Weapons (D&D 3E)

[willpell]

I will be adding other questions, but for now I have just one - why does the Heavy Mace exist? It's exactly the same as the Morningstar except that it costs more and lacks a second damage type (which is never an advantage since the rules say immunity doesn't apply to a weapon which is only half-weak against you, ie a skeleton still takes full damage from the morningstar because it includes bludgeoning, even though it also includes piercing). No-one ever has any reason to have a heavy mace, unless they're stuck with it as a favored weapon and have no other proficiencies; the possibility of this happening seems like just a pointless Bugsby's Expressive Single Digit toward any of the gods involved. So what on earth is the story behind this weapon.

[Dimers]

I will be adding other questions, but for now I have just one - why does the Heavy Mace exist? It's exactly the same as the Morningstar except that it costs more and lacks a second damage type (which is never an advantage since the rules say immunity doesn't apply to a weapon which is only half-weak against you, ie a skeleton still takes full damage from the morningstar because it includes bludgeoning, even though it also includes piercing). No-one ever has any reason to have a heavy mace, unless they're stuck with it as a favored weapon and have no other proficiencies; the possibility of this happening seems like just a pointless Bugsby's Expressive Single Digit toward any of the gods involved. So what on earth is the story behind this weapon.

Quite possibly it's a leftover from previous editions, in which the core cleric class couldn't use a non-bludgeoning weapon. It also opens up avenues which didn't happen to be taken in later WotC material -- for example, imagine if the Three Mountains style feat allowed use of heavy maces but not morningstars. The three weapons allowed for Three Mountains are pretty arbitrary already and could easily have excluded morningstar.

[eggs]

Well, it's a mace, and it's heavy.

It's seriously just there for thematics - so a player picks it up for a character who'd want to use a heavy mace (clerics/other followers of Pelor, &c.), rather than building a character for the purpose of using a heavy mace.

[Jeraa]

There is a mechanical reason for heavy maces - hardness and hit points. (Player's Handbook, page 166)

Looking at the pictures, a morning star is a metal head on a wooden shaft. That makes it a "One-handed hafted weapon", for a hardness of 5 and 5 hit points.

A heavy mace is all metal (its description says so), making it a "One-handed metal-hafted weapon" for hardness 10, and 20 hit points.

So you can choose between "more expensive, heavier, but harder to destroy" and "cheaper, lighter, multiple damage types".

[KillianHawkeye]

Just because it was a common historical weapon.

[Marlowe]

What bothers me more is why Maces and Morningstars are classed as "Simple" and Scythes and Flails are "Martial", in spite of the latter being weaponized agricultural implements while the former are specialized battle weapons.

[erikun]

Simplicity is in use, not how common they are. I can say for a fact that using a scythe can be tricky, and I don't even want to think about trying to use a flail against a moving target.

[Knaight]

Simplicity is in use, not how common they are. I can say for a fact that using a scythe can be tricky, and I don't even want to think about trying to use a flail against a moving target.

On the other hand, you have things like slings as simple weapons despite their horrible learning curve, and the much more straightforward short bow as a martial weapon. I'd call it a balance concern more than anything else, with fairly arbitrary categorization. Incidentally: Flails are pretty straightforward in practice, though blocking with them can be tricky, and having a shield when using them is a good idea in real life.

[Ashtagon]

There's a lot of confusion over whether the scythe is the unmodified agricultural implement, which is tricky enough to use (at least, use against anything not 3 size classes smaller than yourself) that it can almost justify being called exotic. The militarised scythe (sometimes called a fauchard) has a remounted blade in a different position, and is easy enough to use to justify being a simple weapon, although game balance would probably require it to be a military weapon.

[Ravens_cry]

It's not realistic, but I like to think of it as being like Deaths scythe rather than a War scythe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe). It's more fun when I want to play characters who hunt undead.
Fear the Reaper Man*.:smallamused:
*Not Bill Door though.

[Lapak]

On the other hand, you have things like slings as simple weapons despite their horrible learning curve, and the much more straightforward short bow as a martial weapon. I'd call it a balance concern more than anything else, with fairly arbitrary categorization. Incidentally: Flails are pretty straightforward in practice, though blocking with them can be tricky, and having a shield when using them is a good idea in real life.I'd say it follows 'how likely is a random commoner to be proficient with this thing as a weapon?'

