Knights & Knaves Alehouse

achijusan wrote:...While we are nitpicking; take a look at all the races allowed to be cleric thieves in the official UA errata...

Hmmmmmmm... Someone doesn't know this forum very well.

Generally speaking, if it came out after 1983, most people here consider it a "house rule."

rogatny wrote:

achijusan wrote:...While we are nitpicking; take a look at all the races allowed to be cleric thieves in the official UA errata...

Hmmmmmmm... Someone doesn't know this forum very well.

Generally speaking, if it came out after 1983, most people here consider it a "house rule."

LOL..
NICE TROLL !!!

What say you quote the whole post instead of selecting a part of one sentence; taking it out of context; and twisting the intent to come up with a transparent insult?

Here you go:

achijusan wrote: "While we are nitpicking; take a look at all the races allowed to be cleric thieves in the official UA errata

see here:
http://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_ua.html

cleric thieves include Hill Dwarfs, All varieties of elves, gnomes, halflings, and half orcs.

If you are a "PHB only" purist you may change my original post to read: "seems quite evidently clear that both half elf magic user/thieves and half orc cleric/thieves can use all the thieves weapons without restriction. "

In any event; the point is that cleric multiclasses are not limited to cleric weapons... BTB that is.

As always; individual DMs can always invoke whatever house rules they feel appropriate (regardless of their player's desires or rulebook quoting) "

I have nothing against "PHB-only" dogmatics... indeed on occasion I am one myself

But sorry pal... but if it was written by Gary Gygax and published by TSR it isnt a house rule.

No one ever said that anyone has to use any of UA... but it is certainly "BTB" to do so and not by ANY stretch of the imagination a house rule.

A few other peoples comments in this thread are far more clearly house rules (cleric-thieves being able to use only clubs; or Cleric-fighters being able to use only blunt weapons to be an example... and in the "AD&D BtB" thread no less )

again; use UA or dont... but they are not house rules... call them "Official Optional rules" if you like.

Perhaps this thread should be renamed to "Pre-'83 BtB AD&D"; and another thread started named "Post-'83 BtB AD&D" to assuage those "most peoples" sensibilities you refer to...

Again; nice troll; though

rogatny wrote:

achijusan wrote:...While we are nitpicking; take a look at all the races allowed to be cleric thieves in the official UA errata...

Hmmmmmmm... Someone doesn't know this forum very well.

Generally speaking, if it came out after 1983, most people here consider it a "house rule."

Heh .. even a thing or two or three that came before.

Seems silly to me to rule that a cleric/fighter can use all the weapons available to the fighter, but the cleric/thief couldn't use those available to the thief.

I just can't bring myself to leave my good common sense at the door.

TheRedPriest wrote:

rogatny wrote:

achijusan wrote:...While we are nitpicking; take a look at all the races allowed to be cleric thieves in the official UA errata...

Hmmmmmmm... Someone doesn't know this forum very well.

Generally speaking, if it came out after 1983, most people here consider it a "house rule."

Heh .. even a thing or two or three that came before.

Heh ..
Playing "PHB only" AD&D is a house rule all its own.

TheRedPriest wrote:Seems silly to me to rule that a cleric/fighter can use all the weapons available to the fighter, but the cleric/thief couldn't use those available to the thief.

I just can't bring myself to leave my good common sense at the door.

+1

achijusan wrote:Heh ..
Playing "PHB only" AD&D is a house rule all its own.

Not around here.

Flambeaux wrote:

achijusan wrote:Heh ..
Playing "PHB only" AD&D is a house rule all its own.

Not around here.

Yes;

Yes it is... at least it is considered "house ruling" by at least ONE of the members here.


Sorry; but "authored by Gary+published by TSR =Official"
and "Official = BtB"

Now, I'll grant that there is difference "BtB PHB Only" AD&D and "BtB AD&D".

UA material is BtB AD&D... and may be regarded as such.
If your preference is "PHB only BtB"; well then - that's BtB as well.

Can't we all just get along ?

Now, being that UA is evidently not considered a default "BtB" rules supplement; I will refrain from using UA examples in future discussion. (and to keep from being browbeat and persecuted for any non-PHB apostasy )

In regards to the OP's initial question; the BtB answer is that cleric combos can in fact use any and all edged weapons allowable to any of the characters component classes.

achijusan wrote:Now, being that UA is evidently not considered a default "BtB" rules supplement; I will refrain from using UA examples in future discussion. (and to keep from being browbeat and persecuted for any non-PHB apostasy )

No one's making you participate at K&KA..

Chainsaw wrote:

achijusan wrote:Now, being that UA is evidently not considered a default "BtB" rules supplement; I will refrain from using UA examples in future discussion. (and to keep from being browbeat and persecuted for any non-PHB apostasy )

No one's making you participate at K&KA..

LOL NICE TROLL
But how about you keep the discussion on the OP's question?

achijusan wrote:Now, being that UA is evidently not considered a default "BtB" rules supplement; I will refrain from using UA examples in future discussion. (and to keep from being browbeat and persecuted for any non-PHB apostasy )

You can use UA examples all you want, just 1) for the sake of clarity you should probably mention that's what you're doing, especially when it's something where UA changes something from the earlier books, and 2) don't be surprised or get snarky when someone responds with the equivalent of "I don't use UA so that doesn't count for me."

In regards to the OP's initial question; the BtB answer is that cleric combos can in fact use any and all edged weapons allowable to any of the characters component classes.

I agree. The PH quotes you provided upthread about half-orc cleric/thieves and half-elf c/m-us removed the ambiguity for me (whereas before I was just relying on my own sense of what felt reasonable, now it's that sense bolstered by quotes from the book ).

Chainsaw wrote:

achijusan wrote:Now, being that UA is evidently not considered a default "BtB" rules supplement; I will refrain from using UA examples in future discussion. (and to keep from being browbeat and persecuted for any non-PHB apostasy )

No one's making you participate at K&KA..

Not helping...

achijusan wrote:

Chainsaw wrote:

achijusan wrote:Now, being that UA is evidently not considered a default "BtB" rules supplement; I will refrain from using UA examples in future discussion. (and to keep from being browbeat and persecuted for any non-PHB apostasy )

No one's making you participate at K&KA..

LOL NICE TROLL
But how about you keep the discussion on the OP's question?

I personally find this all...very amusing.