Bladed Mace?

[Yogibear41]

Does anyone know of a 3rd party book that has a weapon like a bladed mace? Basically a morning star that does S+B instead of B+P damage.

Something like this

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/95/99/f8/9599f865456cbf1e4e17cbfa300a334d.png

Or this

https://d27nqrvkk22y65.cloudfront.net/product_image/image/91947/big_5e4042d2b8.jpg

[Zaq]

On pg. 169 of the MIC, there's a picture of a bugbear wielding something that looks like it could potentially be described as a bladed mace, though that specific picture has a nontrivial dose of "goofy-looking fantasy weapon" mixed in. (That picture could maybe also be described as "axe-sword," so eh.)

As far as printed stats go, I'm not familiar with any offhand. Changing which of B/S/P something deals is highly unlikely to break anything, though, and since bite attacks by RAW deal all three of B/S/P, it's not like it's terrifyingly powerful to engage in particular combinations thereof, so just houseruling it exactly the way you described seems more or less balanced on its face.

Now that I think about it, what game elements particularly care about whether you're doing B, S, or P damage? There's a few cases of DR that care about one type or another (zombies and skeletons being the classic examples, plus I guess Dread Necromancers), there's the overpriced feats in PHB2 that require Melee Weapon Mastery as a prereq (Crushing Strike, Driving Attack, and Slashing Flurry), plus I suppose the slightly less expensive Brutal Strike and Flay feats from the same book. Similarly, Champions of Run has Flay Foe, Skewer Foe, and Pulverize Foe, none of which are especially worthwhile but that do technically exist. The basic Sunder maneuver requires that you use slashing or bludgeoning damage.

Is that about it? Is there anything else that particularly rewards you for doing a specific flavor of physical damage? Honestly, those feats I mentioned are so niche that I've never seen them taken or even seriously discussed, so I think it's basically just whether you're better against zombies or better against skeletons in the super early game.

[BowStreetRunner]

Executioner's Mace (Dungeon Magazine #135, page 61)

[Malimar]

Now that I think about it, what game elements particularly care about whether you're doing B, S, or P damage? There's a few cases of DR that care about one type or another (zombies and skeletons being the classic examples, plus I guess Dread Necromancers), there's the overpriced feats in PHB2 that require Melee Weapon Mastery as a prereq (Crushing Strike, Driving Attack, and Slashing Flurry), plus I suppose the slightly less expensive Brutal Strike and Flay feats from the same book. Similarly, Champions of Run has Flay Foe, Skewer Foe, and Pulverize Foe, none of which are especially worthwhile but that do technically exist. The basic Sunder maneuver requires that you use slashing or bludgeoning damage.

Is that about it? Is there anything else that particularly rewards you for doing a specific flavor of physical damage? Honestly, those feats I mentioned are so niche that I've never seen them taken or even seriously discussed, so I think it's basically just whether you're better against zombies or better against skeletons in the super early game.
There are a few enchantments that can only be applied to some specific one or two of b/s/p: Keen is p/s only (though IIRC there's a b-only version in some splatbook somewhere -- though if a weapon is b/s, potentially both of those could maybe be applied, becoming more powerful than intended?), and Vorpal is slashing only.

[Yogibear41]

Its for RP as well as for beating DR when appropriate.


Executioner's Mace (Dungeon Magazine #135, page 61)

I know about this, was really looking for something different though.

[LordBlade]

One of the things I never really understood about D&D was the reasoning behind Clerics using maces. I mean, a weapon's a weapon really. Of course when you start getting into dieties with their specific weapons, you had clerics who could wield all sorts of things anyway, but then they were counted as a "bonus" weapon on top of the basic "blunt" weapons they had to use. But, why would they be limited to blunt weapons in the first place?

[Celestia]

"Bladed mace" isn't a thing. Those are pictures of flanged maces. They would just be represented by the standard heavy mace stats. Now, if you want to go all fantasy about it and create a fictional weapon, then I can't complain there. I do think the scythe is cool, after all. :p

[Khedrac]

One of the things I never really understood about D&D was the reasoning behind Clerics using maces. I mean, a weapon's a weapon really. Of course when you start getting into dieties with their specific weapons, you had clerics who could wield all sorts of things anyway, but then they were counted as a "bonus" weapon on top of the basic "blunt" weapons they had to use. But, why would they be limited to blunt weapons in the first place?

