your self or pm me, we can talk about it there. |
| Beezy |
Posted - 25 Mar 2006 : 19:31:38
If I were in the situation your character was in I would carry the Greatsword and occasionally use it and also carry the shield and long sword combo you favor. That way you don't need to make a final decision about it quite yet. |
| Denoples |
Posted - 25 Mar 2006 : 19:06:46
Then it seems that your points continue to elude me.
In the realms the system is crude and clear. So what is your point? |
| scererar |
Posted - 25 Mar 2006 : 15:17:29
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
Uuh, I thought I was just pointing out that the mechanics of the game make no sense and that role playing must be considered instead. And then you tell me to bring a little 'real world' into the game?
Most two-handed swords would be used by infantry and they would be wielded more like pole-arms or axes than as swords. Also these weapons are rare. Only about 1% of the landsknecht or swiss pikemen would wield a 'Doppelhander'.
But my point was that many of the weapons that would be classied as 'greatswords' by D&D would in reality be very different. The no-dachi has no resemblence at all to the flamberge but to the game it is the same weapon. So that is why I said that if you consider both game mechanics and history then the only thing they agree on is that a greatsword is bigger/longer than a longsword.
Also historically we are talking about large fights while in D&D almost all fights are small. Makes a big difference. Look at all those gods with a greatsword as favored weapon. In our world a greatsword would be a bad weapon. You wouldn't have the room to really swing it, you wouldn't be able to defend yourself against missile weapons and at close range you couldn't do anything.
The reason why games and hollywood like big swords is because swords are icons and the bigger the better. Just try to imagine Conan the Barbarian wielding a gladius or something.
In european history the spear and the short sword are the prominent weapons. Maybe we should make a list and try to find out what weapons our characters are actually using and see which of the two is most influential; history or games/hollywood.
Also the armor the enemy is using is very important. But adding rock-paper-scissors element to D&D combat would not be fun in my opinion. Katana's are leathal, if the target has little armor. The gladius is very very effective in close combat, but if the enemy has plate mail the sword would probably be too weak, etc.
But are you talking about the proficiencies being used? Yes, a sword and shield are very different from a two-handed sword, period. But the TS said that his character was too weak for a two handed sword. That just doesn't make sense. The character will be using a different proficiency and if you use style proficiencies also it will matter. In the real world you would have to train for it. But in D&D you don't. A character would have enough XP to gain a level and they would get a new proficiency or not. And I already quoted somewhere that a sourcebook says that the cleric will automatically gain the proficiency of the favored weapon if she/he picks the domain of war, if I remember correctly. Plus this character is a level 4 Ranger, not someone who has dedicated her/himself to a particular fighting style. Only high level fighters would be able to do that.
Let me also say that that I have no military experience, no martial arts experience and I have never touched a sword. But I do know you can't compare guns with swords. Really, this is a bit stupid, claiming that the two weapons look alike, which is of course true, but in the case of a weapon you don't see anything at the outside so how they look is totally irrelevant. Guns are complex things. Swords are very very simple things(, eventhough making them may be complex).
Again Denoples, please quote me correctly.
I gave the rifle comparison, because I have experience with that senario. As far as comparing rifles to swords, I didn't. I also did not ask for you to bring in "real world" I gave an example of one. I separated the 2 examples. With swords, I would believe it would work in a similar manner. a swordsman in my opinion, would learn how to use the different ways of fighting with that weapon. The small, fine points of wielding it, could have a huge impact on whether that person lived or died. I am not meaning 2 orcs slamming each other with a blade they barely have proficientcy in until one or the other scores a hit, I am talking about the small things that would allow a person to be good, or a master of that weapon. While a sword may seem to be simple, I would still have to stick to my earlier statement, it is the small things that count.
|
| Denoples |
Posted - 25 Mar 2006 : 14:12:47
Uuh, I thought I was just pointing out that the mechanics of the game make no sense and that role playing must be considered instead. And then you tell me to bring a little 'real world' into the game?
Most two-handed swords would be used by infantry and they would be wielded more like pole-arms or axes than as swords. Also these weapons are rare. Only about 1% of the landsknecht or swiss pikemen would wield a 'Doppelhander'.