Lots of commoners might have learned to use slings to hunt; fewer would have had a chance to use bows.

Lots of commoners would know how to use a scythe as a farming implement; few would know how to use it effectively as a weapon.

Most people understand the basics of hitting something with a club, so everything 'clublike' becomes simple.

Obviously this is after-the-fact rationalization, but I think the thought process might have been along these lines originally.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think Lapak is right on the ball, here. Some of the Monk's special weapons are only exotic because of their supposed rarity.

[willpell]

There is a mechanical reason for heavy maces - hardness and hit points. (Player's Handbook, page 166)
Looking at the pictures, a morning star is a metal head on a wooden shaft. That makes it a "One-handed hafted weapon", for a hardness of 5 and 5 hit points.
A heavy mace is all metal (its description says so), making it a "One-handed metal-hafted weapon" for hardness 10, and 20 hit points.
So you can choose between "more expensive, heavier, but harder to destroy" and "cheaper, lighter, multiple damage types".

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you. This information really ought to be on the table, as it's a lot more game-relevant than Weight.


What bothers me more is why Maces and Morningstars are classed as "Simple" and Scythes and Flails are "Martial", in spite of the latter being weaponized agricultural implements while the former are specialized battle weapons.

I don't know about Scythes (though they certainly look a bit unwieldy for fighting anything that isn't low to the ground), but Flails are extremely difficult to use effectively. I used to have one, just a prop really, but even very slowly and gently swinging it around it was hard to avoid bonking myself in the arm, and the damn thing had nails in the head; if I'd tried to do a committed swing I'd almost certainly have hurt myself. Morningstars, regardless of whether they were primarily designed to puncture plate mail, are essentially still just a heavy thing that you bash someone with; a four-year-old could figure out how to use one (though apparently a wizard cannot; if he's gonna take that -4 nonproficiency penalty he might as well just whack someone with his book, since it weighs about as much as a club anyway).

*****

Speaking of monk weapons, I like how the nunchuk gives a bonus to disarm, the kama can trip, the sai can be thrown and has a huge bonus to disarm, and the Siangham...does not a damn thing. And it costs more than the kama or nunchuk, which in turn cost more than the Sai. It's like the monk has to earn the right to relieve himself of the burden of his gold. Supposedly one of the tricks of the siangham was that you'd confuse your opponent by spinning it on your finger; I'd really have liked a mechanic for that, perhaps a +1 to AC if you don't attack with it, or a bonus to Feint rolls.

[Zaq]

In 3.x, the designers did not make any visible effort (especially at the beginning) to ensure that every piece of mundane equipment had its own unique niche. Armor is especially bad—in the PHB, for instance, there are pretty much only three kinds of armor you care about: chain shirt, breastplate, and full plate. The other armors are niche at best (for example, masterwork studded leather has no ACP, so if a –1 ACP will cramp your style, it has a slight edge over a chain shirt), and they all pretty much become totally obsolete once special materials enter the picture. (Regarding the "you can't afford full plate at level 1" argument, that is true, but in general, you're better off saving for full plate than you are buying half plate, for example.) Weapons are no better—a lot of weapons just aren't as good as other weapons, even in the same general category. I have a hard time believing that there is a character who can afford a 5 gp greatclub but who can't afford a 15 gp heavy flail, for example. This is slightly mitigated with later weapon style feats and such, but really, not by much.

[Tetsubo 57]

The game designers confused terms a great deal. At some points they define 'simple' as being am item that is simple to use, heavy mace or club. At other times they define it as being simple in construction, the sling. They also do the same with 'exotic'. Sometimes it means a rare item from another culture, the kama. Other times it means a mechanically superior version of another weapon, the Goliath greathammer. Even though a kama is nothing more than an Asian sickle which is not exotic. If they had been more consistent with their nomenclature things would be much more easily understood.

And don't gte me started on how dumb the weights are...

[Ravens_cry]

At least it's not like First edition that had some many variants on polearms that The Giant could do a homage to the Cheese Shop sketch with them.

[Hylas]

The weapons in 3.X are so bad and convoluted that I actually made my own weapon system that is balanced to the default values of weapons (mostly using the dagger, longsword, rapier, battle axe, and greatsword as guidelines) and turned everything into a point-buy system. It has the added benefit of letting you make your own custom weapons too.

This did a lot of things like make the repeating crossbow easier to use than the longbow and a lot of the monk weapons into simple weapons. These are all good things and gave mundanes a lot of nice toys to play with.

