Flame blade & Shillelagh are Sword Sword Proficiency???
Marc de Vries
Fighter/Cleric since it uses Swort Sword proficiency. But a
fighter/cleric just as a normal cleric is not allowed that
proficiency. So how can it be usefull?
Why would a cleric have a spell that creates a weapon just for him,
that he should not use.
That is just like a paladin having a "protection from good" spell.
I can't imagine that that Flame blade would exist in the same form in
AD&D, does it? Is it just something weird in BG?
Marc
Josh Hein
Marc de Vries wrote in message <36c90b76...@news.wxs.nl>...
>The manual states that these spells are especially usefull for a
>Fighter/Cleric since it uses Swort Sword proficiency. But a
>fighter/cleric just as a normal cleric is not allowed that
>proficiency. So how can it be usefull?
>AD&D, does it? Is it just something weird in BG?
>
>Marc
I can't find the specific passage you're referring to in the manual, but the
spell descriptions for these two spells are basically the same as in AD&D.
Since the description for flame blade in the Player's Handbook specifically
states that the blade is wielded as a scimitar, I assume that means that you
have to be proficient in scimitars to use the spell without penalty, though
some DM's might decide otherwise. Shillelagh is the same, since it actually
requires that the priest have a cudgel or staff to cast the spell on and
then wield, so again I assume that proficiency with a quarterstaff or club
is requisite. Which means that even in AD&D, only druids (who are allowed
to use scimitars) can use flame blade without penalty, though any priest
could use shillelagh.
If this rule followed into BG, it is definitely a mistake, since neither
druids nor clerics (or any combinations thereof) can use scimitars (they
don't even exist) in BG and therefore no one can use flame blade without
incurring the non-proficiency penalty. It would be reasonable, I suppose,
for shillelagh. I had assumed that proficiency is not required for these
spells in BG, but I can't find anything that says one way or the other.
-Josh
Rodney Hobbs
quick copy of the relevent section:
Chill Touch (p.99) uses a Blunt Weapon proficiency.
Ghoul Touch (p.103) uses a Blunt Weapon proficiency.
Shillelagh (p.116) uses a Blunt Weapon proficiency.
Flame Blade (p.118) uses a Small Sword proficiency.
Josh Hein
Rodney Hobbs wrote in message <36ca4...@pink.one.net.au>...
>> Flame Blade (p.118) uses a Small Sword proficiency.
This is very odd. Can anyone think of a reason why this should be the case
in BG? It means that no priests of any kind are ever able to use flame
blade without penalty.
-Josh
denizen
axed, etc).
i say clerics should not get a non-weapon prof penalty for not having a
sword skill. next mages wil have to be skilled in bows to cast melfs acid
arrow or darts to chuck magic missiles. no way man
- ettiene
Tim Fitzmaurice
> The manual states that these spells are especially usefull for a
> Fighter/Cleric since it uses Swort Sword proficiency. But a
> fighter/cleric just as a normal cleric is not allowed that
> proficiency. So how can it be usefull?
> Why would a cleric have a spell that creates a weapon just for him,
> that he should not use.
> That is just like a paladin having a "protection from good" spell.
> I can't imagine that that Flame blade would exist in the same form in
> AD&D, does it? Is it just something weird in BG?
Flameblade in AD&D produced a scimitar shaped field of flame in 1st
edition of the rules, and in fact clerics didn;t have access to it. It
used scimitar proficiency which druids had access to.
Under second edition more people had access to it, particularly with more
flavours of cleric types. Now there, fighter clerics could quite happily
use non-cleric weapons, and a number of special types would also have
access to more weapons than the 'blunt' ones. Add to that we use it that
the spell produces the weapon shape of choice of the cleric (not sure
whether this is a house rule or the 2nd edn description though)
SO its a little downgraded due to differences 'twixt BG and AD&D, though
it does push more to the 1st edition flavour of it being a predominantly
druidy spell.
Tim (Yes I played occasionally)
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Josh Hein
>Under second edition more people had access to [flame blade], particularly
with more
>flavours of cleric types. Now there, fighter clerics could quite happily
>use non-cleric weapons, and a number of special types would also have
>access to more weapons than the 'blunt' ones. Add to that we use it that
>the spell produces the weapon shape of choice of the cleric (not sure
>whether this is a house rule or the 2nd edn description though)
Just a clarification from a DM who doesn't want people to be too confused
out there . . . everything you say is correct, except that fighter/clerics
in 2nd edition are restricted in their weapon choice by their priestly
halves, meaning that the standard fighter/cleric is restricted to blunt
weapons, though this restriction can be alleviated, as you pointed out, by a
number of variations on the clerical theme present in 2nd edition. Also,
flame blade producing the weapon shape of choice is a house rule, but that's
no big deal. I believe that requiring the short sword proficiency to wield
flame blade in BG is a mistake (or at least not properly thought out), since
druids don't have access to the proficiency in this incarnation of the AD&D
rules.
-Josh
Josh Hein
denizen wrote in message <7afr5a$77v$1...@nnrp01.iafrica.com>...
The proficiency requirement makes sense, sort of, in AD&D, but definitely
not in BG. I can easily imagine DM's ruling that proficiency is not
requirement for flame blade, even in AD&D. Still, you have to leave druids
with something after all their spells were absorbed in the priest group in
the conversion to 2nd ed.