But my point was that many of the weapons that would be classied as 'greatswords' by D&D would in reality be very different. The no-dachi has no resemblence at all to the flamberge but to the game it is the same weapon. So that is why I said that if you consider both game mechanics and history then the only thing they agree on is that a greatsword is bigger/longer than a longsword.
Also historically we are talking about large fights while in D&D almost all fights are small. Makes a big difference. Look at all those gods with a greatsword as favored weapon. In our world a greatsword would be a bad weapon. You wouldn't have the room to really swing it, you wouldn't be able to defend yourself against missile weapons and at close range you couldn't do anything.
The reason why games and hollywood like big swords is because swords are icons and the bigger the better. Just try to imagine Conan the Barbarian wielding a gladius or something.
In european history the spear and the short sword are the prominent weapons. Maybe we should make a list and try to find out what weapons our characters are actually using and see which of the two is most influential; history or games/hollywood.
Also the armor the enemy is using is very important. But adding rock-paper-scissors element to D&D combat would not be fun in my opinion. Katana's are leathal, if the target has little armor. The gladius is very very effective in close combat, but if the enemy has plate mail the sword would probably be too weak, etc.
But are you talking about the proficiencies being used? Yes, a sword and shield are very different from a two-handed sword, period. But the TS said that his character was too weak for a two handed sword. That just doesn't make sense. The character will be using a different proficiency and if you use style proficiencies also it will matter. In the real world you would have to train for it. But in D&D you don't. A character would have enough XP to gain a level and they would get a new proficiency or not. And I already quoted somewhere that a sourcebook says that the cleric will automatically gain the proficiency of the favored weapon if she/he picks the domain of war, if I remember correctly. Plus this character is a level 4 Ranger, not someone who has dedicated her/himself to a particular fighting style. Only high level fighters would be able to do that.
Let me also say that that I have no military experience, no martial arts experience and I have never touched a sword. But I do know you can't compare guns with swords. Really, this is a bit stupid, claiming that the two weapons look alike, which is of course true, but in the case of a weapon you don't see anything at the outside so how they look is totally irrelevant. Guns are complex things. Swords are very very simple things(, eventhough making them may be complex). |
| scererar |
Posted - 25 Mar 2006 : 08:02:46
Another thought on this, is from my Judo instructor (I am a 3rd degree brown belt). He has always stated that it is better to know how to perform one throw a thousand ways, rather than a thousand throws, one way.
Any other advise and I might have to start charging for lessons  |
| scererar |
Posted - 25 Mar 2006 : 03:24:51
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
The only difference between a longsword and a greatsword would be it's lenght.
So if the character is not very big/tall/strong, and would wield her longsword two handed then the main difference between a longsword and a greatsword would be the statistical difference of the internal game mechanics. But isn't 14 strenght quite strong? Isn't the average for a human 9?
Well, it would kind of depend on what kind of greatsword it is. Historically there are many different kinds. The picture of the one in the players manual is a 'zweihander'-style that was used to cut wooded shafts of pikes. It has teeth or 'parrying hooks' for catching pikes. The blades weren't that long, the overal sword was just huge. Big hilt, broad blade, etc. Some are actually quite short. So a sword can be two handed without being a 'greatsword'. The problem would be to determine how the game mechanics would treat this. Maybe like Sarta suggested. The weapon she/he describes actually existed. Two handed hilt with a short but heavy blade, used to cut with force through a forest of pikes.
A claymore is much more like a normal longsword but the blade was just longer.
Then you also have the and-and-a-half-sword, or bastard sword, which the rules treat kind of curiously as a two handed sword that can be used one handed with special training.
Isn't the question if he is going to wield a sword two handed instead of wielding a shield and a sword? I think that wielding a shield and a sword will always be more cumbersome as wielding a two handed sword. Just add the weight of the shield and the sword together. Plus if you are going to use two hands wielding a sword, you will have much more control. But the problem is that you no longer can defend yourself with your shield.
So the problem would be to determine what are the actual motivations that play here. Does the character want to use a shield? Is the character too 'conservative' to change style? And why would a cleric use the favored weapon anyway? To imitate their god? Is that an essential part of her/his faith? Is fighting style an important part of their faith. I don't know the Shaundakul god, but I could imagine that for a cleric of Tempus, or something, fighting is a main part of worshipping in general. But then again. Imagine a church of Tempus, all wielding the same battle axes. It doesn't make that much sense. Also, a character wouldn't switch to a new weapon to fit a prestige class.
