Is there a reason in having suboptimal weapons?

[Jon_Dahl]

Recently I had a conversation with one of my players. He wanted to have a sledgehammer - a maul - as his primary weapon. Such weapon does exist in the Complete Warrior, but he didn't find it to be a very appealing choice for a two-handed barbarian. I offered him to house-rule it as an exotic and bludgeoning version of greataxe, but he said that he didn't want to waste a feat on it. So he made a greatsword wielder and he has done many of those in the past.

This got me thinking about greatclubs. Who would choose a greatclub? No PC I've heard of. It's mainly an NPC weapon. I realized that basically everytime barbarians choose a greatsword or greataxe as their main weapon. All other choices are suboptimal.

What is the reason to have suboptimal weapons? I can only think one function for them: To make NPCs less deadly. We have "the good stuff" for PCs and "bad stuff" for NPCs.

By expanding the list of optimal weapons, we might actually see mid-level barbarians with greatclubs - and they would be PCs! Would that be a good idea or needless hassle?

[ArcturusV]

Well, there's always Damage Type issues. This doesn't come up TOO often. Most DMs seem loathe to use it. But yeah, take the greatsword user, throw a Skeletal Landwyrm at them, laugh as they are doing minimal damage. Suddenly that Maul is looking like a great choice.

Sadly outside of Zombies and Skeletons, this doesn't seem to happen at all. Least in my experience. Which is a shame. Lots of stuff could use that sort of DR. It's a lot more interesting, to me, than "metallic" based DR. Metallic DR could always be overcome with just a single weapon (Or multiple copies of the same weapon), but damage type resistances suddenly require a range of weapon types.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

There's never a reason to do things suboptimally, other than because you want to. I probably wouldn't use a greatclub. It's not an option that appeals to me. A heavy flail, sure, maybe. As a backup weapon, anyway, if I needed a bludgeoning weapon to overcome DR.

For what it's worth, I absolutely wouldn't have spent a feat on EWP for your version of the maul, not when there's a very similarly-themed weapon that's 1d12, 19-20, x4 I could have instead. Seriously, would you? Or why not use a Large Warhammer? It's basically a bludgeoning Greataxe, but doesn't require a feat.

[MrLemon]

Yes, the weapon system is a mess.
A lot of weapon seldom come into play at all, since there always are better alternatives.
Heavy Mace seems like one of the worse contenders. Morningstars do the same amount of damage, have an additional damage type, weigh less, cost less...:smallconfused:

Then there's things like minotaur greathammer and the "hey you see this list of reach weapons? forget them" spiked chain

I know there's always fluff. But all too often, crunch disfavors fluff. Maybe a weapon is not on your class list (for some reason or another).

I have an Osirian Bard in my PFS game. Wielding a khopesh or at least a scimitar would be sweet, but the former is an exotic weapon (which you can't even CHOOSE at first level without a full-BAB class), and the latter is not on the Bard list. Even though the identical (barring damage type) Rapier is:smallannoyed:
So, I got a longsword.

[panaikhan]

There is a barbarian / druid Goliath in our campaign, that favors the Greatclub. His greatsword is his backup weapon.

On other 'suboptimal' choices, I have often chosen a weapon that is not the best choice for a character, because of FLUFF.
My PF Rage Prohpet dualwielded Klar (anyone who knows Darksun, think turtle-blades).
My (also PF) Bard wielded mandolins.
I once made a Dart Specialist Fighter in 2e.

It's about the story, not the numbers. I don't want to stamp out copy after copy of the 'optimal setup' like some terminator factory, I want to have FUN.

[avr]

Some non-optimal weapons are more concealable, are the favored weapon of a religion, or have specific magic items or tactics/feats associated with them which you might want.

Generally though the Legend solution would be better than the 3.5e/PF one IMO.

[Dayaz]

My first character was a tribal barbarian who used a Greatclub. I did it mostly for flavor, and i liked the idea of a wolf-man (homebrew race) with a giant stick he beat people with. It later got the ability to deal other types pf damage through 'mundane enchants' (adding spikes for piercing, a few blades fr slashing) because I was rolling so well with it it was the best item in the game.

I had it as my level 1 weapon, and when the character retired at level 12 that completely unenchanted greatclub was a legendary weapon, held by the ruling body of a nation

Basically my character wrecked a super fire giant and a dragon with it, without it being enchanted which in the worlds lore had never been done before, so it was awesome. We got to explore the legends of our characters in a later campaign, which was pretty awesome (legendary barbarian, legendary good assassin, legendary bard/sorceress, legendary archivist)

[Averis Vol]

When I build a weapon damage reliant character, the actual die matters very little. So oftentimes I will use a spear on my ranger instead of a greatsword, because what the hell does 4 damage max matter when I hit for +15 before PA at level 8; sometimes enough is enough.

Equally, my melee types are the always prepared kind who will keep a weapon of all damage types, ranges, and reach, so I may at least attempt to be useful at all times, even if I'm just using my back up dagger.

So to sum up; when you build for high damage you don't focus on the die, you focus on the additional numbers, so really, what is the difference between the greatclubs 1d10 and the greatswords 2d6? 2 friggen damage and a 5% crit potential.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The only reason I could see to use a greataxe instead of a greatsword is if you're a level 1 character and you don't want to spend 50 gold on a weapon when you will have on average 100 gold to spend.

That said, at higher levels(7+) the difference between weapon type is pretty much irrelevant.

Average damage for a Scimitar: 3.824
Average damage for a Longsword: 4.702

Average damage for a greatclub: 5.486
Average damage for a greatsword: 7.315 (one of the larger disparities)

Raw damage bonus for a Barbarian in Rage at level 8 with a two-handed weapon: 28 Str (18 base +2 Half-Orc +2 leveling + 2 item +4 Rage): +10 bonus, +1 from magic weapon + 12 power attack (-2 bonus, leap attack): 23

Forgive me for not really caring about the weapon I'm using.

[TuggyNE]

That said, at higher levels(7+) the difference between weapon type is pretty much irrelevant.

Damage dice certainly become irrelevant, but not necessarily crit ranges/multipliers, reach, tripping, or other special features.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Damage dice certainly become irrelevant, but not necessarily crit ranges/multipliers, reach, tripping, or other special features.For some reason I had forgotten about that stuff. Yeah, those can actually matter quite a bit in a game as it goes on, compared to damage dice.

[Greenish]

If you're going for the amount of different weapons 3.5 has, some of them are going to be better than others. The reason for using a suboptimal weapon is that you want to (because it's cool or appropriate for the character or whathaveyou).

Rarely are you in a game where you have to squeeze every last drop of performance from your build. A bit of practical optimization know-how usually means you can pick some less useful options while remaining effective.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Aside from fun? Not much. Having a trip/disarm weapon is cool, since the lack of damage matters less and they go so nicely with the improved feats. Every so often I become obsessed with making tripping amazing. The scythe suddenly becomes prefferable to the great sword.

[Artillery]

I guess I'm weird because I never use Greatswords unless they are loot that is vastly better then what I have. I like the +1 Shocking Guisarme that random number god blessed me with as loot. It is always a good idea to have a reach weapon and a spiked gauntlet available.

I like the Scythe more then the Greatsword because it can trip, and has 2 dmg types. I also find that the 5% reduction in crit chance is worth it for x3 and x4 crits. The -2 avg dmg matters little passed lvl 5.

[Darrin]

Something you can do with a greatclub:

Not called GREAT Club for nothing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49522).

[Vaz]

Don't forget Aptitude means that those weapon limited feats are no longer weapon limited.

[Pickford]

Recently I had a conversation with one of my players. He wanted to have a sledgehammer - a maul - as his primary weapon. Such weapon does exist in the Complete Warrior, but he didn't find it to be a very appealing choice for a two-handed barbarian. I offered him to house-rule it as an exotic and bludgeoning version of greataxe, but he said that he didn't want to waste a feat on it. So he made a greatsword wielder and he has done many of those in the past.

This got me thinking about greatclubs. Who would choose a greatclub? No PC I've heard of. It's mainly an NPC weapon. I realized that basically everytime barbarians choose a greatsword or greataxe as their main weapon. All other choices are suboptimal.

What is the reason to have suboptimal weapons? I can only think one function for them: To make NPCs less deadly. We have "the good stuff" for PCs and "bad stuff" for NPCs.

