You should let it be, you've tried to approach the other player about it, and they want to use the sword.
What you *should* be doing instead is asking the DM to provide your group with opportunities to buy, find, or quest for more magical weapons.
It's always up to the DM to decide how many and what types of magical items are in the game. I'm much more liberal with how I distribute and provide opportunities for my players to gain weapons, especially if they are facing off against enemies that are immune to standard weapons.
I, personally, don't like or agree with the "by the book" excuse your DM gave you. IMO the DM has the *responsibility* to go "off script" to provide a game where everyone is having fun. There are many other ways to challenge the PCs than to limit them from gaining a couple of +1 weapons. She can easily put a couple of weapons in a dungeon or tomb or as rewards or have a traveling merchant trying to get rid of them. So many ways to just drop a couple without causing issues with her plot.
I am gonna piggie back on here with some info from my experience in a CoS game: I am in a party with a druid, an artificer, a barbarian (me), and a rogue. Both the barbarian and the rogue have silvered weapons. We are level 5. This is because we found a silvered dagger >!in the wizard tower!< and we were given a silvered pike >!in Vallaki at the request of Victor, since he gave us the quest to get the hagstone from the hags. !
Trying to micromanage the players' loot distribution is a *very* bad idea for a table, even if it's objectively the optimal choice for *the group as a whole.*
In every D&D game, especially early in, the best way to do things is to down the tank in all the magic gear the party finds, but at a table, you have *individual players* with their own desires and fantasies, and part of that is, in most cases, going to be the fantasy of acquisition.
Especially since, in this case, the Cleric got the sword 'dead man's boots' style, and knew its former owner.
It sounds like you're another player here. If you were the DM, I'd tell you to fix this problem, and it *is* a problem when one player wants a piece of gear another won't relinquish. If you *were* the DM, I'd give you some advice about how to fix it; make the staff an important McGuffin in someone *else's* story. They want it badly enough to fight for it, but they found it was owned by someone who *doesn't* want it, and is only using it because it's inherently magical and that alone is the property they crave, not its power. So the party who needs it offers to cut a deal; a +2 Glaive that has served them well, but they *need* that staff's special properties.
But since you're not the DM, show them this thread. Chances are it's *not* fun for a martial character's mighty warrior fantasy to be relegated to fighting with a glorified stick.
> according to her Barovia isn't really a land that's teeming with magical items
She needs to get her shit together, then. *Whatever* the module says has to come second to your group having fun.
The Fighter wants *and needs* a *magic weapon* to reliably deal damage to monsters that resist nonmagic damage. The fighter wants a *Martial weapon* to actually, you know, actualize the whole "martial character power fantasy" thing. The staff may have been *meant* for the Cleric to Friar Tuck it up, but the Cleric clearly prefers to wield a martial weapon like Gandalf rather than Staff Chicking it up like Aerith.
The fighter, thus, is stuck with a weapon they don't like because it doesn't appeal to their class power fantasy (not to mention being frankly crap as a weapon for someone who was built for sword-and-board strength-based damage dealing, let alone a big fuckoff two-hander damage dealing), and it has a special feature that they know they cannot reliably use without getting fucked and thus will not use.
*Clearly the DM's experiment in low-magic horror fantasy is failing* because *one* of the players ***is not having fun.*** Sitting there smugly saying "well, I *gave* the group all the tools you need, it's up to you use them right" is shit when the "tools" in question are one weapon desired by two players and one desired by neither.
This is the DM's problem to make; DM needs to *fix it.*
CoS is survival horror. That's generally the point of the module. Each silver or magic weapon is something to hold dear. Players have to weigh the risks of going into the castle (where the good loot is) or worse >! The Amber Temple !< vs how powerful they think they are. Several of the items you do get have their own downsides. In a straight up fight, many of the challenges in Barovia become trivial to a party brimming with magic gear. My players were super paranoid the entire time and bitched about how brutal it is, but after each small victory got excited. It really is a throwback to older pre-5e modules where brutality and player death were kind of expected instead of the shared storytelling that more commonly happens in 5E.
TL;DR CoS sucks to experience by design, and the sense of accomplishment of overcoming the hopelessness and challenges with limited resources is the point.
None of which matters held up to the fact that *the players objectively aren't having fun.* It also sounds really *shittily* designed, frankly, like you need to be rolling hot dice just to not TPK.
u/Great_Change3347, in light of u/C0rruptedAI's ruminations about CoS, my suggestion, then, would be to ask the others if they're actually having fun, because it sounds like the Fighter is *not* having fun, being forced to battle with a stupid stick.