Actually the Defenders of Faith books says: "Clerics with the war domain get a free proficiency in their deity's favored weapon, so there is rarely any reason to use a different one. Even clerics without that domain often choose their deity's preferred weapon over what may otherwise be a better choose." So I guess it is just a matter of faith. But your character is still mainly a ranger, not a cleric.
On the other hand, switching weapons may be a important step, or rather symbol, of the conversion, if there is even one. Actually, in real life, where you are kind of born int your faith, the people that convert from one faith to another are more often to become fundamentalists or extremists as those that just follow their ancient traditions of their ancestors. The question is if you are born into faith in the realms or if it is a personal choice.
If this character actually is more of a follower, rather than a cleric, eventhough this character did gain a level in the cleric class, then maybe nothing has changed in the character of the person. If the GM suggested that the character should change weapons and instroduced a greatsword as treasure, so that the character can enter a prestige class, while the character in question hasn't changed anything in her/his views of her/his faith in gaining a cleric level, then your GM has made a mistake.
So it is a question of role playing, is your character, from a role playing point of view, a ranger or a cleric, or both?
Ok, I looked Shaundakul up. In the Faith and Pantheons book Shaundakul is depicted with a celtic sword(the celts are kind of the inventors of both the long sword and mail armor), one with a anthropomorphic hilt (meaning it looks like a human, though it seems that the artist in this case forgot the hilt should look like a 'little guy', the resemblence is still there) and leaf shaped blade. But Shaundakul's blade is just really long. These blades predate the 'knightly sword' and were already used in 'roman times'.
So while this sword is considered a greatsword by game mechanics, it is very different from the zweihander depicted in the player manual, which were only used after the middle ages when pike warfare was dominant. It seems that maybe this sword cannot even be wielded two handed because the hilt isn't that big.
So maybe wielding a normal longsword, celtic style, would be enough to imitate Shaundakul. The game mechanics are just very crude and should be ignored for role playing purposes. It would look a lot more like the sword Shaundakul is wielding than a very but big zweihander with a short blade.
celtic sword
http://www.silvermane.com/images/IW-IP084.jpg
zweihander/Doppelhander
http://www.museumreplicas.com/imagelib/0500802_l_000.jpg
Shaundakul as in faiths and phanteons
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/fp_gallery/fp1/Shaundakul_p62.jpg
cleric of shaundakul with a great sword(at least I think 'sacerdotisa' is priest, parde is ...?)
http://ultimosdiasdegloria.bluehosting.com.br/FR/Galeria_fr/clerigos/clerigosfigGD/Clerics04.jpg
No offense, but this is like stating that an apple is like an orange, but red! The categories for these weapons exist for a reason. And I am sure you would be able to find the "historical accounts" you seem to crave, around the internet somewhere. the use, technique, fighting style, weight difference, etc, etc, would class these weapons individually, very individually. to give an example( sorry guys a little real world, but if you take an m-16 rifle and an m-4 rifle, which look the same but one seems smaller, you would fire it differently, and unless you were experienced with both, you would not hit the same target, the same way, each time. this is with 12 years of active duty military experience to back it up). swords would be the same way, you might familiar with a sword, but one might be intended for stabbing, while the other for thrusting, yet again, another might be for beating though heavy armor, while yet another one might be for slipping in between weak points of armor.
Additionally the speed factor, in game terms, would not satisfy your hypothisis on whether a sword was weilded one handed with a shield or a hand and a half sword 2 handed. Again, the individual styles would conflict. One warrior may be able to make himself look good, but you get someone who is very skilled with one style and another who thinks, ok this is close, I will take the side of the one who knows what he is doing. I always told my soldiers that the small things are what count in combat. |
| Denoples |
Posted - 24 Mar 2006 : 17:56:56
Yes, you haven't really pointed towards the roleplaying reasons and arguments.