By expanding the list of optimal weapons, we might actually see mid-level barbarians with greatclubs - and they would be PCs! Would that be a good idea or needless hassle?

There are alot of feats associated with bludgeoning damage, DR as mentioned below, and you can get armor that gives DR/bludgeoning (so only a bludgeoning weapon gets past it). Really the advantage of a greatsword is only there if you just don't use things to limit it. (i.e. if you never encounter something resistant, or nobody ever grapples the guy (though obviously this would impact any 2h use short of weapon supremacy), and so on)

[razorback]

Yes. Like everyone has said, because you want to.
Friend in current campaign - Goliath barbarian/druid with greatclub (another on this thread, too).
My last character that just died - Three-sectional staff wielding monk (yes, he did less damage than his fist but it was a theme choice).
Another suboptimal choice that I play on these boards is a dagger focused multiclassed mess because I want him to go into Invisible Blade. Why? Because I dig the concept of a guy fighting off all kinds of nasty buggers with a couple of daggers. Goes back to a PBM game (Play-By-Mail) game I used to play called Duelmasters that had a class called the Aimed Blow. Based on finding the weakness in a foe and exploiting it. While you can't pull off the same idea in D&D I still like it.
Just like you get the itch to play an enchantment focused wizard because sometimes it is fun to be challenged by the choices you make.

[Zombimode]

This got me thinking about greatclubs. Who would choose a greatclub? No PC I've heard of. It's mainly an NPC weapon. I realized that basically everytime barbarians choose a greatsword or greataxe as their main weapon. All other choices are suboptimal.

What is the reason to have suboptimal weapons? I can only think one function for them: To make NPCs less deadly. We have "the good stuff" for PCs and "bad stuff" for NPCs.

By expanding the list of optimal weapons, we might actually see mid-level barbarians with greatclubs - and they would be PCs! Would that be a good idea or needless hassle?

Counterquestion: what is the problem of having weapons of varying effectiveness/"NPC-weapons"?

Look at it from a world-building perspective: if clubs were as good as swords, why would anyone bother to make swords?

In addition, I like the fact that I can represent technological differences concerning equipment on a mechanical level.


Also, Greatclubs are viable weapons for Barabrian PCs. Are there better options? Sure, but most of the damage comes from Strength and Power Attack, so the Greatclub user doesn't loose very much.

[Pickford]

I found another reason: The Greatclub is dirt cheap. Granted...not an oft-cited reason, but it's only 5gp to the 20gp from the Greataxe or 50gp from the Greatsword!

If you're playing where the PCs roll their starting gp, it's quite possible to have a Barbarian hit the low end and only have 40gp for all their equipment, or a Fighter start with only 60. (in which case they don't even get armor, best a fighter could afford is padded and still have 5gp left over for a day of food...hope you get hired quickly).

Granted, it seems most of the time I hear people starting at some higher level and getting WBL....but still, it does make sense that there would be a 'cheapo' option available.

[stack]

Generally though the Legend solution would be better than the 3.5e/PF one IMO.

Very much this. I think it every time I have to dive through a weapon table, then once again conclude my characters would only ever have a reason to use a tiny subset of them.

[Synovia]

If you're going for the amount of different weapons 3.5 has, some of them are going to be better than others. The reason for using a suboptimal weapon is that you want to (because it's cool or appropriate for the character or whathaveyou).

Rarely are you in a game where you have to squeeze every last drop of performance from your build. A bit of practical optimization know-how usually means you can pick some less useful options while remaining effective.

"Because of fluff" shouldn't be an excuse for having weapons that are strictly inferior.

In the typical D&D setting where almost everyone knows common, weapons that are strictly inferior would cease to exist outside of ceremonial uses. If a player takes a weapon with less damage, he should be gaining something (weather its lighter weight, reach, crit range, etc)

[Tengu_temp]

When the majority of your damage comes from static modifiers, it doesn't really matter much if you're dealing 1d12+30 damage or 1d8+30.

[Barstro]

There was a time, long ago, when the people I played with tried to get other weapons to work in the game the way they seemingly do in real life.

Chain armor would greatly reduce slashing damage, but do nothing against bludgeoning. A rapier would have bonuses to hit compared to a longsword, due to the ability to really aim for soft spots, but damage would be lower. But all of that became complicated, and people argued on the balance.

If players wants to use a weapon for flavor, I say "let them". It isn't too hard to give a +1 or increase a damage die to make adjustments. If +1 all the time is too much, have them roll a d4 as well to determine if that d20 roll had a +1 in it. Or put the bonus in every other round. IIRC, fighters used to get extra attacks every two or three rounds (version 1.0 or 2.0, I believe).

[Deophaun]

Damage dice certainly become irrelevant, but not necessarily crit ranges/multipliers, reach, tripping, or other special features.
Not necessarily, but you have to be pulling some weapon-sizing shenanigans for damage dice to stay relevant. One size difference in starting damage dice could result in a difference of 4d6, possibly more.

[Zubrowka74]

"Because of fluff" shouldn't be an excuse for having weapons that are strictly inferior.

You see, statements like these make rethink Stormwind's Fallacy. You could pick an non-optimal weapon for fluff / RP reasons but no, you choose crunch. Doesn't mean you suck at RP but in this case you are making a decision to throw away the RP in favor of the mechanics. Of course, all this stems for a messed up weapon system. But most 2HW melee characters end up with the same weapons and RP suffers.

[Vaz]

Why? If it's mechanically the same except "X" is better and looks the same - i.e Greathorn Minotaur Greathammer, or Great Club, instead of a Large Warhammer, say.

[Gnome Alone]

The Stormwind Fallacy argument wouldn't even exist if the situation it debunks didn't- some people do subordinate RP choices to number-crunching uber-optimizing.

It's just that 't'ain't necessarily so.

[SilverLeaf167]

Don't forget the obvious upside of being able to brag about beating your enemies, who are probably wielding either very painstakingly crafted killing tools of steel or immense cosmic power, with a big stick.

[Mechanize]

D&D's biggest flaw in my opinion. Boring weapons. Some have improved abilities, like trip or disarm, but for the most part weapons are horribly generalized... separated by by a die size or crit mod which is hardly noticeable in combat.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I found another reason: The Greatclub is dirt cheap. Granted...not an oft-cited reason, but it's only 5gp to the 20gp from the Greataxe or 50gp from the Greatsword!

This.

If you look throughthe weapons tables you'll find most things have a "balanced" combination of proficiency type/size/damage/crit threat/crit multiplier/special abilities and the biggest losers are dirt cheap weapons alternatively you can look at dirt cheap as a special quality.

Club, dart, light hammer, flail (only a little fail but, not super cheap), great club all follow the dirt cheap=mechanically inferior model.

Picks are an interesting case; they're generally cheap, but not dirt cheap, and are technically mechanically equal to other weapons of their class. Low damage, low crit threat, high crit damage should be an obvious trap though.

Sword vs. Axe is also interesting because mechanically they are nigh identical. They have except in the case of the great sword/great axe, with their main mechanical difference being in crit range vs crit damage, mechanically the system treats these two things as equal perhaps the designers realized range would be a bit better when they assigned weapon stats including gold cost.

Personally I've taken advantage of the "dirt cheap" special to carry clubs/great clubs as back up weapons on low level characters, eventually discarding them when main weapons get too strong relative to DR/bludgeon and I realize I've never been disarmed. In my opinion if your using a suboptimal weapon for in-character reasons after the earliest levels (when your character could claim ignorance) then "UR DOIN IT WRONG!" in character. That is to say your character should see that their weapon choice is suboptimal. Out of character, it's up to you whether your character is stubborn enough to press on.

[Raimun]

Yes, it doesn't really matter whether you deal 3 or 7 points of weapon damage on average, if you have good modifiers.

Still, damage dice do matter, if you can come up with ways to multiply them. For example, realiable crits+larger weapon and wielder = lots of damage.

Modifiers matter even then but to my understanding good modifiers+handful of weapon damage dice = even more damage.

Edit: Oh, and Coup de Grace. If you can get people/monsters helpless, Fort DC to die will be higher with a greataxe than with a dagger.

[Shining Wrath]

The only reason you're taking a weapon that is not min/max optimal is that you are sacrificing min/max for roleplaying.

If the campaign is going to be challenging or everyone else is optimizing heavily, it can really hurt the fun of playing the character.