I digress, the weapon system is proof that d20 designers don't know how to balance things from a mechanics standpoint. All of the equipment is balanced from an almost purely fluff perspective. This is why everyone uses a greatsword and full plate/breastplate.

[Ashtagon]

The game designers confused terms a great deal. At some points they define 'simple' as being am item that is simple to use, heavy mace or club. At other times they define it as being simple in construction, the sling. They also do the same with 'exotic'. Sometimes it means a rare item from another culture, the kama. Other times it means a mechanically superior version of another weapon, the Goliath greathammer. Even though a kama is nothing more than an Asian sickle which is not exotic. If they had been more consistent with their nomenclature things would be much more easily understood.

And don't gte me started on how dumb the weights are...

Well, it was designed with an assumption of a pseudo western Europe mediaeval culture. And for that kind of culture, slings really were simple weapons, because pretty much every boy who had pretensions to manliness would have had one as a toy.

Maces and clubs? There isn't that much technique involved in using them to hit things (beyond standard spatial awareness and combat reflexes reflected in BAB), so sure, simple works for that too.

[willpell]

I was thinking today about how all the spears and polearms are two-handed weapons. The Greek hoplites marched with a spear in one hand and a shield in the other; presumably there were limits to what they could do with the spear, but holding it pointed up or pointed forward and giving it a little shove now and again were within those limits. I'm pretty sure I recall reading about similar cases, some including tower shields and/or some involving the more choppy-style halberds and such (if you're carrying it pointed up, it shouldn't be incredibly difficult to bring it down on an uncautious opponent's head even with one hand; gravity will do most of the work, you just have to steady it). Are there rules allowing for this maneuver?

[tiercel]

It does raise the question of why anyone would create magic versions of some weapons or armor.

Why would you choose to invest thousands of gold enchanting banded mail rather than full plate (much less heavy mace vs morningstar)?

[kardar233]

At least it's not like First edition that had some many variants on polearms that The Giant could do a homage to the Cheese Shop sketch with them.

This is actually legit. (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/543.html)I would so use a Glaive-Fauchard-Bohemian Earspoon.

[Ravens_cry]

This is actually legit. (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/543.html)I would so use a Glaive-Fauchard-Bohemian Earspoon.
I know; I have, thanks to friends, several first edition books.

[Ashtagon]

I was thinking today about how all the spears and polearms are two-handed weapons. The Greek hoplites marched with a spear in one hand and a shield in the other; presumably there were limits to what they could do with the spear, but holding it pointed up or pointed forward and giving it a little shove now and again were within those limits. I'm pretty sure I recall reading about similar cases, some including tower shields and/or some involving the more choppy-style halberds and such (if you're carrying it pointed up, it shouldn't be incredibly difficult to bring it down on an uncautious opponent's head even with one hand; gravity will do most of the work, you just have to steady it). Are there rules allowing for this maneuver?

This is a case of critical research failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalResearchFailure), something that is astoundingly common in D&D.

Greek hoplites actually marched (and fought) with a spear in two hands and a shield slung across their body and shoulder.

Halberds and other "choppers on sticks"? You'd march with them pointing up, at least for parades (actual travel marching would involve them stacked in a wagon). But fighting, you'd have all sorts of stances. The typical "en garde" posture would involve the stick being forwards, up about 45°, and possibly angled to one side too. Gravity alone would be far too slow to get a decent hit against anything that is aware of what's going on.

And don't get me started on buckler shields.

[Cicciograna]

This is actually legit. (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/543.html)I would so use a Glaive-Fauchard-Bohemian Earspoon.

Oh my good.
So a glaive-glaive-glaive-guisarme-glaive DOES REALLY exist!

[willpell]

I am pretty sure that is not in fact legit.....

[Cicciograna]

I am pretty sure that is not in fact legit.....

Indeed it isn't :smallbiggrin: as Google confirmed.
But for a slight moment, the dream of such magnificent weapon had been true...

[willpell]

In other words, you can't put spikes on a tower shield per RAW (it doesn't say you can do it but it's useless because the shield still can't bash, it outright says "you can't do it period"). But you can put spikes on a suit of Padded Clothing. Have fun with that for a while.

(EDIT: For that matter, it's not medium or heavy armor, so you're allowed to sleep in it without ill effects.)

