Are hammers undertuned, or is it just me?

[Erit]

In particular, Greatclubs compared to Mauls; there's no mechanical reason to use the former even without the EWP to wield the latter one-handed, that I can think of anyway. And Goliath Greathammers, as someone who knows what a Fullblade is these things make me very sad. I want to swing a big weighted stick as my Karsite Paladin, but damn it it's hard to justify that when swords are better as base weapons go.

The Mighty Whallop spell line isn't a sensible explanation for the discrepancy, either; it's a band-aid for a problem of the devs' own making. Can anybody tell me if there's some obscure rule or another that justifies bludgeoning weapons being so underwhelming compared to their sharper cousins?

[16bearswutIdo]

They're undertuned, but they're badass as hell. Compare swinging generic greatsword fighter #457 to Captain Hammer, smashing in skulls with his oversized warhammer.

Realistically, the damage difference is probably somewhere in the single digits. Sometimes it's about being awesome rather than maximizing your numbers.

[Seerow]

Hammers can get the benefit of Greater Mighty Wallop. Just about any Gish I see ends up with a hammer eventually just for that.

[Zaq]

They're a little undertuned, but honestly, the dice of your weapon matter so little after, like, level 2 that you're sacrificing truly minimal effectiveness compared to most other two-handed weapons without meaningful properties (meaningful properties being things like "able to trip" or "finessable" or "reach"). It's a tiny bit less optimal than a greatsword, but not so much that they're not usable. (Contrast with, for example, 4e, where every single hammer is stuck in the bin with lower to-hit bonus compared to many other weapons like heavy blades or flails, and since to-hit is both hard to come by and extraordinarily important in 4e, hammers are pretty much almost always a terrible choice outside of extremely niche builds.)

By the same token, of course, you're really not going to break anything if you houserule that hammers have damage dice that are the same as weapons of comparable handedness and proficiency. So that should be fine too.

[heavyfuel]

Just about any Gish melee character in a party with a Wizard or Sorcerer I see ends up with a hammer eventually just for that.

This more closely resembles my experience

[Deophaun]

Compare swinging generic greatsword fighter #457 to Captain Hammer, smashing in skulls with his oversized warhammer.
Also, you get to sing.

Stand back everyone, nothing here to see
Just imminent danger, in the middle of it me
Yes, Captain Hammer's here, hair blowing in the breeze
The day needs my saving expertise

A MAAAAAAAAAAAN'S got to do what a maaaaaaaan's got to do!
Seems destiny ends with me saving you
The only doom that's looming is you loving me to death
I'll give you a sec to catch your breath.

[Zanos]

For what it's worth, bludgeoning is a slightly better damage type than slashing. Most things that have DR vulnerable to a specific physical damage type are vulnerable to bludgeoning.

[Nifft]

For what it's worth, bludgeoning is a slightly better damage type than slashing. Most things that have DR vulnerable to a specific physical damage type are vulnerable to bludgeoning.

Not to self: invent balloon golems.

[Thurbane]

The Greathorn Minotaur (MM4) version of the Greathammer is slightly better than the Goliath version, from memory.

Just checked: 19-20/x4 critical is not bad in a crit-focused build.

You can get EWP from a dip in Master of Masks; or from one of the psionic Vestiges if you're a Binder.

[Mordaedil]

Light hammers are certainly really undertuned, I find warhammers to be fine as they are.

[zergling.exe]

Keep in mind that the Fullblade is the 3.0 word for a large Bastard sword, so in updating A&EG it should be removed since it is the same weapon. In 3.0 weapon size determined handedness, and a greatsword was always large so large creatures used it one handed. Thus the Fullblade was born to give large creatures a weapon that was 2-handed base. The only difference is that the Fullblade doesn't take the -2 penalty for inappropriately sized weapons, but that didn't exist in 3.0 and so an update should add that in.

[AlanBruce]

The Greathorn Minotaur (MM4) version of the Greathammer is slightly better than the Goliath version, from memory.

Just checked: 19-20/x4 critical is not bad in a crit-focused build.

You can get EWP from a dip in Master of Masks; or from one of the psionic Vestiges if you're a Binder.

A PC in one of my games wields such a Hammer with the Bodyfeeder enhancement and a wand chamber with Wraithstrike in it. The PC in question has maxed out ranks in UMD so...

He always hits and it sure hurts when he crits. Best hammer I have seen so far.