In the long run, though, the difference between D8 and D10 is less important than Holy, Power Attack, and so on. When you get to high levels it's all about the scoring the hit, and a +1 or +2 to damage per hit is not that critical (you should pardon the expression).

[Philistine]

You see, statements like these make rethink Stormwind's Fallacy. You could pick an non-optimal weapon for fluff / RP reasons but no, you choose crunch. Doesn't mean you suck at RP but in this case you are making a decision to throw away the RP in favor of the mechanics. Of course, all this stems for a messed up weapon system. But most 2HW melee characters end up with the same weapons and RP suffers.

It's only "throwing away RP" if you insist that the character can only be "properly" RPed with one particular weapon/type of weapon. In other words, it isn't a problem unless you make it a problem. Even then, "choice of weapon" is great for distinguishing between generic mooks who don't warrant further description, but I expect quite a bit more from a PC. You know, like actual characterization, with distinct personality traits and everything. "Choice of weapon" is just... Well.

I mean, I'm not saying you suck at RP - but I don't see wielding a spear instead of a sword as a meaningful or substantive measure for differentiating between two characters.

[Zubrowka74]

It's only "throwing away RP" if you insist that the character can only be "properly" RPed with one particular weapon/type of weapon. In other words, it isn't a problem unless you make it a problem. Even then, "choice of weapon" is great for distinguishing between generic mooks who don't warrant further description, but I expect quite a bit more from a PC. You know, like actual characterization, with distinct personality traits and everything. "Choice of weapon" is just... Well.

I mean, I'm not saying you suck at RP - but I don't see wielding a spear instead of a sword as a meaningful or substantive measure for differentiating between two characters.

Well, it's true there's more to a character concept than weapon choice but it depends on the setting you're using. A savage barbarian character will most likely wield a greatclub. And in the long run, if every 2HW you play is either Greatsword or greataxe, it starts to be redundant.

Also, this is just one example of a larger. If it's just a weapon choice, fine. Extend this to every aspect that could be non-optimal, race, class, ans so on, now you start to have a case against the fallacy.

That said, it doesn't mean you have to pick the crappiest weapon.

[Gnome Alone]

In my opinion if your using a suboptimal weapon for in-character reasons after the earliest levels (when your character could claim ignorance) then "UR DOIN IT WRONG!" in character. That is to say your character should see that their weapon choice is suboptimal. Out of character, it's up to you whether your character is stubborn enough to press on.

Look, Gornogg just hit monsters with big club. Some time take two hit, some time three. Once, one hit make kobold head explode! Gornogg not really know about "damage dice" and "crit range" in character.

[Flickerdart]

Look, Gornogg just hit monsters with big club. Some time take two hit, some time three. Once, one hit make kobold head explode! Gornogg not really know about "damage dice" and "crit range" in character.
Gornogg is probably not so stupid that he doesn't realize slicing things up with an edged steel weapon is more effective than whacking it with a stick.

[ngilop]

There is a barbarian / druid Goliath in our campaign, that favors the Greatclub. His greatsword is his backup weapon.

On other 'suboptimal' choices, I have often chosen a weapon that is not the best choice for a character, because of FLUFF.
My PF Rage Prohpet dualwielded Klar (anyone who knows Darksun, think turtle-blades).
My (also PF) Bard wielded mandolins.
I once made a Dart Specialist Fighter in 2e.

It's about the story, not the numbers. I don't want to stamp out copy after copy of the 'optimal setup' like some terminator factory, I want to have FUN.

dart fighter in 2nd edition was not sub optimal when you consider that you tossing around 15+ attacks round and they are doing 1d4+7 dmg BEFORE any magical items are taken into effect. unless you take into count that you need to have hundreds of dart on you at all times, or get your wizard buddy to make a score or so returning darts.

but
game mechanic wise there is never a reason to not choose the handfull of weapons that are, its one of the mjaor inherent flaws of 3rd ed. there only what 2 or 3 armos to ever get and the rest are pointless and there maybe 6 or 7 weapons that are acutally worth it.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Look, Gornogg just hit monsters with big club. Some time take two hit, some time three. Once, one hit make kobold head explode! Gornogg not really know about "damage dice" and "crit range" in character.



Gornogg is probably not so stupid that he doesn't realize slicing things up with an edged steel weapon is more effective than whacking it with a stick.

or he doesn't, that's up to you to decide as the player, but in world he's wrong and plenty of people know it.

Something like sword vs. axe may be too fine a point when you consider crits that didn't kill and non crits that did, but a real weapon vs a stick makes a strong argument.

[Gnome Alone]

or he doesn't, that's up to you to decide as the player, but in world he's wrong and plenty of people know it.

Something like sword vs. axe may be too fine a point when you consider crits that didn't kill and non crits that did, but a real weapon vs a stick makes a strong argument.

Yeesh, fine, Gornogg will go buy large edged weapon at next shiny stuff store if it placate talky-men's optimization preferences.

[Icewraith]

But! When Gornogg lose big club, Gornogg go find tree, get new big club!

One time, Gornogg friend get long spiky metal thingy. He fight Gornogg once and trip him up good with fancy fighting. But, Gornogg friend lose thingy and cry for hours and take forever to find new thingy.

Gornogg help friend out, get him big club. Gornogg friend not trip so good with club, but club easy find. Stupid spiky metal thing get lost, or sparklyed by man in dress, or crumblyed by monster, or sometimes gornog smash it to bits.

Tree easy find. Sometime Gornogg use house built nice to find club. House usually fall down after though.

[Shining Wrath]

But! When Gornogg lose big club, Gornogg go find tree, get new big club!

One time, Gornogg friend get long spiky metal thingy. He fight Gornogg once and trip him up good with fancy fighting. But, Gornogg friend lose thingy and cry for hours and take forever to find new thingy.

Gornogg help friend out, get him big club. Gornogg friend not trip so good with club, but club easy find. Stupid spiky metal thing get lost, or sparklyed by man in dress, or crumblyed by monster, or sometimes gornog smash it to bits.

Tree easy find. Sometime Gornogg use house built nice to find club. House usually fall down after though.

Gonrogg also not likely to lose hand. Hand easier to find than club because at end of arm. Gornogg should be Monk!

[Gnome Alone]

Gonrogg also not likely to lose hand. Hand easier to find than club because at end of arm. Gornogg should be Monk!

Whoa whoa whoa! Not even Gornogg that dumb.

[Icewraith]

Gornogg sure that big club smash way better than hand.

Is monk silly men in dresses that no use sparklies? Run around faster than Gornogg and punch lots, but spend all time sitting on rock sleeping with eyes open or doing silly dances.

Gornogg super strong, use big club to smash really good. Way better than stupid boring punchy dress men. They say "Gornogg you lucky you hit anything when you swing club!" But when Gornogg hit with club, maybe hit two or many times and no need hit any more. Punchy men hit many many times and sometimes still need hit. Sometimes even need hit lots.

Gornog think that maybe people run away more if he use hand instead of club, but only when Gornogg done pooping.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

But! When Gornogg lose big club, Gornogg go find tree, get new big club!
I did point out the benefits of dirt cheap weapons at the top of this page. Problem is the difference between 0gp and 50gp on a non consumable becomes trivial after the lowest levels and Gornogg isn't using a big stick he's using a club crafted from a branch blasted off the tallest tree in the forest by a lightning bolt that his tribal elders chanted over from one new moon to the next.


there only what 2 or 3 armos to ever get and the rest are pointless

Not completely pointless, it's just that armor is generally balanced by a combination of type (light, medium, heavy) and cost, so the most expensive armor of each type is best. With that in mind every armor, except padded, has a niche use.

Padded-Actually I kinda lied, but it's really niche. If you can get just one obscure source ASF reducer approved arcan casters can wear this.

Leather-Non armor proficient characters that don't care about ASF. 0ACP means it carries no penalty.

Studded Leather-125gp won't buy a chain shirt and thieves tools or a decent weapon and some random gear.

Hide- Pre-Dragonscale Druids and really really poor warriors; I used hide on my future Warblade the last time I played 0-level.

Scale- Default level 1 armor for future medium/heavy users.

Chainmail- You Know this is really close to useless. A rich warrior (rolled wealth got 20+ on 6d4) might buy it over scale. Or a warrior that had an adventure that made them some money and didn't put them near level 2 WBL might buy some. Breastplate is 1 Armor check and 1 Max dex mod better whike weighing 10 lbs less for only 50gp.