Actually, I find the whole favored weapon concept a bit silly. All gods have strange or even funny names for these weapons. I also guess that the idea of clerics using maces to prevent shedding blood is a thing of the past since so many favored weapons are swords of some kind. I had kind of gotten used to the idea.
But I just see it in front of me; a whole bunch of Mielikki clerics all wielding drizzited-scimitairs, a bunch of Lloth drow clerics wielding strange spider-shaped daggers. A whole party of helm clerics, wearing plate armor, all wielding bastard swords (actually I imagined Helm as a typical mace guy). And then the Illmater and Malar priests, the latter are all unarmed and have claws. The Illmater clericy are all unarmed, in a whitered robe, all walking limb or hunchbacked and they all have Leprosy...
And then the Sune priestesses, all scantily clad and with silken whips. Let's not mention Tymora. And then the Tyr followers. Not only have they 'removed' their right hand, they also have the same style long white beard, often dyed white because their natural hair colour is black... |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 24 Mar 2006 : 17:01:19
quote:
Originally posted by Vikramaditya
Actually the cleric is a 6th level character with a strength of 14. He was a ranger/explorer before he became a cleric, and is now Ranger1/Cleric5. He had always used the longsword/shield in his adventures, and does not want to change his style to a greatsword, which he finds cumbersome. My DM has now placed an ancient greatsword in my campaign which my char would normally be expected to use as it's Shaundakul's favoured weapon, but he does not want to..
I'm really torn at this point..Most of the prestige classes -- The divine disciple, Windwalker etc require a weapon focus with the greatsword. I would love to go with Sarta's idea of using a longsword with a full-sized grip, but how do I RP a situation like this, where there is a greatsword and my char does not want to wield it?
I just feel very guilty leveling him up as a cleric, and am almost at the point where I stop advancing him as a cleric and keep him a ranger - a true follower of the faith, not necessarily a high ranking member of the clergy, so he does not have to follow all practices to the letter..
I hope I'm not butting in here, but I have some comments about RPing:
If you're torn, have your character be torn. The path of faith (and particularly those prestige classes) requires sacrifices and change in oneself.
Sure, Shaundakal doesn't demand that you use a greatsword, but the requirement to use it depends entirely on your character, and it sounds like your character feels obligated to take it up, in order to put his past behind him and embrace this new road in his life, even as he hesitates to do so. This is, I think, a real struggle of faith.
Ask yourself these questions:
1) Is the greatsword important to the character, and why or why not?
2) Is the character refusing to accept the greatsword because he hesitates to shed his past, he hesitates to accept Shaundakal, or out of game-related reasons (probably not the best reason )?
3) What does the greatsword represent?
Also, consider carrying BOTH weapons -- longsword and shield, switching to greatsword when facing enemies of the faith or when the situation warrants it (you just need to dish out more damage).
I have an example from my own gaming, in which I had a rogue (so we're talking daggers, knives, etc.) who became a paladin and took up the greatsword. To him, it was a representation of his faith, as it was the weapon carried by his paladin mentor (and not the favored weapon of his deity, Helm, who wields a bastard sword). The use of such a huge weapon represented the commitment to a new, different path -- though he still occasionally shucks his armor, takes up a bow, and does some stealthy work. 
When it comes to roleplaying, use these situations as legitimate questions for characters. If you're torn, why wouldn't your character be as well?
Cheers |
| Denoples |
Posted - 24 Mar 2006 : 16:04:24
The only difference between a longsword and a greatsword would be it's lenght.
So if the character is not very big/tall/strong, and would wield her longsword two handed then the main difference between a longsword and a greatsword would be the statistical difference of the internal game mechanics. But isn't 14 strenght quite strong? Isn't the average for a human 9?
Well, it would kind of depend on what kind of greatsword it is. Historically there are many different kinds. The picture of the one in the players manual is a 'zweihander'-style that was used to cut wooded shafts of pikes. It has teeth or 'parrying hooks' for catching pikes. The blades weren't that long, the overal sword was just huge. Big hilt, broad blade, etc. Some are actually quite short. So a sword can be two handed without being a 'greatsword'. The problem would be to determine how the game mechanics would treat this. Maybe like Sarta suggested. The weapon she/he describes actually existed. Two handed hilt with a short but heavy blade, used to cut with force through a forest of pikes.