[CharonsHelper]

Not to self: invent balloon golems.

Wasn't there a 3.5 undead or construct which took 5 bonus damage from each slashing or piercing damage? I remember the picture looking like it was engorged with blood.

[XionUnborn01]

Wasn't there a 3.5 undead or construct which took 5 bonus damage from each slashing or piercing damage? I remember the picture looking like it was engorged with blood.

There's the blood hulk undead (and smaller versions). I forget the book but they're big bloated undead that are full of blood.

[AlanBruce]

There's the blood hulk undead (and smaller versions). I forget the book but they're big bloated undead that are full of blood.

The Bloodhulk is from Monster Manual IV, which includes three varieties, depending on size.

They all have max HP/HD, but take an extra d6 damage from slashing weapons due to how stretched their skin is due to the huge amount of blood filling them up.

[Seharvepernfan]

For what it's worth, bludgeoning is a slightly better damage type than slashing. Most things that have DR vulnerable to a specific physical damage type are vulnerable to bludgeoning.

I think it's mostly this. The PHB seems to think that bludgeoning is the best type, so B doesn't get the best weapons. Real life didn't seem to favor bludgeoning weapons much either.

[Jack_Simth]

Realistically, the damage difference is probably somewhere in the single digits. Sometimes it's about being awesome rather than maximizing your numbers.LOW single digits, in general. The difference between a 2d6 weapon and a 1d10 weapon? 1.5 damage, on average (7 vs. 5.5). Base weapon damage barely matters at all after just a few levels. You're going to be paying more attention to crit ranges, crit multipliers, finessablility, two-handed power attack, damage type for getting through DR, reach, trip, and so on, in general.

For example: A Warhammer is 1d8: same as a Battleaxe or a Longsword. The only real difference is the crit, which is 20/x3, 20/x3, and 19-20/x2 respectively... which are mathametically going to have about the same effect most the time. They're also the same category - one-handed martial weapons.

As another example: A Light Hammer is 1d4 (average 2.5); a shortsword is 1d6 (average 3.5). The difference is, on average, just 1 point of damage (until you get into crits, where the shortsword has a noticeable advantage with the 19-20/x2 crit vs. the 20/x2 crit).

[Acanous]

As a lover of hammers and axes, I’ve noticed this. However, if your build is martial, you really aren’t going to care much outside of extreme multiplier builds- such as a shock trooping Uber charger dual wielding lances with pounce.
In tat case, every base point really matters, because it’s multiplied some 15 times, and adds up quickly.

Still, with those builds you get locked into lances anyways. The Hammer/Sword fight is really more of an aesthetic choice. You’re either going some kind of gish, in which case it’s going to matter a little bit until you get mighty wallop, or you’re going into some book of 9 swords hijinks... both ways your choice of what *type* of weapon really stops mattering. Unless you needed Keen or Vorpal for some reason.

[Vizzerdrix]

So in this hammer based topic, how would the war spikard fit in? Also wht enchantments can the darn thing take?

[Aresneo]

Unless you needed Keen or Vorpal for some reason.

There is an equivalent to keen for bludgeon weapons, I think it's called Impact, but will have to double check.

[Necroticplague]

The Executioner's Mace is a pretty good weapon, and it's pretty hammer-like. 2d6 20x2 is only slightly below average*, and B/S or B/P is a pretty good damage spread. And curiously enough, martial.

*=With the average being Greatsword 2d6 19x2 or greataxe 1d12 20/x3

[Thurbane]

There is an equivalent to keen for bludgeon weapons, I think it's called Impact, but will have to double check.

Exactly correct: Impact, MIC p. 37. Along with Disruption (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#disruption), the only other bludgeoning only weapon property (unless there's 3.0 or FR/Eberron stuff I've missed; which there's a good chance I have).

Bracers of Great Collision (MIC p.80) also only work with bludgeoning weapons.

[Karl Aegis]

Light hammers are one of the only sources of ranged bludgeoning damage. Their decent range increment combines well with Far Shot for a decent range. It's cheap, too. Only 1 gp a hammer.

[Mordaedil]

Light hammers are one of the only sources of ranged bludgeoning damage. Their decent range increment combines well with Far Shot for a decent range. It's cheap, too. Only 1 gp a hammer.
Slings outclass light hammers as far as all of that goes. Same damage, longer range (50 ft.), cheaper ammunition (100 shots for 1 gold), deals bludgeoning damage.