Splint/Banded-actually exnay on a level 1 buying chain with loot, that's what this is for Banded if you have a positive Dex Mod, save 50gp with splint if you don't.

Half-plate- further transitional armor for warriors without positive Dex Mods.

Oh kind of an aside, but most oriental armors are just flavorful alternatives except Samuri Great armor. Great armor is Armor 7 Max Dex 2 Armor check -5 so if you have a +2 dex mod it's the same AC as plate with an ACP 1 better for 600 less gold. I'm kind of surprised it doesn't have the "always masterwork, masterwork stats included" tag.

[Vaz]

@Mechanize, have them too different, and purposefully so, you end up with the exact same result; only even more so.

Why take a Longsword, when you can take Super Duper Serrated Savage Bloodgrooved Wand Chambered Poison Capsuled Mercurial Long Sword with a Dagger Handle.

[Flickerdart]

Tree easy find.
There are plenty of places where wood is an incredibly precious commodity, if we're going to reach for incredibly contrived situations. Deep in dwarven mines for instance, metal is cheap and plentiful, but wood is hard to deliver and extremely rare.


Why take a Longsword, when you can take Super Duper Serrated Savage Bloodgrooved Wand Chambered Poison Capsuled Mercurial Long Sword with a Dagger Handle.
Because that's an exotic weapon.

[Greenish]

"Because of fluff" shouldn't be an excuse for having weapons that are strictly inferior.I didn't say it is. I said "because fluff" is the reason to use suboptimal weapons, and that the reason they exist is because there are so many weapons in 3.5 that if they are to be different from each other, some end up by necessity weaker than others.


Chainmail- You Know this is really close to useless. A rich warrior (rolled wealth got 20+ on 6d4) might buy it over scale. Or a warrior that had an adventure that made them some money and didn't put them near level 2 WBL might buy some. Breastplate is 1 Armor check and 1 Max dex mod better whike weighing 10 lbs less for only 50gp.I don't know what you're talking about. Breastplate is 1 ACP and 1 Max Dex mod worse than chain mail, costs 100 gp more, and as a medium armour slows you down (which also prevents you from tumbling), and, if you care, weighs 5 lb more.

Twilight mithral chain shirt is also the go to armour for arcane casters at higher levels, with its 0 ACP and 0% ASF.


Oh kind of an aside, but most oriental armors are just flavorful alternatives except Samuri Great armor. Great armor is Armor 7 Max Dex 2 Armor check -5 so if you have a +2 dex mod it's the same AC as plate with an ACP 1 better for 600 less gold. I'm kind of surprised it doesn't have the "always masterwork, masterwork stats included" tag.Dastana and Chahar-Aina are also pretty popular OA armours.

[ericgrau]

Recently I had a conversation with one of my players. He wanted to have a sledgehammer - a maul - as his primary weapon. Such weapon does exist in the Complete Warrior, but he didn't find it to be a very appealing choice for a two-handed barbarian. I offered him to house-rule it as an exotic and bludgeoning version of greataxe, but he said that he didn't want to waste a feat on it. So he made a greatsword wielder and he has done many of those in the past.

This got me thinking about greatclubs. Who would choose a greatclub? No PC I've heard of. It's mainly an NPC weapon. I realized that basically everytime barbarians choose a greatsword or greataxe as their main weapon. All other choices are suboptimal.

What is the reason to have suboptimal weapons? I can only think one function for them: To make NPCs less deadly. We have "the good stuff" for PCs and "bad stuff" for NPCs.

By expanding the list of optimal weapons, we might actually see mid-level barbarians with greatclubs - and they would be PCs! Would that be a good idea or needless hassle?

The PHB list is actually pretty well laid out in this regard. Every weapon has a special advantage. The greatclub's advantage, however, is price. The club even more so. No there isn't much reason for a PC to use one, unless poverty or remoteness from civilization is an issue. And if you think about it by fluff, those are the only times anyone would bother to get one in a story too. Likewise you get scale mail at level 1 to save money, and then you never remember it exists again.


I don't know what you're talking about. Breastplate is 1 ACP and 1 Max Dex mod worse than chain mail, costs 100 gp more, and as a medium armour slows you down (which also prevents you from tumbling), and, if you care, weighs 5 lb more.

Twilight mithral chain shirt is also the go to armour for arcane casters at higher levels, with its 0 ACP and 0% ASF.

You seem to be confusing chainmail and a chain shirt.

Likewise chainmail is pretty much only for level 1 soldiers who will never get more money. A PC who has 150 gp and doesn't want to wait for 200 gp to get breastplate is rare. Or maybe he has low dex and wants to save 50 gp until he can afford full plate. Hey at levels 1-2, that's another potion or a step closer to your first masterwork weapon. It helps.

Armor gets it a lot worse than weapons. At high levels there really are only 3 viable types of armor; one for each weight category. Fortunately the treasure tables favor these 3 types so no you shouldn't often give suboptimal armor to high level NPCs. Weapons have it a lot better. Outside of the clubs and similar there's a use for almost every weapon besides saving money. Likewise high level NPCs shouldn't often have clubs.

[Icewraith]

There are plenty of places where wood is an incredibly precious commodity, if we're going to reach for incredibly contrived situations. Deep in dwarven mines for instance, metal is cheap and plentiful, but wood is hard to deliver and extremely rare.



Gornogg isn't a very contrived situation though. Large portions of many campaign settings default to "generic Tolkien forest" and most campaign settings have an abundant supply of medium to large size, high str, low int, semi-nomadic/primitive tribes or "stupid giant" archetypes for adventurers to kill. The only thing simpler and easier than a spear (pointy rock attached to a fairly long, straight stick) is a club, and clubs are easy to come by when you have a big enough strength score to just pick up a fallen log, break off a sizeable tree branch, or in the case of large creatures, completely uproot a small tree.

Furthermore, even in mines, there's usually an abundance of club material available to the enterprising ogre or lazy orc barbarian. Mines are usually held up, at least in part, by wood! (How the roof behaves afterwards is still of some concern to the ogre, but probably more of a concern to whoever's mine the ogre is in.)


Incidentally, I could have sworn Breastplate was almost always the superior option over chainmail. Did armor values get tweaked at some point - maybe pathfinder?

Edit: Yes, mithral breastplate is the go-to armor for a moderate dex bard or other "casts in light armor" class thinking about long-term. You probably won't cap it out or overcap until you get +6 enhancement to dex, and the mithral doesn't affect your exponentially increasing magic enchantment costs. If you're starting with a higher dex, mithral chain shirt is probably the way to go.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

worse[/I] than chain mail, costs 100 gp more, and as a medium armour slows you down (which also prevents you from tumbling), and, if you care, weighs 5 lb more.

I was talking about Chainmail not the Chain shirt. I left out the "Three Useful Armors"; Chain Shirt, Breast Plate and Full Plate.

[Greenish]

You seem to be confusing chainmail and a chain shirt.
I was talking about Chainmail not the Chain shirt.Oh yeah, my bad. I forget the mail even exists. :smalltongue:

[Mechanize]

This.

If you look throughthe weapons tables you'll find most things have a "balanced" combination of proficiency type/size/damage/crit threat/crit multiplier/special abilities and the biggest losers are dirt cheap weapons alternatively you can look at dirt cheap as a special quality.

Club, dart, light hammer, flail (only a little fail but, not super cheap), great club all follow the dirt cheap=mechanically inferior model.

Picks are an interesting case; they're generally cheap, but not dirt cheap, and are technically mechanically equal to other weapons of their class. Low damage, low crit threat, high crit damage should be an obvious trap though.

Sword vs. Axe is also interesting because mechanically they are nigh identical. They have except in the case of the great sword/great axe, with their main mechanical difference being in crit range vs crit damage, mechanically the system treats these two things as equal perhaps the designers realized range would be a bit better when they assigned weapon stats including gold cost.

Personally I've taken advantage of the "dirt cheap" special to carry clubs/great clubs as back up weapons on low level characters, eventually discarding them when main weapons get too strong relative to DR/bludgeon and I realize I've never been disarmed. In my opinion if your using a suboptimal weapon for in-character reasons after the earliest levels (when your character could claim ignorance) then "UR DOIN IT WRONG!" in character. That is to say your character should see that their weapon choice is suboptimal. Out of character, it's up to you whether your character is stubborn enough to press on.