A claymore is much more like a normal longsword but the blade was just longer.
Then you also have the and-and-a-half-sword, or bastard sword, which the rules treat kind of curiously as a two handed sword that can be used one handed with special training.
Isn't the question if he is going to wield a sword two handed instead of wielding a shield and a sword? I think that wielding a shield and a sword will always be more cumbersome as wielding a two handed sword. Just add the weight of the shield and the sword together. Plus if you are going to use two hands wielding a sword, you will have much more control. But the problem is that you no longer can defend yourself with your shield.
So the problem would be to determine what are the actual motivations that play here. Does the character want to use a shield? Is the character too 'conservative' to change style? And why would a cleric use the favored weapon anyway? To imitate their god? Is that an essential part of her/his faith? Is fighting style an important part of their faith. I don't know the Shaundakul god, but I could imagine that for a cleric of Tempus, or something, fighting is a main part of worshipping in general. But then again. Imagine a church of Tempus, all wielding the same battle axes. It doesn't make that much sense. Also, a character wouldn't switch to a new weapon to fit a prestige class.
Actually the Defenders of Faith books says: "Clerics with the war domain get a free proficiency in their deity's favored weapon, so there is rarely any reason to use a different one. Even clerics without that domain often choose their deity's preferred weapon over what may otherwise be a better choose." So I guess it is just a matter of faith. But your character is still mainly a ranger, not a cleric.
On the other hand, switching weapons may be a important step, or rather symbol, of the conversion, if there is even one. Actually, in real life, where you are kind of born int your faith, the people that convert from one faith to another are more often to become fundamentalists or extremists as those that just follow their ancient traditions of their ancestors. The question is if you are born into faith in the realms or if it is a personal choice.
If this character actually is more of a follower, rather than a cleric, eventhough this character did gain a level in the cleric class, then maybe nothing has changed in the character of the person. If the GM suggested that the character should change weapons and instroduced a greatsword as treasure, so that the character can enter a prestige class, while the character in question hasn't changed anything in her/his views of her/his faith in gaining a cleric level, then your GM has made a mistake.
So it is a question of role playing, is your character, from a role playing point of view, a ranger or a cleric, or both?
Ok, I looked Shaundakul up. In the Faith and Pantheons book Shaundakul is depicted with a celtic sword(the celts are kind of the inventors of both the long sword and mail armor), one with a anthropomorphic hilt (meaning it looks like a human, though it seems that the artist in this case forgot the hilt should look like a 'little guy', the resemblence is still there) and leaf shaped blade. But Shaundakul's blade is just really long. These blades predate the 'knightly sword' and were already used in 'roman times'.
So while this sword is considered a greatsword by game mechanics, it is very different from the zweihander depicted in the player manual, which were only used after the middle ages when pike warfare was dominant. It seems that maybe this sword cannot even be wielded two handed because the hilt isn't that big.
So maybe wielding a normal longsword, celtic style, would be enough to imitate Shaundakul. The game mechanics are just very crude and should be ignored for role playing purposes. It would look a lot more like the sword Shaundakul is wielding than a very but big zweihander with a short blade.
celtic sword
http://www.silvermane.com/images/IW-IP084.jpg
zweihander/Doppelhander
http://www.museumreplicas.com/imagelib/0500802_l_000.jpg
Shaundakul as in faiths and phanteons
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/fp_gallery/fp1/Shaundakul_p62.jpg
cleric of shaundakul with a great sword(at least I think 'sacerdotisa' is priest, parde is ...?)
http://ultimosdiasdegloria.bluehosting.com.br/FR/Galeria_fr/clerigos/clerigosfigGD/Clerics04.jpg
|
| Sarta |
Posted - 24 Mar 2006 : 01:36:00
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
For that scaled down Greatsword, he would be using a Small Greatsword, and therefore would be at penalties for using a Weapon that isn't sized for him.
If he was using a greatsword sized for a halfling, again, you would be correct. If however, he were using a custom made sword with a full sized hilt he would be using a weapon sized for a medium creature that is used just like any other great sword. The weapon penalties come into play when one is attempting to use a weapon not designed to be used by someone of a character's particular size.