I think this is one of those where the origins cannot be discussed on these forums as they are linked to real world religions, but the source of "blunt weapons only" is generally thought to be a weird interpretation of a prohibition on shedding blood. (Weird, because if you hit somone with a mace hard enough to kill them then you are probably going to shed a lot of blood.)
It's also annoying because it prevents the traditional evil priest sacrificing someone with a dagger to cut their heart out.

[Celestia]

One of the things I never really understood about D&D was the reasoning behind Clerics using maces. I mean, a weapon's a weapon really. Of course when you start getting into dieties with their specific weapons, you had clerics who could wield all sorts of things anyway, but then they were counted as a "bonus" weapon on top of the basic "blunt" weapons they had to use. But, why would they be limited to blunt weapons in the first place?
Two things: first, maces have historically been used more as ceremonial weapons than actual weapons. As such, they have a strong tie to many religions. Second, there's probably a misguided pseudo-explanation that maces are somehow more pacifist weapons than swords or axes since they don't draw blood (which isn't even true).

[LordBlade]

Yeah, the idea that a mace is a "non-violent" weapon or that it's not a weapon that causes bleeding has always been silly. Even if we're looking at a "round ball" mace, that's still going to splatter blood everywhere when you kill something. :p

[Yogibear41]

Maces require less training to use effectively when compared to a sword, that is why most maces are simple and most swords are martial. I always assumed it was because while cleric got combat training, they had to train for religious things and spell casting as well, hence just the simple aka mace weapon training. Paladins spent less time learning spells and more time training, so they get sword proficiency.

[Dragolord]

Yeah, the idea that a mace is a "non-violent" weapon or that it's not a weapon that causes bleeding has always been silly. Even if we're looking at a "round ball" mace, that's still going to splatter blood everywhere when you kill something. :p

Not if you use it to break the enemy's sword arm, then both of his legs while he's distracting, leaving him for someone else to stab to death.

[LordBlade]

Maces require less training to use effectively when compared to a sword, that is why most maces are simple and most swords are martial. I always assumed it was because while cleric got combat training, they had to train for religious things and spell casting as well, hence just the simple aka mace weapon training. Paladins spent less time learning spells and more time training, so they get sword proficiency.
But, Clerics could also choose to use warhammers (another supposedly "non-bloody" weapon), which are martial weapons. They made a big deal about the blunt weapons.

Now, with a sword, you stab a guy and there's blood, and a good stab just leaves him dead. You kill a guy with a warhammer, there's a good chance you've squished him insides into being outsides and have made a horrible mess everywhere. Bladed weapons will generally kill with a lot less bloodshed than blunt ones that will usually just splatter a skull like a cantaloupe. :p

[Zanos]

Not if you use it to break the enemy's sword arm, then both of his legs while he's distracting, leaving him for someone else to stab to death.
I would be very surprised if you could break three limbs with a mace and not shed any blood.

[Dragolord]

I would be very surprised if you could break three limbs with a mace and not shed any blood.

Well, I couldn't. I'm sure that at some point somebody's worked out how to.

[Zaq]

I mean, my experiences with broken bones (and I've had more than average—I think I'm up to six?) have always involved contact with the ground or a wall or a car rather than a melee weapon, but there's always blood involved.

Sometimes more blood than others, to be fair, but it's pretty difficult to break a healthy human's bone without breaking some skin in the process. Probably technically possible, but nontrivial.

[Yogibear41]

I've seen people with broken ribs from blunt force trauma that had no visible bleeding, only bruising. If you struck someone in the torso with a mace you could crush someone's ribs, outward bleeding would be minimized, unless a rib punctured your skin. You might scrape the skin a little, but it would be significantly less than slicing them with a sword.

Only reason the Warhammer is a martial weapon in 3.5 is because its crit modifier is x3 and its strictly better than a heavy mace/morningstar damage wise, so it couldn't be a simple weapon.
I suppose you could say its harder to use because you have to line the striking point up instead of using a mace which has effectively a 360 degree striking area, so a Heavy mace would be easier to use.

[Bullet06320]

I mean, my experiences with broken bones (and I've had more than average—I think I'm up to six?) have always involved contact with the ground or a wall or a car rather than a melee weapon, but there's always blood involved.

Sometimes more blood than others, to be fair, but it's pretty difficult to break a healthy human's bone without breaking some skin in the process. Probably technically possible, but nontrivial.

ive broken ribs and fingers and my arm without visible damage to the outside of my body, not even a bruise, so it is possible to break bones without bloodshed, but each injury is unique, ive been on scene at a couple car accidents and seen blood everywhere with bones sticking out, my brother took an axe to the foot once, that was bloody and broken bones, so it realy depends on the nature of the injury.