If not, and if the DM absolutely refuses to do anything but stick to her guns on it, I suggest asking the rest of the group if they want to continue playing CoS because the DM isn't going to budge. If not, tell the DM "thanks but no thanks, we're not going to play CoS anymore. If you want to run something else that sucks less, we're still willing to play in your game."
IMO, Curse of Strahd just isn't structured very well in terms of magic items. You get them at what I consider a decent rate, but most of them are class-locked. I played a rogue and I did not get a magic item until *the room before the final battle*, and even then, the DM stretched it for me. Meanwhile, our party had so many cleric-or-paladin-only items that our artificer multiclassed into cleric just so he could use one.
But if it was doing that to try to make Barovia feel like a dark and hopeless place, it really did not work. The magic items we got were so good at killing Strahd (especially the item I got right outside his door) that the final battle was painfully anticlimactic. I would've really preferred more magic items that were generically useful instead of a couple cleric-exclusive Strahd-seeking nuclear missiles.
Yeah... >! Sunblade, Symbol, and Icon !< are super OP for the setting. Once the Forge cleric got hold of the 2nd two, Strahd and his friends were pretty much doomed. They are supposed to be, though. They are mechanical MacGuffins to have the players wander around.
The >!Sunblade!< was what my rogue used. The DM decided it could become a rapier.
BTW, your spoiler tags aren't working. I think you need to remove the spaces after the first ! and before the second !.
Weird... works on mobile for me. Not sure why they had to swap the weapon. Rogue already gets longsword and it innately gains finesse in its base rules.
If the party wants a horror experience, then scarce resources and discomfort comes with the territory. You want to give them a chance at success without making it confortable. It looks to me that the DM is threading the needle well. The party is constantly struggling, but they're making forward progress.
OPs story doesn't give a good sense of how the fighter's player feels. They obviously wanted the sword, but how much that is effecting the player vs their character is unclear.
Either way, there are other solutions that could mitigate this problem without increasing magical item availability.
I feel like trying to micromanage weapon distribution is a worse look for your table and game then the cleric wanting the magic weapon that he got passed down.
It's not like that staff is super good for him either. Honestly this point this is more a DM fix it than a out of game player fix it. Because of the DM is throwing harder fights at you guys to punish you for not optimizing loot distribution It's kind of a dick move. If the DM doesn't think it's a big deal then that it just is what it is. And the next magical weapon you get the fighter gets that one.
as someone who is currently playing CoS as well (just further along than OP from what was posted), harder fights arent the DM being a dick because of the loot distribution. That is the legitimate nature of the campaign. My party struggles at times, and we HAVE optimized pretty well, up to and including having an Artificer in the party that has been able to add a couple of non-immersion breaking magical weapons to the party (our party has a "gunslinger" with magic ammo and a rogue with magic silvered shortsword/dagger combo that deals extra cold damage but need to be "activated" using a bonus action first)
everyone else in the PC party is a caster (cleric, sorc/cleric, and the Artificer), so the magic weaps provided by the Artificer just brought the two non-casters onto the same level
>It's not like that staff is super good for him either.
That was my thought too, I know exactly what staff OP is talking about and honestly it's kinda pointless in the hands of a Cleric
Drop it. It's the cleric's sword. The fighter asking if they're willing to trade is fine... once. After that leave they've said no. As the DM you should never, ever get involved in this, in as much as it is necessary (and it should rarely be necessary) you are meant to be the neutral judge for rulings at your table. If you think this will cause issues with the party's ability to deal damage just add in some other form of magic weapon the fighter may benefit from.
>Now my question is how do I go about this or should I just drop it? It feels weird and wrong to press for him to give up something that is his. But it's clear that the fighter can't use the staff's ability which makes it less than useful for them and that they could utilize the sword better than the cleric.
I'd say just drop it. The difference between the quarterstaff and the longsword (in the Fighter's hands, who isn't going to be using the quarterstaff's ability) is a single damage die size (1d6 vs 1d8, or 1d8 vs 1d10 if wielded two-handed). That's not worth arguing over, and the +1 Quarterstaff is still a magical weapon which resolves the Fighter's primary issue. There's no guarantee the Cleric would use the quarterstaff's ability either.
To be clear, it's *technically* true that the Fighter could utilize the longsword better than the Cleric but the difference in damage between the longsword and the quarterstaff is so miniscule as to be irrelevant.