In this case, the custom build would make it sized for medium and grant no penalties. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 23 Mar 2006 : 10:39:47
quote:
Originally posted by Sarta
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
A Longsword can be used two-handed for 1.5 times Strength damage.
I added the bold for emphasis on the word "can".
I agree with you, he should be able to wield a "longsword" two-handed. However, I don't know the specifics of the campaign or house rules. If the DM in question is offering free proficiency to a cleric in their deity's preferred weapon, that weapon proficiency should be great sword.
If the character has a strength of 6, wielding a longsword one handed grants a strength penalty of -2 and two-handed a strength penalty of -3. The rules also don't have anything to stop this same character from wielding a shield and longsword. If the OP is trying to tell his GM that he doesn't want to utilize a free weapon proficiency in his deity's preferred weapon, but instead would like to take it in longsword so that he can use a longsword and shield, I don't like it.
My suggestion was that he simply pay extra for a custom made great-sword scaled down to a smaller size, but with a full-sized grip. This would mean it does the same damage as a longsword, but still is his deity's preferred weapon, makes use of the great sword proficiency, and is wielded two-handed.
However, if the OP is paying for the extra weapon proficiency himself, it can certainly be in long-sword (or great flail for that matter) and he can use it however he likes.
For that scaled down Greatsword, he would be using a Small Greatsword, and therefore would be at penalties for using a Weapon that isn't sized for him. |
| Vikramaditya |
Posted - 23 Mar 2006 : 05:14:48
Actually the cleric is a 6th level character with a strength of 14. He was a ranger/explorer before he became a cleric, and is now Ranger1/Cleric5. He had always used the longsword/shield in his adventures, and does not want to change his style to a greatsword, which he finds cumbersome. My DM has now placed an ancient greatsword in my campaign which my char would normally be expected to use as it's Shaundakul's favoured weapon, but he does not want to..
I'm really torn at this point..Most of the prestige classes -- The divine disciple, Windwalker etc require a weapon focus with the greatsword. I would love to go with Sarta's idea of using a longsword with a full-sized grip, but how do I RP a situation like this, where there is a greatsword and my char does not want to wield it?
I just feel very guilty leveling him up as a cleric, and am almost at the point where I stop advancing him as a cleric and keep him a ranger - a true follower of the faith, not necessarily a high ranking member of the clergy, so he does not have to follow all practices to the letter.. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 23 Mar 2006 : 01:54:10
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
A Longsword can be used two-handed for 1.5 times Strength damage.
I added the bold for emphasis on the word "can".
I agree with you, he should be able to wield a "longsword" two-handed. However, I don't know the specifics of the campaign or house rules. If the DM in question is offering free proficiency to a cleric in their deity's preferred weapon, that weapon proficiency should be great sword.
If the character has a strength of 6, wielding a longsword one handed grants a strength penalty of -2 and two-handed a strength penalty of -3. The rules also don't have anything to stop this same character from wielding a shield and longsword. If the OP is trying to tell his GM that he doesn't want to utilize a free weapon proficiency in his deity's preferred weapon, but instead would like to take it in longsword so that he can use a longsword and shield, I don't like it.
My suggestion was that he simply pay extra for a custom made great-sword scaled down to a smaller size, but with a full-sized grip. This would mean it does the same damage as a longsword, but still is his deity's preferred weapon, makes use of the great sword proficiency, and is wielded two-handed.
However, if the OP is paying for the extra weapon proficiency himself, it can certainly be in long-sword (or great flail for that matter) and he can use it however he likes. |
| Trace_Coburn |
Posted - 22 Mar 2006 : 14:10:48
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Many Clerics will use their deity weapon as a way of showing their devotion to their deity. They however can use any weapon that their deity does not order them not to use (not sure if any deity actually forbids the use of any weapon, some though can forbid use of poison or have rules of engagament).
Eilistraee perfers the bastard sword and I see many Priestesses of her perfering to use that weapon. Her dogma however says that any weapon can be used though sword (of any type) is perferred, if a sword is not available any bladed weapon is next perferred (axe, dagger, etc.), if no bladed weapon is available any weapon can be used (club, hammer, etc.).
One thing of interest is that Eilistraee now refuses to use a bow (because of an accident) however does not forbid her followers including Clerics from using a bow.