Cost is a horrible way to balance weapons unless we are talking 5gp vs 5000gp. Gold is easy to come by in D&D beyond level 1. 5gp vs 20gp is nothing. Balancing by cost is a great thing in a realistic game where money is hard to come buy, but in fantasy where magic runs rampant and just the sale of one +1 item can help you buy all the mundane gear you want, it's pointless.

[tadkins]

Because boomerangs are just awesome, even if they're not optimal.

[Spuddles]

Spikes on a greatclub; shillelgh on a club- two reasons to use them.

Of course, you could always just buy a bronzewood greatsword....


"Because of fluff" shouldn't be an excuse for having weapons that are strictly inferior.

In the typical D&D setting where almost everyone knows common, weapons that are strictly inferior would cease to exist outside of ceremonial uses. If a player takes a weapon with less damage, he should be gaining something (weather its lighter weight, reach, crit range, etc)

If outfitting large armies of low level mooks, mundanely, the savings in different weapons can be worth it. Low level npc optimization involves a lot of wealth optimization.


Cost is a horrible way to balance weapons unless we are talking 5gp vs 5000gp. Gold is easy to come by in D&D beyond level 1. 5gp vs 20gp is nothing. Balancing by cost is a great thing in a realistic game where money is hard to come buy, but in fantasy where magic runs rampant and just the sale of one +1 item can help you buy all the mundane gear you want, it's pointless.

I dunno, I think it is pretty cool that at low level cost is a balancing point between hide, breastplate, greatclub, longsword, and getting rope or a MW tool kit. At high level it just becomes a fluff decision. That's not a terrible system, imo. I have a lot of gripes about PHB exotic weapons, but core simple & martial weapons/armor have interesting optimization properties at both low and mid levels.

[Ravenica]

The best reason to do it is because it will irritate the people who think optimising is the only way to play!

[Greenish]

Because boomerangs are just awesome, even if they're not optimal.Boomerangs are basically cheating, thanks to Boomerang Daze.

[ericgrau]

Club, dart, light hammer, flail (only a little fail but, not super cheap), great club all follow the dirt cheap=mechanically inferior model.
Flail is for tripping and disarming with only 1 hand. I've made 2 flail wielding characters in fact for this reason, almost 3 but I was short on feats the 3rd time. Light hammers are great for being useful in both melee and being thrown. Better than daggers yet everybody takes daggers for the fluff, or lack of proficiency. Darts OTOH don't have much advantage besides being cheap. Though being light weight and concealable is better than nothing.

Like I said weapons have it a lot better than armor. There aren't many whose sole advantage is being cheap. Mostly the 2 clubs and maybe 2-4 others.

Cost differences under 1000 gp are meaningless at higher levels, but cheap items simply shouldn't appear at higher levels. Mostly they're for level 1-2 for PCs and levels 1-5 for enemies.

[Flickerdart]

Boomerangs are basically cheating, thanks to Boomerang Daze.
Don't forget Boomerang Ricochet.

[Alaris]

This got me thinking about greatclubs. Who would choose a greatclub? No PC I've heard of. It's mainly an NPC weapon. I realized that basically everytime barbarians choose a greatsword or greataxe as their main weapon. All other choices are suboptimal.


I have to contradict you. One of my players uses a Greatclub as her primary weapon. The character is a Duskblade. And entirely effective in combat. She crushes things like the wind!

[Shekinah]

They are nice to have for NPC flavor. It gets a little boring when every enemy you run across has the same weapons.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Dastana and Chahar-Aina are also pretty popular OA armours.

Yeah I thought about talking about those, but the post was already pretty long and some people trying to enchant those leaves a bad taste in other people's mouths. Also I'd have to construct the stats of all the legal combos and compare them to other things and if I do that I'll probably feel obliged to compare the other OA armors too. Also I'm fuzzy on the legality of Dastana+Chahar-aina+armor stacking. I'll assume you can't stack them. *sigh* So here's my analysis expanded to cover OA armor including legal PHB armor+Dastana Combos for the time being I'm assuming Dastana and Chahir can't stack.

Padded+Dastana-More cost and inferior to Leather.

Cord- Same AC as leather otherwise inferior in every way including a higher cost.

Bone- Saves Dread necromancers 5gp at the cost of 2 ACP and they get to say "I'm wearing bone armor."

Ashigaru armor-Identical to studded

Leather Scale-Real odd case, it has a higher max dex mod that other +3 AC armors, but it has a -2 ACP so generally useless.

Leather+Dastana-same Armor and ACP as Studded with one more Max dex mod. If mithril Dastana are allowed this combo is an alternative to mithril shirt for high dex characters trading a point of armor for a point of dex to AC.

Dhenuka/Brigandine-Save 20gp vs Scale at the cost of ACP and Max Dex mod. Brigandine is +2 Max dex vs Dhenku's +1, but Dhenku is lighter.

Chain Shirt+Dastana-Cheaper, higher Max dex mod, lower ACP alternative to Breastplate. Totally the last nail in the coffin of Chainmail. 10 pounds lighter too if you care.

Lamellar- Cheaper Breastplate with more ASF and weight.


Cost is a horrible way to balance weapons unless we are talking 5gp vs 5000gp. Gold is easy to come by in D&D beyond level 1. 5gp vs 20gp is nothing. Balancing by cost is a great thing in a realistic game where money is hard to come buy, but in fantasy where magic runs rampant and just the sale of one +1 item can help you buy all the mundane gear you want, it's pointless.

I agree and I don't. I think weapon cost is a balancing factor at very low levels when both 10 gp and 1 point of average damage matter, but maybe not as much as rope and oil flasks. At higher levels this leads to only certain weapons being used, but these are mostly the best weapons historically, so I'm mostly ok with this. Spears should be better though.


Flail is for tripping and disarming with only 1 hand. I've made 2 flail wielding characters in fact for this reason, almost 3 but I was short on feats the 3rd time. Light hammers are great for being useful in both melee and being thrown. Better than daggers yet everybody takes daggers for the fluff, or lack of proficiency. Darts OTOH don't have much advantage besides being cheap. Though being light weight and concealable is better than nothing.

Flails-So they are, non-exotic one handed tripping vs. reach tripping hmmm. Well I guess that justifies them being cheap like picks rather than dirt cheap like clubs.

Light hammer- Inferior to throwing axe/dagger IMO, I picture throwing on a non throwing based character generally being very short range. This is a case of the dirt cheap thing being worth the sacrifice. Honestly, I think the developers over valued the thrown and melee special. In game I don't see much utility in it. I think the developers were afraid of guys with returning axes ****ting all over everything, because I can see some simple tweaks to the system that would make this happen. On a related note, Javelins are too good. Oh and I think you're undervaluing 19-20 crit.

Darts- Despite weighing less than a dagger darts are described as being the size of large arrows while dagger grant a +2 to size sleight of hand checks, so no concealability advantage.

[ericgrau]

You get a -2 to hit at 10 feet, not at 15+ feet, so a throwing axe or dagger is much worse than the hammer. They almost always gets a penalty, and even with far shot they often get a penalty. 15 feet is low even for short range guys. I'd still take far shot even on the hammer.

My first flail guy could both trip and disarm while wielding a shield to survive well, but the campaign was short lived. My second was in Pathfinder, had TWF and could both disarm and fight. The advantage of extra TWF attacks with disarm is quickly apparent once you get surrounded. Fling, fling, fling, don't worry guys I'm fine. Proceeded to remaining foes while allies block off their flinged weapons and attack. That was the one and only time I've seen the DM send in a foe with a locked gauntlet in my entire history of playing D&D. Sure there were unweaponed foes too and I switched to attacking. But the story called for a lot of groups of all weaponed foes too and they were not happy.

Reach + combat reflexes is nice, but so are extra attempts via more attacks and so is a properly optimized defense.

[Gnome Alone]

One of my players uses a Greatclub as her primary weapon. The character is a Duskblade.

Duskblades could use a foam rubber mallet or a sack of dry boogers if they're channeling two fistfuls of vampiric d6s, though.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Ugh, forum just ate my post, impatient now quick version.

In my experience, throwing is either a desperation move in which case I want maximum damage or I'm using it on something hovering just out of reach or I'm actually building for throwing. If I'm building for throwing I want a 30ft increment weapon.

Double Flailing/Flail and Board seems interesting, could be good lockdown if you got reach from another source or fought in close quarters a lot.

[Lans]

I was talking about Chainmail not the Chain shirt. I left out the "Three Useful Armors"; Chain Shirt, Breast Plate and Full Plate.