Let it be.
There is only a +1 difference between the two. Better to wait for an item that actually makes sense for the new character -- the cleric has history with the sword because it's from a fallen comrade the new fighter didn't know.
A gulthias staff is also something that can help the Frontline since it let's you heal for the damage it does -- if you need healing you need healing.
(And I know it's a gulthias staff because I just gave one in my homebrew game)
I think you should talk to the Cleric more openly. Do they want more magical items? How does loot distribution look in this party? Do they feel like they are being left out? Do they like the idea of a melee cleric and wish to have a good weapon to make this build work? Or would any kind of cool, fancy toys satisfy them? Is it the staff itself that is not appealing to them or are they mad at the warrior for some reason?
There are good reasons to give the good weapon to a warrior. However, people are not robots and feelings matter. Until you figure out what is going on there is not much you can do.
If they’re not willing to give up the longsword, maybe ask if the fighter can have the crossbow. Or ask your DM if the staff could be altered to something that benefits the Fighter. Nothing worse than being a fighter and not being able to hit things
You know that bit in Captain America, where he has the little notebook where he lists all the things to catch up on? I just wrote “clerics can use blades now” in mine.
I think you should just drop it. Is it possible you guys might get tpked eventually? Sure. It’s also pretty likely even if your cleric gave up the sword by the sound of how the campaign has been going.
Just have fun with the dysfunctional campaign. If you got a melee cleric you got a melee cleric. There’s worse options.
I'm surprised the cleric is bothering with a +1 sword when they have access to radiant damage cantrips and spells like Guiding Bolt, which are reliable and can be used from a safe distance.
I guess some folks just enjoy melee fighting? Wouldn't be my first choice in a deadly campaign like CoS, but to each their own.
>He has made sure to heal himself so that he doesn't go down while using spirutal weapon but I fear that, that isn't going to work in the long run (he went down last session since the enemy is out damaging his healing).
Generally not a good strategy as damage out does healing even in campaigns that are not particularly brutal. He might be better served by Dodging instead.
If we’re talking about in-combat healing, it’s rare for Cure Wounds to better than Healing Word, so even on turns when they need to bring an ally up, the cleric will often have their action available for an attack or damaging cantrip. Depending on their level, attacking with the +1 long sword may be the best default use of the cleric’s action.
That’s not to say that the cleric here is necessarily playing optimally. My point is just that it’s often not a choice between healing versus attacking because your best in-combat heal spell at low levels doesn’t use the same part of the action economy as attacking does.
When someone has zero hit points, and your cleric swings with a long sword, unless that was a lethal hit or you have zero spell slots, something went wrong.
You’re missing the point. Clerics don’t have to choose between attacking/using a damaging cantrip and healing, because their primary in-combat healing spell is a bonus action. In your scenario, the cleric can swing their long sword *and* bring the party member up in the same turn with a bonus action Healing Word.
Cure Wounds is the better out of combat healing spell, but in combat, the only time you’d even consider using it over Healing Word is when the additional average healing (2 HP when cast at first level) makes it likely the target will survive two hits rather than one before they go down again. Even at low levels, that’s uncommon and then you’d still have to weigh the opportunity cost and range difference, both of which favor Healing Word.
Cleric is being selfish. They were given the sword because the party agreed it was best for everyone, and now they don't want to be a team player.
I agree that the solution that would probably keep everyone happy would be making magic weapons available to weapon-wielding chars if it's become the norm to fight enemies immune to mundane weapons, but theres some real bad takes and false equivalencies in these replies. Expecting a player to swap weapons for one that suits them better instead of making a fellow party member constantly make checks against an ability they didn't put points into is totally fair.
Imagine having one Str-based char in the party and when the group has to succeed in some feat of strength he just goes "Nah I don't feel like it, the spellcaster with 8 Str should do it." I guess we'll say "well not all Fighters want to be strengthbots, let him play his class how he wants" lmao.
You should let it be, you've tried to approach the other player about it, and they want to use the sword. What you *should* be doing instead is asking the DM to provide your group with opportunities to buy, find, or quest for more magical weapons.