[Prime32]

In other words, you can't put spikes on a tower shield per RAW (it doesn't say you can do it but it's useless because the shield still can't bash, it outright says "you can't do it period"). But you can put spikes on a suit of Padded Clothing. Have fun with that for a while.

(EDIT: For that matter, it's not medium or heavy armor, so you're allowed to sleep in it without ill effects.)
http://moe.animecharactersdatabase.com/uploads/chars/3301-2062721310.gif

[Spiryt]

There's a lot of confusion over whether the scythe is the unmodified agricultural implement, which is tricky enough to use (at least, use against anything not 3 size classes smaller than yourself) that it can almost justify being called exotic. The militarised scythe (sometimes called a fauchard) has a remounted blade in a different position, and is easy enough to use to justify being a simple weapon, although game balance would probably require it to be a military weapon.

To clarify, fauchard, and similar stuff was.... fauchard.

Referring to anything from European medieval history as militarized scythe doesn't really have sense, from simple reason - in 15th century Europe scythe was rather rare and 'exotic' tool, not in wide use at all, it become popular quite a bit later.

As far as Death Reaper goes, just looking at 15th century dance macabre art, scythe is still pretty rare in hands of Death.

So there was no scythe to militarize. :smallwink:

Obviously, D&D setting doesn't have to follow those generally random relationships, but if modeling it according to 'reality' - fauchards, bills, and similar polearms were more probably related to pruning hooks, forester bills etc.



I was thinking today about how all the spears and polearms are two-handed weapons. The Greek hoplites marched with a spear in one hand and a shield in the other; presumably there were limits to what they could do with the spear, but holding it pointed up or pointed forward and giving it a little shove now and again were within those limits. I'm pretty sure I recall reading about similar cases, some including tower shields and/or some involving the more choppy-style halberds and such (if you're carrying it pointed up, it shouldn't be incredibly difficult to bring it down on an uncautious opponent's head even with one hand; gravity will do most of the work, you just have to steady it). Are there rules allowing for this maneuver?


Spear and shield is kind of ubiquitous warfare gear trough the human history.
You have shortspear for that in 3.5.

It obviously kinda stinks, but no one had promised well designed weapon system.

Halbers and pretty much 99% of other polearms doesn't make sense when wielding one handed at all though.

Can't really recall any instances of using any polearms that weren't essentially a spear with shield, to be honest, at least in Europe.

[Prime32]

Spear and shield is kind of ubiquitous warfare gear trough the human history.
You have shortspear for that in 3.5.Or use a kusari-gama and call it a spear. (D&D calls actual kusari-gamas gyrspikes anyway)

[Ashtagon]

To clarify, fauchard, and similar stuff was.... fauchard.

Referring to anything from European medieval history as militarized scythe doesn't really have sense, from simple reason - in 15th century Europe scythe was rather rare and 'exotic' tool, not in wide use at all, it become popular quite a bit later.

As far as Death Reaper goes, just looking at 15th century dance macabre art, scythe is still pretty rare in hands of Death.

So there was no scythe to militarize. :smallwink:

Obviously, D&D setting doesn't have to follow those generally random relationships, but if modeling it according to 'reality' - fauchards, bills, and similar polearms were more probably related to pruning hooks, forester bills etc.

Oh?

The scythe is actually rather ancient. It was invented around 500 BC in Scythia (hence the name) -- a region that corresponds to a swathe of land from Ukraine to north-west China, although culturally centred around what is now Volgograd, Europe.

It became widespread throughout Europe for agriculture in the 12th and 13th centuries (before that, sickles would have been used for harvesting). In the 15th century, it was an incredibly mundane and common farm tool, combine harvesters not having been invented yet.

So yes, there were scythes to militarise. :smallwink:


Although the weapons from D&D are not by any stretch of the imagination meant to be a purist list of what was in Europe during medieval times. Punching daggers, spiked gauntlets, kukri, spiked armour, rapiers, kama, nunchaku, sai, siangham, spiked chains, dire flails, two-bladed swords, shuriken, and repeating crossbows -- none of these existed in high (or low) medieval Europe.

[Spiryt]

Oh?

The scythe is actually rather ancient. It was invented around 500 BC in Scythia (hence the name) -- a region that corresponds to a swathe of land from Ukraine to north-west China, although culturally centred around what is now Volgograd, Europe.