I think the other light armors are equivalent to chain shirt for high dex characters, granted you need the dex, and its not counting mithril, which I think there is something similar for non metal armor.

Otherwise, the planar handbook and races of stone have useful armor in the form of the mechanus gear at 10/0 and Heavy Plate at +9/0.

Not counting the exotic armors in RoS which cost a feat and are thus meh at best

[Greenish]

Not counting the exotic armors in RoS which cost a feat and are thus meh at bestFor a very high Dex character, gnome twistcloth can be worth it even without proficiency.

[Alaris]

Duskblades could use a foam rubber mallet or a sack of dry boogers if they're channeling two fistfuls of vampiric d6s, though.

While true, that does not negate the fact that she uses a Greatclub. :smallamused:

I find it all quite amusing. ^_^

[Gnome Alone]

Fair enough. I guess I was mostly refurbishing the earlier point about weapon dice not mattering compared to bonus damage, and then I just really wanted to put the image of arcane channeling through a sack of boogers out there.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I think the other light armors are equivalent to chain shirt for high dex characters, granted you need the dex, and its not counting mithril, which I think there is something similar for non metal armor.

Assuming this material is available(I have little doubt it exists, but it's probably from a campaign specific source or Dragon) you're right. Actually with a +8 Dex Mod padded is equal to mithril shirt without a special material and better with one.

[Shaynythyryas]

One of my DMs always prepared only a third of the loot in advance, and we ended up finding strange and exotic weapons in chests or even on npcs. In fact he always prepared the bonus, the special qualities, and so on, of the stuff, but never the precise nature that he decided by a random diceroll on last minute.

On the plus side, some of us specialized in strange weapons just to wield efficiently a particularly powerful one.
On the minus side, specializing was a hell of a gamble.
But it gets really much more fun to fight with non conventional weapons.

[Flickerdart]

But it gets really much more fun to fight with non conventional weapons.
I can understand that using, say, a whip is actually different than using, say, a sugliin, but how would fighting with a bastard sword or nunchaku be more fun than with a longsword or shortsword?

[koboldish]

Well, the bastard sword is a d10 one handed if you take the feat, which is good for something. And the nunchaku... Well... That is worth RPing :smallwink:.

[Flickerdart]

Well, the bastard sword is a d10 one handed if you take the feat, which is good for something.Right, but a longsword is 1d8. Does the average of 1 point of damage for the cost of a feat really make the bastard sword more "fun"?

[Guizonde]

does this mean that using a greatclub is a bad idea? :smalleek:

here are two things you need to know about a future reroll:

-i hate sharp slicy weapons when rp'ing. i've always favored blunt weapons, much to the dismay of many a dm.

-i like the idea of a small character hitting things with a tree.

i give you the concept. (minmaxers avert your eyes)

gnome. fighter. wielding a FRIGGIN' TREE!! (houseruled as a large greatclub)

whaddjaya mean my weapon's to big for me?! can't ya see i can lift it all goodly like?! *kerthwak!*

so far, i'm allowed to use it, with one caveat. not allowed walnut, maple, or oak due to local flora. sycamore is fine. (dm's a stickler to fluff for that)
according to stats i saw in the PFPHB, it'd hit as hard as a greatsword (boooooooring), with a -4 to hit for being 2 sizes bigger than me. does that make me "suboptimal"? yeah, first level would sting, by level 2 i'm breaking even, if not in the positives to hit. can you make a better frontline? sure, even with core a half-ork is a better choice than a gnome for pure damage output. however, half-ork frontline has been done. a warrior that fits in a breadbox wielding 8 feet of "screw you, physics!", probably not as much.
i'd say totally worth it when you take into account the fact that you just killed a mook 4 times taller than you using an uprooted tree. :smallbiggrin:

edit: to be clear, the fun in this scenario is not using a greatclub versus a greatsword. it's using a greatclub two sizes too big for your character/

oh, and in passing, if gornogg is underground with no tree, gornogg use upside down trees from ceiling, or big rock! (yeah... when all you want is a hammer...)

[Lans]

Right, but a longsword is 1d8. Does the average of 1 point of damage for the cost of a feat really make the bastard sword more "fun"?

Part of the thing is that when the weapons were balanced the designers thought weapon specialization was super awesome and special.

[Yogibear41]

There is a barbarian / druid Goliath in our campaign, that favors the Greatclub. His greatsword is his backup weapon.


Shillelagh says hi :smallsmile:

[Flickerdart]

according to stats i saw in the PFPHB, it'd hit as hard as a greatsword (boooooooring), with a -4 to hit for being 2 sizes bigger than me.
Unless Pathfinder changes this, a weapon that is a size larger than you increases one step in handedness. Since a medium greatclub is already a two-handed weapon, a small character cannot wield it at all.

[Guizonde]

Unless Pathfinder changes this, a weapon that is a size larger than you increases one step in handedness. Since a medium greatclub is already a two-handed weapon, a small character cannot wield it at all.
that's true. a small character uses two-handed a one-handed medium weapon.
however, you can use a two hander at a -4 penalty to hit. the example barbarian (you know, out the box pc) given in the back of the return of darkness module is a human barb1 wielding a colossal dagger, counting as a large greatsword (fluff: killed a frost giant, looted the corpse).

ergo, my idea for a stupidly oversized weapon on a stupidly undersized tank. with some number crunching (and very liberal readings of RAW), i'm sure you can pull off using a weapon 2 sizes above your size, like a gnome wielding a sycamore trunk.

sure, the penalties are awful, but if you pull it off, think of the bragging rights.

(and honestly, have you ever seen a dagger hitting at 2d6 base? that is some pretty huge intimidation factor right there)

[Philistine]

(and honestly, have you ever seen a dagger hitting at 2d6 base? that is some pretty huge intimidation factor right there)

That's not intimidating, that's anime.

That is to say: Yes. I have seen such a thing. It was far too silly looking to intimidate anyone, ever.

[ArcturusV]

Well there is a level of "intimidating" when you see something like a sewing needle the size of a wagon fall in front of you.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

i give you the concept. (minmaxers avert your eyes)

As a general rule, optimizers don't have a problem with fun concepts, a small critter swinging something 5 times his size is actually cool and worth working to optimize/make functional. A character that has to use a club and board rather than sword and board in order to be unique is so bland they disprove the Stormwind Fallacy. Or is it prove?


ergo, my idea for a stupidly oversized weapon on a stupidly undersized tank. with some number crunching (and very liberal readings of RAW), i'm sure you can pull off using a weapon 2 sizes above your size, like a gnome wielding a sycamore trunk.

sure, the penalties are awful, but if you pull it off, think of the bragging rights.

I'll concede rule of cool and you'll undoubtedly have some fun stories, but requiring significant favorable housrules to function kinda cuts into your "bragging rights" IMO.

[Philistine]

What cool points? "Comically oversized weapon" has been done. In fact, it's been done to death.

It's. A. Flippin'. Trope. Already. (Link to "that site" not provided - you're welcome - but it's not exactly hard to find.)

And that completely undercuts the stated reason for going down this silly, RAW-illegal (there is no possible reading of "the creature cannot wield the weapon at all" sufficiently "liberal" to allow this to work) road in the first place. Like the idea of a Jawa Jedi, it might have been sort of cool… the first time. That was a long time, and a lot of copycats, ago.

So how is it "intimidating" to see an opponent staggering under the weight of a weapon he can barely lift (and can never under any circumstances swing, because it weighs as much as or more than he does)? Quite the contrary, I should think you'd find such a demonstration of incompetence by your enemies to be tremendously encouraging.

[Guizonde]

As a general rule, optimizers don't have a problem with fun concepts, a small critter swinging something 5 times his size is actually cool and worth working to optimize/make functional. A character that has to use a club and board rather than sword and board in order to be unique is so bland they disprove the Stormwind Fallacy. Or is it prove?



I'll concede rule of cool and you'll undoubtedly have some fun stories, but requiring significant favorable housrules to function kinda cuts into your "bragging rights" IMO.

didn't know the first point, i thought they were hostile to fun and inefficient builds... although club and board does seem bland... possibly a fighting cane and a buckler to make it sound interesting?
for the second point, it doesn't seem like houserule: from the pfsrd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons):


Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

What cool points? "Comically oversized weapon" has been done. In fact, it's been done to death.