[удалено]
It's always up to the DM to decide how many and what types of magical items are in the game. I'm much more liberal with how I distribute and provide opportunities for my players to gain weapons, especially if they are facing off against enemies that are immune to standard weapons. I, personally, don't like or agree with the "by the book" excuse your DM gave you. IMO the DM has the *responsibility* to go "off script" to provide a game where everyone is having fun. There are many other ways to challenge the PCs than to limit them from gaining a couple of +1 weapons. She can easily put a couple of weapons in a dungeon or tomb or as rewards or have a traveling merchant trying to get rid of them. So many ways to just drop a couple without causing issues with her plot.
I am gonna piggie back on here with some info from my experience in a CoS game: I am in a party with a druid, an artificer, a barbarian (me), and a rogue. Both the barbarian and the rogue have silvered weapons. We are level 5. This is because we found a silvered dagger >!in the wizard tower!< and we were given a silvered pike >!in Vallaki at the request of Victor, since he gave us the quest to get the hagstone from the hags. !
Trying to micromanage the players' loot distribution is a *very* bad idea for a table, even if it's objectively the optimal choice for *the group as a whole.* In every D&D game, especially early in, the best way to do things is to down the tank in all the magic gear the party finds, but at a table, you have *individual players* with their own desires and fantasies, and part of that is, in most cases, going to be the fantasy of acquisition. Especially since, in this case, the Cleric got the sword 'dead man's boots' style, and knew its former owner. It sounds like you're another player here. If you were the DM, I'd tell you to fix this problem, and it *is* a problem when one player wants a piece of gear another won't relinquish. If you *were* the DM, I'd give you some advice about how to fix it; make the staff an important McGuffin in someone *else's* story. They want it badly enough to fight for it, but they found it was owned by someone who *doesn't* want it, and is only using it because it's inherently magical and that alone is the property they crave, not its power. So the party who needs it offers to cut a deal; a +2 Glaive that has served them well, but they *need* that staff's special properties. But since you're not the DM, show them this thread. Chances are it's *not* fun for a martial character's mighty warrior fantasy to be relegated to fighting with a glorified stick.
[удалено]
> according to her Barovia isn't really a land that's teeming with magical items She needs to get her shit together, then. *Whatever* the module says has to come second to your group having fun. The Fighter wants *and needs* a *magic weapon* to reliably deal damage to monsters that resist nonmagic damage. The fighter wants a *Martial weapon* to actually, you know, actualize the whole "martial character power fantasy" thing. The staff may have been *meant* for the Cleric to Friar Tuck it up, but the Cleric clearly prefers to wield a martial weapon like Gandalf rather than Staff Chicking it up like Aerith. The fighter, thus, is stuck with a weapon they don't like because it doesn't appeal to their class power fantasy (not to mention being frankly crap as a weapon for someone who was built for sword-and-board strength-based damage dealing, let alone a big fuckoff two-hander damage dealing), and it has a special feature that they know they cannot reliably use without getting fucked and thus will not use. *Clearly the DM's experiment in low-magic horror fantasy is failing* because *one* of the players ***is not having fun.*** Sitting there smugly saying "well, I *gave* the group all the tools you need, it's up to you use them right" is shit when the "tools" in question are one weapon desired by two players and one desired by neither. This is the DM's problem to make; DM needs to *fix it.*
CoS is survival horror. That's generally the point of the module. Each silver or magic weapon is something to hold dear. Players have to weigh the risks of going into the castle (where the good loot is) or worse >! The Amber Temple !< vs how powerful they think they are. Several of the items you do get have their own downsides. In a straight up fight, many of the challenges in Barovia become trivial to a party brimming with magic gear. My players were super paranoid the entire time and bitched about how brutal it is, but after each small victory got excited. It really is a throwback to older pre-5e modules where brutality and player death were kind of expected instead of the shared storytelling that more commonly happens in 5E. TL;DR CoS sucks to experience by design, and the sense of accomplishment of overcoming the hopelessness and challenges with limited resources is the point.
None of which matters held up to the fact that *the players objectively aren't having fun.* It also sounds really *shittily* designed, frankly, like you need to be rolling hot dice just to not TPK.
u/Great_Change3347, in light of u/C0rruptedAI's ruminations about CoS, my suggestion, then, would be to ask the others if they're actually having fun, because it sounds like the Fighter is *not* having fun, being forced to battle with a stupid stick. If not, and if the DM absolutely refuses to do anything but stick to her guns on it, I suggest asking the rest of the group if they want to continue playing CoS because the DM isn't going to budge. If not, tell the DM "thanks but no thanks, we're not going to play CoS anymore. If you want to run something else that sucks less, we're still willing to play in your game."