[LordBlade]

Of course, we're also ignoring the fact that even if a hit didn't cause copious amounts of visible bleeding (which it would), there would be massive INTERNAL bleeding.
So it's not like blunt weapons are "bloodless" even in the best situations. I guess the idea is they're supposed to be less messy about it, which is of course false. :p

[zergling.exe]

Of course, we're also ignoring the fact that even if a hit didn't cause copious amounts of visible bleeding (which it would), there would be massive INTERNAL bleeding.
So it's not like blunt weapons are "bloodless" even in the best situations. I guess the idea is they're supposed to be less messy about it, which is of course false. :p

With people bringing up having broken ribs and such without bruises, I think it's safe to say internal bleeding isn't always present in broken bones. After all, a bruise is blood vessels under the skin having been broken. So if you hit the bone just right to break it and not any blood vessels, you can have a bloodless broken bone.

[SangoProduction]

With people bringing up having broken ribs and such without bruises, I think it's safe to say internal bleeding isn't always present in broken bones. After all, a bruise is blood vessels under the skin having been broken. So if you hit the bone just right to break it and not any blood vessels, you can have a bloodless broken bone.

Considering blood vessels run through the bone (marrow is used for creating new blood), I find that highly improbable, even if you had the surgical precision for that. Maybe a hairline fracture. Of course, in a fantasy setting, a particularly deviant mage with healing could potentially heal bleeding without fixing the bones.

[Marlowe]

One of the things I never really understood about D&D was the reasoning behind Clerics using maces. I mean, a weapon's a weapon really. Of course when you start getting into dieties with their specific weapons, you had clerics who could wield all sorts of things anyway, but then they were counted as a "bonus" weapon on top of the basic "blunt" weapons they had to use. But, why would they be limited to blunt weapons in the first place?

It's based entirely on Bishop Odo of Bayeux being depicted using a mace in the tapestry. The original game designers just thought it would be "cool". In spite of what you might read it's never been based on anything historical.

[Andreaz]

Since there's not much to designing weapons in d&d unless you're going for really off the hook stuff, just set it to a Martial mace that happens to be s+b...

[hamishspence]

It's also annoying because it prevents the traditional evil priest sacrificing someone with a dagger to cut their heart out.

In 3.5 at least, it's "all simple weapons" - and a dagger is a simple weapon.

[CharonsHelper]

I mean, my experiences with broken bones (and I've had more than average—I think I'm up to six?) have always involved contact with the ground or a wall or a car rather than a melee weapon, but there's always blood involved.

Really? I've broken 3, and I never had any exterior bleeding (just lots of bruising). But - all three of mine were just cracks - no resetting required.


It's based entirely on Bishop Odo of Bayeux being depicted using a mace in the tapestry. The original game designers just thought it would be "cool". In spite of what you might read it's never been based on anything historical.

Wasn't it also a balancing factor in OD&D? I seem to remember something about swords getting more frequent and/or better enchantments, and clerics not being able to use them was a balancing factor to make sure the mundane guy got the best gear.

[Jay R]

Wasn't it also a balancing factor in OD&D? I seem to remember something about swords getting more frequent and/or better enchantments, and clerics not being able to use them was a balancing factor to make sure the mundane guy got the best gear.

The tables seem to bear that out. 35% of all magic items were weapons that Fighting-Men1 could use, (20% swords and 15% miscellaneous weapons), while only 3% (20% of 15%) were available to Clerics. That went up to 3.3% (22% of 15%) with the first supplement, Greyhawk.

Interestingly, a Cleric had a much higher chance to get a +2 weapon than a +1, since +1 maces weren't included.


71-80 Mace +2
81-85 War Hammer +1
86-89 War Hammer +2
90 War Hammer +3, 6" Throwing Radius and Return.2

The verbiage in the books certainly describes it as a balance, but focuses just as much on the magic items they can use and Fighting-Men can't.


Clerics gain some of the advantages from both of the other two classes (Fighting-Men and Magic-Users) in that they have the use of magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons (no arrows!), plus they have numbers of their own spells. In addition, they are able to use more of the magical items than are the Fighting-Men.

1Yes, that was the name of the class.
2These were still based on miniatures rules. 6" on the table translated to 60 feet