It's. A. Flippin'. Trope. Already. (Link to "that site" not provided - you're welcome - but it's not exactly hard to find.)

And that completely undercuts the stated reason for going down this silly, RAW-illegal (there is no possible reading of "the creature cannot wield the weapon at all" sufficiently "liberal" to allow this to work) road in the first place. Like the idea of a Jawa Jedi, it might have been sort of cool… the first time. That was a long time, and a lot of copycats, ago.

So how is it "intimidating" to see an opponent staggering under the weight of a weapon he can barely lift (and can never under any circumstances swing, because it weighs as much as or more than he does)? Quite the contrary, I should think you'd find such a demonstration of incompetence by your enemies to be tremendously encouraging.
@philistine: i know it's been done, chill. we're all having fun here :smallsmile:
EDIT: ok, reread my post, and it seems as though using a greatclub would be impossible for a gnome. my bad, i didn't understand the rules that way. it'd have to be a large club to be equivalent (i think), or any other small weapon 2 sizes above. you are right, i completely missed that part of the rules, my bad :smallsmile:

[Greenish]

didn't know the first point, i thought they were hostile to fun and inefficient builds..."Fun" and "inefficient" are not synonyms. You can have fun and efficient characters, or boring and inefficient ones.

[Edit]:
What cool points? "Comically oversized weapon" has been done. In fact, it's been done to death.

It's. A. Flippin'. Trope. Already. (Link to "that site" not provided - you're welcome - but it's not exactly hard to find.)Tropes are not bad. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools) :smalltongue:

[Philistine]

The last paragraph of the quoted section of the SRD, with the handedness changes, is the one that restricts which weapons a character of a given size can use. So a Small character could use a Large Light weapon, such as a dagger, as a Two-Handed weapon (with a -4 attack penalty per the underlined paragraph); but a Large Two-Handed weapon is simply too large and heavy to be used even by a Medium creature, much less a Small one. It's not a "liberal reading," it's a misreading.

EDIT: Swordsaged by the edit. C'est la vie.

EATA:
[Edit]: Tropes are not bad. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools) :smalltongue:
Never said they were. But in this case it does torpedo the original rationale for the character, which was originality.

[Guizonde]

The last paragraph of the quoted section of the SRD, with the handedness changes, is the one that restricts which weapons a character of a given size can use. So a Small character could use a Large Light weapon, such as a dagger, as a Two-Handed weapon (with a -4 attack penalty per the underlined paragraph); but a Large Two-Handed weapon is simply too large and heavy to be used even by a Medium creature, much less a Small one. It's not a "liberal reading," it's a misreading.

EDIT: Swordsaged by the edit. C'est la vie.

actually, it was more of a "miss" than a "reading" :smallredface:

no worries, my bad. at least the lesson will stick now :smallsmile:

oh, does the same rule apply both ways? can gornogg wield a large greatclub? and can he wield a fine greatclub? given that gornogg is medium sized, i guess he can't wield the large one, and can't wield the fine one either... but i'm a bit confused

[Hand_of_Vecna]

What cool points? "Comically oversized weapon" has been done. In fact, it's been done to death.

It's. A. Flippin'. Trope. Already. (Link to "that site" not provided - you're welcome - but it's not exactly hard to find.)

Tropes are not Bad. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools)

Also swordsaged.


[S]
EATA:
Never said they were. But in this case it does torpedo the original rationale for the character, which was originality.

I thought Guizonde was after cool (which is in the eye of the beholder) not originality.

[Greenish]

Never said they were. But in this case it does torpedo the original rationale for the character, which was originality.What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. :smallcool:

[Guizonde]

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. :smallcool:

i'll let bad taste be the judge of that!:smallbiggrin:

by the way, has there been a thread based on rampin' up the tropes to 11? something like troperiffic: the troper's guide to building walking trope archetypes? perhaps a contest to see who can jam the most tropes into a character (both buildwise and rpwise?) it could prove to be a fun challenge and or storytelling thread, don't you think?

[Zubrowka74]

"Fun" and "inefficient" are not synonyms. You can have fun and efficient characters, or boring and inefficient ones.

Of course. The thing is, a lot of comments in this thread imply that fun = efficient. Seems to me some people's definition of fun is being better than everybody else, or at least better that the DM. Fine, it may be your way of enjoying the game. Exactly the "Spike" of MTG. Just don't shove down your conceptions down everyone else's throat. When the Stormwind Fallacy posits that RP and optimization are independant it goes both ways. You don't have to build efficient PC's to be a good roleplayer. And guess what ? It's a roleplaying game.

[Philistine]

Of course. The thing is, a lot of comments in this thread imply that fun = efficient. Seems to me some people's definition of fun is being better than everybody else, or at least better that the DM. Fine, it may be your way of enjoying the game. Exactly the "Spike" of MTG. Just don't shove down your conceptions down everyone else's throat. When the Stormwind Fallacy posits that RP and optimization are independant it goes both ways. You don't have to build efficient PC's to be a good roleplayer. And guess what ? It's a roleplaying game.

If you're building PCs for a game that is still, at its heart, a tactical minis wargame… PCs who will regularly, even routinely, take on the very most dangerous jobs they can find…

You know, there's an argument to be made that while sanity may be optional (and perhaps actively detrimental) to a Player Character's prospects, efficiency is pretty much a requirement to successfully pursue adventuring as a career path.

[TopCheese]

My neanderthal crusader of Odin loved his flaming greatclub that he named "Bon" and the trigger word was "fire"...

Bon-Fire SMASH

Flaming sticks of death are always fun! (semi artic campaign)

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I don't think anyone is saying efficienct = fun more like efficient = in game intelligent decisions. Here's the thing, the best weapons in game are generally the best weapons in reality and people don't use inferior weapons in reality for flavor reasons. Inferior weapons were used in reality because better weapons weren't available either because they owners country didn't have the technology/natural resources to craft them or the individual was poor once you've made it past the lowest levels you are more than likely rich by your previous standards and have traveled a bit.

How about I give an example of an interesting flavorful character that uses a suboptimal weapon.

John Coleman is a young miner who works in a mine that's drying up. Being one of the strongest and healthiest men in the town he could probably stay on and be one of the last workers to keep their job, but he decides it would be better to strike out in search of fame and fortune now rather than later and let an older man with fewer options keep his job.

John has less gear than most level one warrior types, but he sharpens one side of his pick axe to a deadly point, buys some cheap armor and gather's some mining supplies that amount to a climber's kit.

He eventually finds a group of adventurers that are willing to take a combination melee combatant/mining expert as a full member because they're going to be exploring caves and having someone that can both point out natural hazards and identify valuable veins of ore sounds useful.

After a successful expedition John is wealthy by the standards he's used to, but has decided that he want's to continue his life as adventuring after he finishes setting up a mine in the cleared out dungeon and employing his new friends of course.

So, should he use the magic sword/axe/polearm they found in the dungeon or should he sell it and commission a magic mining pick?

[Shining Wrath]

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. :smallcool:

All the rivers are used by the PC's, yet the PC's are not full.

[Zubrowka74]

I don't think anyone is saying efficienct = fun more like efficient = in game intelligent decisions. Here's the thing, the best weapons in game are generally the best weapons in reality and people don't use inferior weapons in reality for flavor reasons. Inferior weapons were used in reality because better weapons weren't available either because they owners country didn't have the technology/natural resources to craft them or the individual was poor once you've made it past the lowest levels you are more than likely rich by your previous standards and have traveled a bit.

How about I give an example of an interesting flavorful character that uses a suboptimal weapon.

John Coleman is a young miner who works in a mine that's drying up. Being one of the strongest and healthiest men in the town he could probably stay on and be one of the last workers to keep their job, but he decides it would be better to strike out in search of fame and fortune now rather than later and let an older man with fewer options keep his job.

John has less gear than most level one warrior types, but he sharpens one side of his pick axe to a deadly point, buys some cheap armor and gather's some mining supplies that amount to a climber's kit.

He eventually finds a group of adventurers that are willing to take a combination melee combatant/mining expert as a full member because they're going to be exploring caves and having someone that can both point out natural hazards and identify valuable veins of ore sounds useful.

After a successful expedition John is wealthy by the standards he's used to, but has decided that he want's to continue his life as adventuring after he finishes setting up a mine in the cleared out dungeon and employing his new friends of course.

So, should he use the magic sword/axe/polearm they found in the dungeon or should he sell it and commission a magic mining pick?