-Josh
Steve Capperell
> out there . . . everything you say is correct, except that fighter/clerics
> in 2nd edition are restricted in their weapon choice by their priestly
> halves, meaning that the standard fighter/cleric is restricted to blunt
> weapons, though this restriction can be alleviated, as you pointed out, by a
> number of variations on the clerical theme present in 2nd edition. Also,
> flame blade producing the weapon shape of choice is a house rule, but that's
> no big deal. I believe that requiring the short sword proficiency to wield
> flame blade in BG is a mistake (or at least not properly thought out), since
> druids don't have access to the proficiency in this incarnation of the AD&D
> rules.
>
> -Josh
>
>
>
>
are able to get "small sword" proficiency, although they are limited to
using daggers. I don't believe there is such thing as "short sword"
proficiency.
We must remember that AD&D is a role playing system, not a combat
simulator. In my opinion, AD&D is flawed in the extreme. (look it up in
Dejanews, if you wish to see what I'm talking about)
Steve
Josh Hein
Steve Capperell wrote in message ...
>Actually, they do. BG implements a "weapon group" proficiency, and druids
>are able to get "small sword" proficiency, although they are limited to
>using daggers. I don't believe there is such thing as "short sword"
>proficiency.
I said short sword when I meant small sword. Thanks for the correction.
And just last night I realized that druids can take small swords in BG, as
you say, so I guess requiring it for flame blade isn't that heinous after
all. Still, you have to wonder whether it's really worth it.
> We must remember that AD&D is a role playing system, not a combat
>simulator. In my opinion, AD&D is flawed in the extreme. (look it up in
>Dejanews, if you wish to see what I'm talking about)
>
>Steve
Speaking as a DM who really doesn't like running dungeon crawls and kill the
bad guy campaigns, I hear you on the whole role-playing thing, but BG is
much more combat oriented than AD&D, IMO. It has a much smaller range for
role-playing than AD&D. BTW, to what newsgroups did you post your opinions
on AD&D, around when, and under what subject heading? I'd be interested in
reading them.
-Josh
John Secker
Capperell <sac...@osfmail.isc.rit.edu> writes
> We must remember that AD&D is a role playing system, not a combat
>simulator. In my opinion, AD&D is flawed in the extreme. (look it up in
>Dejanews, if you wish to see what I'm talking about)
>
Gygax and Arneson onwards have always been very clear about this (and
remember those guys were hard core wargamers from way back). It is
simulating Heroic High Fantasy, as you can read about in the Conan
books, Tolkein and so on. Real combat is confused, messy, and mostly
decided by morale issues. Most people who complain about the AD&D combat
model are missing the point by a mile - usually by thinking that hit
points represent physical damage.
--
John Secker
John Secker
<jah...@clarityconnect.com> writes
>Speaking as a DM who really doesn't like running dungeon crawls and kill the
>bad guy campaigns, I hear you on the whole role-playing thing, but BG is
>much more combat oriented than AD&D, IMO. It has a much smaller range for
>role-playing than AD&D.
opportunities for role playing that a live DM can. IMHO BG does an
excellent job of implementing the mechanics of AD&D, and a pretty fair
job of using those mechanics to create an interesting and reasonably
free-form plot. I particularly like the wide variety of ways that you
can tackle each situation, much more than in any adventure, or even any
CRPG that I have played.
--
John Secker
Josh Hein
John Secker wrote in message ...
>IMHO BG does an
>excellent job of implementing the mechanics of AD&D, and a pretty fair
>job of using those mechanics to create an interesting and reasonably
>free-form plot. I particularly like the wide variety of ways that you
>can tackle each situation, much more than in any adventure, or even any
>CRPG that I have played.
>--
>John Secker
I agree with you, though I think it would be possible (and very interesting)
to see a CRPG with less linearity and more freeform ways to deal with some
overarching plot, as is possible in AD&D. Even BG is limited in allowing
characters to use truly novel approaches to the problems presented, though
with all the side plots and stuff there are plenty of non-linear moments.
Oh well, no doubt we'll see it someday.
-Josh
Steve Capperell
>
> Speaking as a DM who really doesn't like running dungeon crawls and kill the
> bad guy campaigns, I hear you on the whole role-playing thing, but BG is
> much more combat oriented than AD&D, IMO. It has a much smaller range for
> on AD&D, around when, and under what subject heading? I'd be interested in
> reading them.
>
> -Josh
>
>
>
>
were a couple weeks ago, under the heading "Changes to BG" or something
like that.
Steve
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Just a clarification from a DM who doesn't want people to be too confused
> out there . . . everything you say is correct, except that fighter/clerics
> in 2nd edition are restricted in their weapon choice by their priestly
> halves,
Are they, mea cupla, comes of running a system that hops between editions
of the game.....after the campaign's been going 8 and a half years the
number of tweaks and house interpretations and edition changes creeps up
on a man......
> no big deal. I believe that requiring the short sword proficiency to wield
> flame blade in BG is a mistake (or at least not properly thought out), since
> druids don't have access to the proficiency in this incarnation of the AD&D
> rules.
Agreed
Tim