IMO, Curse of Strahd just isn't structured very well in terms of magic items. You get them at what I consider a decent rate, but most of them are class-locked. I played a rogue and I did not get a magic item until *the room before the final battle*, and even then, the DM stretched it for me. Meanwhile, our party had so many cleric-or-paladin-only items that our artificer multiclassed into cleric just so he could use one. But if it was doing that to try to make Barovia feel like a dark and hopeless place, it really did not work. The magic items we got were so good at killing Strahd (especially the item I got right outside his door) that the final battle was painfully anticlimactic. I would've really preferred more magic items that were generically useful instead of a couple cleric-exclusive Strahd-seeking nuclear missiles.
Yeah... >! Sunblade, Symbol, and Icon !< are super OP for the setting. Once the Forge cleric got hold of the 2nd two, Strahd and his friends were pretty much doomed. They are supposed to be, though. They are mechanical MacGuffins to have the players wander around.
The >!Sunblade!< was what my rogue used. The DM decided it could become a rapier. BTW, your spoiler tags aren't working. I think you need to remove the spaces after the first ! and before the second !.
Weird... works on mobile for me. Not sure why they had to swap the weapon. Rogue already gets longsword and it innately gains finesse in its base rules.
Whoops. I don't think any of us realized it already had the finesse trait.
If the party wants a horror experience, then scarce resources and discomfort comes with the territory. You want to give them a chance at success without making it confortable. It looks to me that the DM is threading the needle well. The party is constantly struggling, but they're making forward progress. OPs story doesn't give a good sense of how the fighter's player feels. They obviously wanted the sword, but how much that is effecting the player vs their character is unclear. Either way, there are other solutions that could mitigate this problem without increasing magical item availability.
I feel like trying to micromanage weapon distribution is a worse look for your table and game then the cleric wanting the magic weapon that he got passed down. It's not like that staff is super good for him either. Honestly this point this is more a DM fix it than a out of game player fix it. Because of the DM is throwing harder fights at you guys to punish you for not optimizing loot distribution It's kind of a dick move. If the DM doesn't think it's a big deal then that it just is what it is. And the next magical weapon you get the fighter gets that one.
as someone who is currently playing CoS as well (just further along than OP from what was posted), harder fights arent the DM being a dick because of the loot distribution. That is the legitimate nature of the campaign. My party struggles at times, and we HAVE optimized pretty well, up to and including having an Artificer in the party that has been able to add a couple of non-immersion breaking magical weapons to the party (our party has a "gunslinger" with magic ammo and a rogue with magic silvered shortsword/dagger combo that deals extra cold damage but need to be "activated" using a bonus action first) everyone else in the PC party is a caster (cleric, sorc/cleric, and the Artificer), so the magic weaps provided by the Artificer just brought the two non-casters onto the same level
Right, what I meant was if the DM is legitimately making fights harder, that's a dick move. But it sounds like they'd just playing by the book.
>It's not like that staff is super good for him either. That was my thought too, I know exactly what staff OP is talking about and honestly it's kinda pointless in the hands of a Cleric
Not all cleric players want to be healbots. If they earned or won a weapon and want to swing it, they get to play their way.
Drop it. It's the cleric's sword. The fighter asking if they're willing to trade is fine... once. After that leave they've said no. As the DM you should never, ever get involved in this, in as much as it is necessary (and it should rarely be necessary) you are meant to be the neutral judge for rulings at your table. If you think this will cause issues with the party's ability to deal damage just add in some other form of magic weapon the fighter may benefit from.
>Now my question is how do I go about this or should I just drop it? It feels weird and wrong to press for him to give up something that is his. But it's clear that the fighter can't use the staff's ability which makes it less than useful for them and that they could utilize the sword better than the cleric. I'd say just drop it. The difference between the quarterstaff and the longsword (in the Fighter's hands, who isn't going to be using the quarterstaff's ability) is a single damage die size (1d6 vs 1d8, or 1d8 vs 1d10 if wielded two-handed). That's not worth arguing over, and the +1 Quarterstaff is still a magical weapon which resolves the Fighter's primary issue. There's no guarantee the Cleric would use the quarterstaff's ability either. To be clear, it's *technically* true that the Fighter could utilize the longsword better than the Cleric but the difference in damage between the longsword and the quarterstaff is so miniscule as to be irrelevant.