But then, why is not everyone not playing wizards ? Or clerics or any other Tier 1 ? They are more efficient than a pick, a longsword or a greatclub.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

But then, why is not everyone not playing wizards ? Or clerics or any other Tier 1 ? They are more efficient than a pick, a longsword or a greatclub.

What sentiment are you arguing against? Are you implying that "play a wizard" is a logical extension of saying someone should use a good weapon?

The reason the two things are different is that is that one shows respect for a character concept and the other doesn't. Here's the rub; a lot of people say "Man from the frozen north that values actions over words, speaks common in broken sentences and is a powerful melee combatant" is a concept, but "guy that swings a club rather than a sword" isn't and I for one refuse to belittle the former by treating them the equally.

[Guizonde]

What sentiment are you arguing against? Are you implying that "play a wizard" is a logical extension of saying someone should use a good weapon?

The reason the two things are different is that is that one shows respect for a character concept and the other doesn't. Here's the rub; a lot of people say "Man from the frozen north that values actions over words, speaks common in broken sentences and is a powerful melee combatant" is a concept, but "guy that swings a club rather than a sword" isn't and I for one refuse to belittle the former by treating them the equally.

i think that's where the rp starts: both are valid, but if for some reason one character has a cultural affinity with swords, whereas the other one has a phobia of sharp weapons, then you get two very different flavors for the same basic role. (please tell me a longsword and a mace do both d8 damage, otherwise my point is moot)

[Synovia]

But then, why is not everyone not playing wizards ? Or clerics or any other Tier 1 ? They are more efficient than a pick, a longsword or a greatclub.

Because playing a wizard is distinctly DIFFERENT from playing a fighter. Using a Greataxe instead of a GreatClub plays exactly the same, just with smaller numbers.

There's a meaningful choice between fighter and wizard. There isn't between club and axe.

[Twilightwyrm]

For a PC, having a "suboptimal" weapon will generally* be for one of three reasons: because they think it's cool, it goes with their character concept, or they are going to do something that that weapon is optimal for. For instance, I quite like the Bastard Sword as a candidate for the Exotic Weapon Master's Uncanny Blow option, even though on its own the Bastard Sword is generally suboptimal in comparison to either the Longsword or the Greatsword. However, as there is no special option I can think of for the Greatclub that would justify this, it would then most likely fall into one of the first two categories. However, I don't see this part of the weapon system being much of a problem, as realistically speaking there is a very good reason Iron and Medieval age warriors used swords, maces, or axes rather than clubs: because they are superior in construction, durability, and damage potential. Now, for outfitting an army or bandit gang, that is to say, some of the opponents the PCs will be fighting, using a great club actually makes a good deal of sense: For large, strong warriors, a great club might well be considered over a heavy iron or steel weapon, as they are much cheaper, and thus more quickly produced, even if they must be replaced more often.

*There are myriad others reasons a PC would choose this, but most often it will be one of these. For instance, a fighter might well temporarily eschew the use of his Masterwork Greatsword, if the party finds a +2 Greatclub on a boss or in a treasure cache.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

i think that's where the rp starts: both are valid, but if for some reason one character has a cultural affinity with swords, whereas the other one has a phobia of sharp weapons, then you get two very different flavors for the same basic role. (please tell me a longsword and a mace do both d8 damage, otherwise my point is moot)

It does, but you should be using a war hammer for X3 crit, it's the bludgeon flavor of martial one handers, assuming you're basically choosing to take the old school cleric restriction. Unfortunately, well crafted blunt weapons stop there in core. You have to book dive or settle for a big club.

So, warriors with a deep seated fear of sharp objects (hmmmm maybe they shouldn't become adventurers) and members of religious orders who's leader, Pope Gygax the I, forbade from using edged weapons are forced to Warhammer and board, dual light maces, use a great club or go book diving (minotaur hammer). Most optimizers won't have a problem (though they will probably try to steer you towards the book diving option) with any of these because the restriction comes from a real character concept rather than an arbitrary decision by the player.

[Greenish]

For blunt weapons, I like the truncheon from BoED. It's a martial weapon with the same stats as the heavy mace, but does non-lethal damage by default, which can come handy, and definitely has a different feel than a longsword.

[JusticeZero]

On the subject of greatclubs, when I look at it, it looks like it's a pretty optimal and balanced weapon - if you bump it up to the SIMPLE WEAPONS category. It fits right in there next to the 1d8x3&Range/Reach weapons, being a 1d10x2 with no added benefits.

[Zubrowka74]

What sentiment are you arguing against? Are you implying that "play a wizard" is a logical extension of saying someone should use a good weapon?

The reason the two things are different is that is that one shows respect for a character concept and the other doesn't. Here's the rub; a lot of people say "Man from the frozen north that values actions over words, speaks common in broken sentences and is a powerful melee combatant" is a concept, but "guy that swings a club rather than a sword" isn't and I for one refuse to belittle the former by treating them the equally.

What you describe is an average character concept vs a poorly detailed character concept. Mind you, I'm not the one who brought up the greatclub issue but I'll go with it. How about is the concept was : "Man from the frozen north that values actions over words, speaks common in broken sentences and is a powerful melee combatant. He is wary of modern technologies from decadent civilization and so uses the greatclub in hommage to the great hero Derpgore, who fought off the winter dragon 100 years ago with such weapon."

I'm not saying the weapon you use defines who is your character, it just adds to the RP detail. Sure, the weapon system is kind of lame. If you want to be efficient you'll stick with the 6 or 7 weapons that are "worth it". But will you sacrifice 1 point of average damage to add that extra RP detail ? Someone commented that burning a feat to get 1 more average damage point is not worth it, but loosing one in favor of flavor is too much ? Your PC won't survive ?

[ArcturusV]

Also in the concerns is that a low int character, or a low wisdom character, shouldn't really be aware of "Optimizing". It makes sense that any wizard would be optimized, even Cleric. They have such high Int and Wis scores that it makes good sense. They are more aware of the world, can think of it in those detached terms that allow for optimizing. But low int, low wis? Shouldn't be aware of such things outside of immediate IC details.

Thus why my 4 int Sorcerer has a very suboptimal spell list and is mixing in Fighter levels as well. :smallwink:

[Hand_of_Vecna]

What you describe is an average character concept vs a poorly detailed character concept.

I said not a character concept, you say a poor concept let me split the difference and be more precise.

"A character concept so weak (the concept not the build etc.) that I would reject it from most games (all non comedic games being run for adults), because it doesn't show any indication of a character that will be roleplayed."


How about is the concept was : "Man from the frozen north that values actions over words, speaks common in broken sentences and is a powerful melee combatant. He is wary of modern technologies from decadent civilization and so uses the greatclub in hommage to the great hero Derpgore, who fought off the winter dragon 100 years ago with such weapon."

Thankyou for stating a hypothetical that isn't a ridiculous strawman. I would say that this is skirting the line of being for religious reasons "hero worship" even if he has an actual god listed on his character sheet. If you scroll up a bit you'll see that I cited religious reasons as an acceptable motivation for choosing a suboptimal weapon while "because" is not. If the overall concept was strong I'd probably balance it with a free ancestral relic feat.


Also in the concerns is that a low int character, or a low wisdom character, shouldn't really be aware of "Optimizing". It makes sense that any wizard would be optimized, even Cleric. They have such high Int and Wis scores that it makes good sense. They are more aware of the world, can think of it in those detached terms that allow for optimizing. But low int, low wis? Shouldn't be aware of such things outside of immediate IC details.

Thus why my 4 int Sorcerer has a very suboptimal spell list and is mixing in Fighter levels as well. :smallwink:

When we're talking about something as basic as a weapon, I'm sceptical at best. I can certainly visualize someone that wouldn't naturally assimilate the knowledge in question, but they would also be used to having others make most of their decisions for them. We're talking about someone at or below the intellectual level of Leon from The Professional (the way he is in life, not on the job) and maybe aa low as Mongo from Blazing saddles.

[DeltaEmil]

On the subject of greatclubs, when I look at it, it looks like it's a pretty optimal and balanced weapon - if you bump it up to the SIMPLE WEAPONS category. It fits right in there next to the 1d8x3&Range/Reach weapons, being a 1d10x2 with no added benefits.That's what D&D 4th edition did. Making clubs simple weapons. Clubs should be simple weapons too in D&D 3.x.