"the Dark Maiden forswore the use of ranged weapons (although she permits them to her followers)."
Which is exactly why one drow semi-NPC I've created took four levels of Fighter before going to formally joining the Maiden's clergy (and going up to Clr9 without any other deviations): it fit better with her character/history to have begun her career as a defender of her enclave with a pronounced affection for the bastard sword (acquiring proficiency *and* Weapon Focus almost instantly), then later sliding into the church itself when she started believing rather than just lip-sync'ing.
(Plus the stand-and-deliver style bastard-sword and shield favour/enforce makes for a nice little counterpoint to so many other drow characters (duck-and-weave style, dual scimitars - man, how many times has that been done before?  ))
Like all of her adventuring band, she also uses a bow when the conditions permit (forest fighting being so range-limiting), but she's first and foremost a toe-to-toe fighter.
In case you care? Said NPC adventuring band also includes a stereotypical fun-loving moon-elven scout/archer, a gloomy-gus Breachgnome with two smokepowder pistols and a hate-on for kobolds, a wood-elven ranger with a stick up his @$$ about 'preserving the sanctity of Cormanthor', a Calishite minor merchant-aristocrat/major sorcerer looking to make his fortune by adventuring during his exile, a (female) bard/Heartwarder of Sune who uses a behir-hide shocking burst whip as her main weapon, and the Heartwarder's wife, a former con-artist/burglar-rogue turned Paladin of Sune. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 22 Mar 2006 : 09:03:32
quote:
Originally posted by Sarta
Don't forget that often times priests carry ceremonial weapons that really aren't very functional other than as a status item. These could be bejeweled, lighter weight, or smaller than a typical weapon of its type may be.
For your player, I would definitely allow him to use a scaled down great sword with long sword damage, but wielded two-handed and with a great sword's threat range. He'd likely have to pay extra for a custom sword to be made to these specifications.
A Longsword can be used two-handed for 1.5 times Strength damage. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 22 Mar 2006 : 01:36:49
Don't forget that often times priests carry ceremonial weapons that really aren't very functional other than as a status item. These could be bejeweled, lighter weight, or smaller than a typical weapon of its type may be.
For your player, I would definitely allow him to use a scaled down great sword with long sword damage, but wielded two-handed and with a great sword's threat range. He'd likely have to pay extra for a custom sword to be made to these specifications. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 18:18:49
Many Clerics will use their deity weapon as a way of showing their devotion to their deity. They however can use any weapon that their deity does not order them not to use (not sure if any deity actually forbids the use of any weapon, some though can forbid use of poison or have rules of engagament).
Eilistraee perfers the bastard sword and I see many Priestesses of her perfering to use that weapon. Her dogma however says that any weapon can be used though sword (of any type) is perferred, if a sword is not available any bladed weapon is next perferred (axe, dagger, etc.), if no bladed weapon is available any weapon can be used (club, hammer, etc.).
One thing of interest is that Eilistraee now refuses to use a bow (bacuase of an acident) however does not forbid her followers including Clerics from using a bow.
"the Dark Maiden forswore the use of ranged weapons (although she permits them to her followers)." |
| warlockco |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 07:32:30
You can use whatever weapon you want.
It a good thing to be proficient with the favored weapon of your god, but not mandatory.
Some members of the church might frown upon the weapon you use, but it isn't entirely heresy. Unless you are a follower of Ilmater and just happen to favor the Scourge |
| scererar |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 07:02:28
quote:
Originally posted by Vikramaditya
This might be a silly question, but does a cleric HAVE to use the deity's favored weapon? I've just created a cleric of Shaundakul who's rather weak, and would rather wield a longsword than a greatsword (Shaundakul's weapon..). Would this be acceptable?
Also, what would happen if the cleric becomes a very high ranking member of the church? (It's a loooong campaign...). Would he, as a highly influential member of the church, still use a non-favored weapon? Besides, What would happen if his deity gives him the favored weapon as a gift?
I would say no on this. However, I would allow a cleric or priest to gain the favored weapon with no penalties for it's usage. My thinking would be this character would have at least learned how to use the god's favored weapon in combat, whether he/ she decided to use it would be up to the individual. |
|
|
