Class/magic feature branch

[Whelk]

I'm not so sure - I actually kind of like the way [sharp weapon restrictions for priests] works. What do others think?

I'd love to see it re-evaluated, explained, re-factored, tweaked, expanded on, or if nothing satisfactory can be come up with, put up for removal consideration. I never understood it from either a thematic or a mechanical/balance standpoint. What about it do you like? I just don't understand why it was ever there in the first place, other than it's apparently some nostalgic hold-over from D&D, which was itself pretty much made up for the sake of adding a little flavor to the Cleric class, but without any real basis or explanation.

I do enjoy when non-sharp weapons get some love, so a class that is encouraged more than others to use them is neat, and I enjoy flavor and lore in general, but this one just never clicked with me. Maybe if there were more explanation and lore behind it. As is, it's pretty much "Priests can't wield sharp weapons without serious penalties because we (the game designers) don't want them to be able to." Why? Is some god/immortal being decreeing this? Is it some rule laid down by a particular priestly order? What is the reasoning behind this restriction? Why only sharp weapons, while literally any other means of inflicting violent death is kosher? It's okay to bash someone's skull in and spread their brains across the pavement with a mace strike, but it's not okay to stab them with a knife?

And is there an actual need, mechanics/gameplay-balance-wise, for the priest class to have so many weapons made significantly less useful or viable?

The idea has just never reconciled for me, but I could well be missing an important piece to the puzzle. I think having this particular restriction for the priest class could be neat and interesting, if there were only a convincing reason why it was there in the first place.

[wobbly]

I think I'd be less irked by "priests aren't swordsmen" then "priests don't like blood unless it's a crossbow or bashing things to a pulp". Random idea give them mage level melee with non-blessed sharpies & take away the spell penalty. That gets rid of swap to cast

[Sky]

In dnd its because they are not allowed to draw blood
Thus only blunt weapons are allowed, such as slings and maces. Its part of them being holy, imposed by the god that grants them spellcasting abilities.

Ignore the fact that blunt weapons draw blood aplenty. Also, this has been changed in newer releases.

[Gwarl]

I think DnD got it from a medieval joke:

Another weapon, the holy water sprinkler (from its resemblance to the aspergillum used in the Catholic Mass) was a morning star used by the English army in the sixteenth century and made in series by professional smiths. One such weapon can be found in the Royal Armouries and has an all-steel head with six flanges forming three spikes each, reminiscent of a mace but with a short thick spike of square cross section extending from the top. The wooden shaft is reinforced with four langets and the overall length of the weapon is 74.5 inches (189 cm).[5]

The term holy water sprinkler is also used to describe a type of military flail, this being the name for the weapon in French (goupillon).[6] It was (according to popular legend) the favored weapon of King John of Bohemia, who was blind, and used to simply lay about himself on all sides.[citation needed]

It is popularly believed that maces were employed by the clergy in warfare to avoid shedding blood 2 (sine effusione sanguinis). The evidence for this is sparse and appears to derive almost entirely from the depiction of Bishop Odo of Bayeux wielding a club-like mace at the Battle of Hastings in the Bayeux Tapestry, the idea being that he did so to avoid either shedding blood or bearing the arms of war.

I enjoy the trope because the term 'holy water sprinkler' is awesome

[Moving Pictures]

The new spellbooks are breaking the econony for players that like Angband the way god inteded it to be: with selling enabled.

I did not know that God intended free-market capitalism. But then, God says I'm supposed to kill things, as a priest by smacking my enemies to death with blunt instruments, but can wander into a locker of nasties and drop dispel evil until the little buggers pop out of their own skins and leave orc/ghoul/troll/dragon guts all over the place. In short, I think God's been nipping at the funny mushrooms, and his/her/them/they are kinda giving whackjob directives.

How's *that* for tying together two completely disconnected post topics?

[Sky]

I say, a solid effort there, ol chum.

[EpicMan]

"For reasons long forgotten, all priestly orders dictate their adherents are forbidden to shed blood with weapons - swords, daggers, and polearms. Since the dictates specifically mention blades and polearms, it leaves a loophole for blunt instruments such as staves or even maces and flails, and priests feel perfectly justified in slaying foes with such weapons, regardless of whether or not blunt impacts actually shed blood."

[mrfy]

If we're going to keep the restrictions on priests and sharp weapons (which I agree with) then we should include bows, crossbows, arrows and bolts.

[Derakon]

The priest blunt-weapon penalty is clearly supposed to be an analogue to the mage icky-hands penalty. The main problem there from a gameplay perspective is that the vast majority of attractive late-game glove options give either FA or a DEX boost, meaning all arcane casters can use them without penalty. But most endgame weapons are not blessed. Granted that using an unblessed sharp weapon is not as crippling as using icky gloves, it's still weird that arcane casters mostly get to ignore this class feature while priests have to cope with it for the entire game.

Relatedly, have you considered making nature casters be penalized for wearing leather?

[Pete Mack]

@Derakon--true, with one exception. Playing artifactless, Gloves of Combat are the obvious choice for CON-handicapped mages. Those two points are a big deal, after 6 for a ring, and 2 for armor.

[Sky]

And 2 points for dwarven shield? Or is it always shield of preservatio?
Idk, to me its masochistic playing without artifacts, finding artifacts is what i play for.

[Pete Mack]

No, it's a shield of Elvenkind. You need rBase from somewhere. You don't need sustains as a mage. Though I suppose you can get really lucky with a crown of Magi (ESP).

[Nick]

OK, so when I said I liked the priest sharp weapon penalty, I guess I really meant that I liked them having some form of penalty to work around, and I don't really have good ideas for a replacement. Does anyone else? Do we need one? If we took it out, would blunt weapons need rebalancing?

[Moving Pictures]

OK, so when I said I liked the priest sharp weapon penalty, I guess I really meant that I liked them having some form of penalty to work around, and I don't really have good ideas for a replacement. Does anyone else? Do we need one? If we took it out, would blunt weapons need rebalancing?

I have yet to hear any good arguments for penalties, save for the (in RPG terms) explanation that they do not receive weapons training. Otherwise, many religions in this world, and in RPG worlds, are really keen on making sure that the guys on the other team end up dead. And here's the thing: if you want them to have that penalty, don't give them blessed weapons to use!

To me, it makes no sense that mages can pick up daggers on L1 and priests cannot.

I do not think they need a penalty. They receive fewer hit points, and melee worse than Paladins, who in turn melee worse than warriors.

My two cents...

[Derakon]

OK, so when I said I liked the priest sharp weapon penalty, I guess I really meant that I liked them having some form of penalty to work around, and I don't really have good ideas for a replacement. Does anyone else? Do we need one? If we took it out, would blunt weapons need rebalancing?

I am all in favor of class restrictions that make for interesting decisions, ideally also while maintaining some degree of verisimilitude. I'm not convinced that the sharp weapons penalty does that. I'm sure we could have a long and productive thread arguing over what kinds of penalties/restrictions would make sense though!