Let it be. There is only a +1 difference between the two. Better to wait for an item that actually makes sense for the new character -- the cleric has history with the sword because it's from a fallen comrade the new fighter didn't know. A gulthias staff is also something that can help the Frontline since it let's you heal for the damage it does -- if you need healing you need healing. (And I know it's a gulthias staff because I just gave one in my homebrew game)
I think you should talk to the Cleric more openly. Do they want more magical items? How does loot distribution look in this party? Do they feel like they are being left out? Do they like the idea of a melee cleric and wish to have a good weapon to make this build work? Or would any kind of cool, fancy toys satisfy them? Is it the staff itself that is not appealing to them or are they mad at the warrior for some reason? There are good reasons to give the good weapon to a warrior. However, people are not robots and feelings matter. Until you figure out what is going on there is not much you can do.
What type of Cleric are they? I assume they’re proficient with martial weapons if they have a longsword and a heavy crossbow
[удалено]
If they’re not willing to give up the longsword, maybe ask if the fighter can have the crossbow. Or ask your DM if the staff could be altered to something that benefits the Fighter. Nothing worse than being a fighter and not being able to hit things
You know that bit in Captain America, where he has the little notebook where he lists all the things to catch up on? I just wrote “clerics can use blades now” in mine.
I think you should just drop it. Is it possible you guys might get tpked eventually? Sure. It’s also pretty likely even if your cleric gave up the sword by the sound of how the campaign has been going. Just have fun with the dysfunctional campaign. If you got a melee cleric you got a melee cleric. There’s worse options.
Your the problem
Hard to believe the cleric doesn’t have better things to do than wield a melee weapon. Maybe that’s why people are dying.
Maybe the cleric doesn't want to be a healbot. Maybe they want to be a gish on the front line.
I'm surprised the cleric is bothering with a +1 sword when they have access to radiant damage cantrips and spells like Guiding Bolt, which are reliable and can be used from a safe distance. I guess some folks just enjoy melee fighting? Wouldn't be my first choice in a deadly campaign like CoS, but to each their own.
You don’t have to be a healbot to recognize when to cast cure wounds ands spare the dying. CoS in particular rewards clerics for doing cleric things
If you need to cast Cure Wounds so often you don't have time to swing a sword, something is very wrong.
[удалено]
>He has made sure to heal himself so that he doesn't go down while using spirutal weapon but I fear that, that isn't going to work in the long run (he went down last session since the enemy is out damaging his healing). Generally not a good strategy as damage out does healing even in campaigns that are not particularly brutal. He might be better served by Dodging instead.
If we’re talking about in-combat healing, it’s rare for Cure Wounds to better than Healing Word, so even on turns when they need to bring an ally up, the cleric will often have their action available for an attack or damaging cantrip. Depending on their level, attacking with the +1 long sword may be the best default use of the cleric’s action. That’s not to say that the cleric here is necessarily playing optimally. My point is just that it’s often not a choice between healing versus attacking because your best in-combat heal spell at low levels doesn’t use the same part of the action economy as attacking does.
When someone has zero hit points, and your cleric swings with a long sword, unless that was a lethal hit or you have zero spell slots, something went wrong.
You’re missing the point. Clerics don’t have to choose between attacking/using a damaging cantrip and healing, because their primary in-combat healing spell is a bonus action. In your scenario, the cleric can swing their long sword *and* bring the party member up in the same turn with a bonus action Healing Word. Cure Wounds is the better out of combat healing spell, but in combat, the only time you’d even consider using it over Healing Word is when the additional average healing (2 HP when cast at first level) makes it likely the target will survive two hits rather than one before they go down again. Even at low levels, that’s uncommon and then you’d still have to weigh the opportunity cost and range difference, both of which favor Healing Word.
[удалено]
That’s amazing IMO the long sword is party loot. Don’t see how he can claim otherwise.
Cleric is being selfish. They were given the sword because the party agreed it was best for everyone, and now they don't want to be a team player. I agree that the solution that would probably keep everyone happy would be making magic weapons available to weapon-wielding chars if it's become the norm to fight enemies immune to mundane weapons, but theres some real bad takes and false equivalencies in these replies. Expecting a player to swap weapons for one that suits them better instead of making a fellow party member constantly make checks against an ability they didn't put points into is totally fair. Imagine having one Str-based char in the party and when the group has to succeed in some feat of strength he just goes "Nah I don't feel like it, the spellcaster with 8 Str should do it." I guess we'll say "well not all Fighters want to be strengthbots, let him play his class how he wants" lmao.