It became widespread throughout Europe for agriculture in the 12th and 13th centuries (before that, sickles would have been used for harvesting). In the 15th century, it was an incredibly mundane and common farm tool, combine harvesters not having been invented yet.

So yes, there were scythes to militarise. :smallwink:



Well, naturally, but I've never really heard about it becoming widespread before 16th century at least, to be honest....

Late 14th century and 15th century depictions show pretty much only sickles

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RBdHgrRhysI/TseZhQonIfI/AAAAAAAAAXE/FpXniktuUdA/s1600/Tacunia+Sanitatis+Wikimedia+1.jpg

http://www.godecookery.com/tacuin/tacuin37.jpg

http://barbarapijan.com/bpa/Topics/woodcut_medieval_serfs.jpg


Scythes begin to appear in 16th century, in Breugel works, or something like that:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kintzertorium/3276093939/

Similarly, some very first military scythes (as something that indeed looks like 'reorganised' scythe) begin to appear around that time.

http://digitaltmuseum.se/things/stridslie/S-AM/AM.056197?locale=en


There were obviously scythes in Europe, perhaps in very early times, but they weren't really popular and rarely seen, so not first choice for someone who would want to arm himself quickly.

"Incredibly mundane" is not correct at all.

[Ashtagon]

And yet the Domesday Book of the 11th century notes several communities that not only made scythes, but were famous for their manufacture.

This (http://books.google.co.uk/bookhttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WOX_vXbExhcC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=domesday+scythe&source=bl&ots=5CMm6M3aNk&sig=FaVbY1r5xgv7oGYsYdI5ut4_M3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NnV_T_6sO4ew0QXyuPzuBg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=domesday%20scythe&f=false) cites a story of a man who was a noted scythe user from the 11th century.

This (http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/worcestershire1.html) notes that as of Domesday, a certain town in Worcestershire was famous for its scythes.

This (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MEDscythe.htm) has an illustration of a scythe user, dated 1250 AD.

This (http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/farming-middle-ages.htm) notes that the scythe was a medieval farm tool.

This (http://members.tripod.com/med_food/farming.html) also notes that the scythe was used in northern Europe in the day.

Amazing what you can do with google and ten minutes.

[Zombimode]

Although the weapons from D&D are not by any stretch of the imagination meant to be a purist list of what was in Europe during medieval times. Punching daggers, spiked gauntlets, kukri, spiked armour, rapiers, kama, nunchaku, sai, siangham, spiked chains, dire flails, two-bladed swords, shuriken, and repeating crossbows -- none of these existed in high (or low) medieval Europe.

...or anywhere else, for that matter :smallamused:

[Prime32]

...or anywhere else, for that matter :smallamused:I beg to differ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_whip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_section_staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk's_spade

[Ashtagon]

I beg to differ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_whip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_section_staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk's_spade

None of those are spiked chains, dire flails, or two-bladed swords.

[willpell]

http://moe.animecharactersdatabase.com/uploads/chars/3301-2062721310.gif/

That is one spike on each arm. It is not "spiked". When I'm wearing spiked armor, if someone grapples me and I win the grapple check, they take damage. That means that there are sufficiently few non-spiked locations on the armor that even when I'm on the defensive and struggling, I have no trouble finding a spike that's in position to stab them with, however limited my mobility. I'd say that requires more than two spikes.

[Marlowe]

Chrono....:smallbiggrin:

[Gavinfoxx]

Guys guys.

Just buy this.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=65250

It has stats for all the weapons and armor you could ever want, and it has it historically relevant and accurate too. And it's d20 based.

You can even, in an E6 game with this ruleset and the only race is human and the classes are aristocrat, fighter, expert, and rogue, make a martially and historically realistic game of D&D!

[willpell]

You can even, in an E6 game with this ruleset and the only race is human and the classes are aristocrat, fighter, expert, and rogue, make a martially and historically realistic game of D&D!

Well that is certainly not my goal, for one...I have no intention of leaving the dragons out of my Dungeons, nor in any other way making the game boring and mundane. But it would be nice to have a bit more attention to detail in one of the more important aspects of the game...not only are the weapons simplistic and often inaccurate, but the system doesn't include a terribly good method for deciding how many of them (or any other items) you should be able to have. They pretty much just leave it up to the DM and a few irritatingly simplistic guidelines (why exactly do we have a Starting Gold By Class table if every single class is expected to have WBL of 900 as soon as they level up?).