A heavier blunt implement.

[wargear]

In the process of creating my current campaign, I found it necessary for a larger range of bludgeoning weapons to combat the lesser undead that are so abundant.

So without further ado:

The Great Mace - Martial - two handed - a five to six foot long haft with a massive metal head.
Cost: 30gp, Damage: 1d12(M), Critical: x2, Weight: 12lb, Type: Bludgeoning.

The Great Hammer - Martial - two handed - a five to six foot long haft with a steel hammer head.
Cost: 45gp, Damage: 2d6(M), Critical: x3, Weight: 10lb, Type: Bludgeoning.

 

[Nifft]

So you don't like the heavy flail, then? (1d10, 19/x2)

Bludgeoning weapons generally do slightly less damage than other types. This is presumably to make skeletons and liches more frightening.

Cheers, -- N

 

[wargear]

Hmmm...Perhaps some complete nutter could go into battle with a Great Flail.

 

[Nifft]

The Great Flail - Exotic - two handed - a five to six foot long haft with a massive metal head.
Cost: 30gp, Damage: 2d6(M), Critical: 19/x2, Weight: 12lb, Type: Bludgeoning.

The Great Hammer - Exotic - two handed - a five to six foot long haft with a steel hammer head.
Cost: 45gp, Damage: 2d6(M), Critical: 20/x3, Weight: 10lb, Type: Bludgeoning.

I'd have no problem with these two weapons. As Exotic, they have an advantage over the heavy flail just like a bastard sword has an advantage over the longsword.

Cheers, -- N

 

[wargear]

No, it was definately Great Mace.

I generated the stats from comparisons between longsword - greatsword and battleaxe - great axe. I then scaled up the heavy mace and warhammer.
As to being Martial or Exotic...with the cultural emphasis on bludgeoning weapons, I simply shifted the greataxe and greatsword to Exotic in their place.

 

[Nifft]

In that context, the Great Mace looks just fine. 1d12, but 20/x2, seems quite reasonable.

The Great Hammer is too good. 2d6 is better than 1d12, and 20/x3 is better than 20/x2... it's strictly better. If the great hammer were the same category as the great mace, one would have to be quite foolish to use the mace. Don't you think?

Cheers, -- N

 

[wargear]

Sure, however it's the same across the whole range of weapons in the phb. What it then comes down to is roleplaying. In my game both the Cleric and Paladin have opted for Great Maces with the head shaped as their holy symbol and a spike at the butt of the haft, allowing them to embed it in the ground for an "instant shrine". Only one player has chosen the Great Hammer, a Fighter.

 

[exempt]

In that context, the Great Mace looks just fine. 1d12, but 20/x2, seems quite reasonable.

The Great Hammer is too good. 2d6 is better than 1d12....

Kinda... 2d6 is less likely than 1d12 to give you low numbers, but it's also less likely to give you high numbers. So it depends on how much spread you want in your damage potential.

 

[Arkhandus]

The great mace should do 2d6 with 20/x2 for crits, probably. The great hammer should probably be changed to Exotic, or instead have its damage reduced to 1d10.

The weapons in the PHB are not so unbalanced. The martial weapons are mostly close to even, with few that are bad choices. They have different advantages, but they're close enough. Your great mace and great hammer have too stark a difference; absolutely no reason to use a great mace when the great hammer is so obviously superior and uses the same kind of proficiency.

 

[GreatLemur]

Bludgeoning weapons generally do slightly less damage than other types. This is presumably to make skeletons and liches more frightening.

Is that what's up with the disparity? I'd noticed that bludgeoning weapons kinda get screwed over, but DR X/bludgeoning just doesn't seem like a common enough monster quality to justify it. I'd been thinking it had more to do with enforcing the hero-with-slashing-weapon archetypes.