The only advantage light hammers have is that they can used in melee without a penalty.

[noob]

Slings outclass light hammers as far as all of that goes. Same damage, longer range (50 ft.), cheaper ammunition (100 shots for 1 gold), deals bludgeoning damage.

The only advantage light hammers have is that they can used in melee without a penalty.

Also thrown weapons have feat lines for getting an equivalent of power attack and which allows to use your strength modifier.
And they does not counts as projectiles.
And you can enchant them with returning to reuse them.

[Fizban]

In particular, Greatclubs compared to Mauls; there's no mechanical reason to use the former even without the EWP to wield the latter one-handed, that I can think of anyway.
More specifically, there's no "reason" to use the greatclub regardless of the maul. It's a primitive blunt weapon when the game generally implies edged weapons are always an upgrade (see improved weapons in CW), whose only advantage is being basically the cheapest two-handed weapon on the core tables- only the spear and quarterstaff are cheaper, with less damage. Meanwhile the maul was deliberately made for people that looked at the normal weapon list and said "hey why no bastard-hammer?" They serve two completely different niches. Why is the greatclub a martial weapon? Because someone decided the cutoff for simple weapons was 1d8, pretty dang sure.

The PHB weapon list, well people like to whine about how "oh nothing in dnd is realistic," but a lot of it is actually trying (even succeeds sometimes). Should a big wooden stick the size of a greatsword deal as much damage as a greatsword or axe? No, obviously not, they invented swords and axes for a reason, even if you put spikes or bands on it the thing won't be as good as a proper weapon. In dnd terms, that means less damage. What about real-life two handed axes and hammers? More like polearms actually, and notice the 3.5 polearms all deal 1d8, 2d4, or 1d10 damage. The fact that you're allowed to two-hand any one-handed weapon in dnd seems pretty inaccurate from what I've gathered: a hilt long enough for two hands leaves the weapon less secure and more awkward in one, while a properly one-handed hilt literally has nowhere for your other hand to grip, and controlling an overlong haft can't be any better. But 3.5 doesn't care and one-handed weapons are actually 1-2 with no penalties for either. So you have to kinda assume all the one-handed weapons have two-handed grips or haft lengths anyway. In that sense the standard warhammer is already a two-handed weapon, as would be the mace, which could also be one or two handed.

The damage type of bludgeoning weapons in general is also an advantage, to a certain degree. Aside from skeletons and liches, the rules for smashing objects include a particular line or two no one ever mentions: ineffective weapons, and vulnerability to certain attacks. Most people assume that if you can roll damage with it, you can smash anything you want, but the PHB says no such thing. Normally hitting a stone wall with a sword or even an axe is going to result in a wrecked blade and a scuffed wall, you need a sledgehammer for that- but warhammers and maces weigh quite a bit and don't have an edge to break. Or, if they don't want to rule anything but piercing weapons innefective, they might give a bonus for having the correct type.

And speaking of smashing objects, a mace is much harder to sunder with four times the hit points of a longsword and twice the hardness of a one-handed axe or hammer (the greatclub isn't properly represented [it should be thicker than a haft], but extrapolating I'd expect it to have hardness 5 and 20hp).

There's also weapon maintenance. Not part of any rules, but when you're using a blade you might need to make a point of cleaning, sharpening, oiling, and it needs a proper scabbard. A spear still has a tip to worry about. A blunt weapon should be taken care of, sure, but I'll bet a mace or greatclub can get away with waaaay less.


As for my taste, I don't actually mind being able to one or two hand "medium" weapons as the default, though putting it all into words makes me realize that's the perfect tradeoff for people who want bonuses from fancy hilts and whatnot: single hand only. I'll allow the maul or a 1d12 greathammer, greatclubs are a simple weapon, and I've buffed the mace category by getting rid of CW's terrible warmace and replacing it with a d10 simple two-handed/exotic one-handed version. (I originally had it one-handed as a martial weapon, but decided that was too cheap for enabling big-weapon/wallop).

[Mordaedil]

Also thrown weapons have feat lines for getting an equivalent of power attack and which allows to use your strength modifier.
And they does not counts as projectiles.
And you can enchant them with returning to reuse them.

One word. Halfling.

[Bullet06320]

Not to self: invent balloon golems.

Borgora’s Inflatable Scare-Dragon
The Book of Wondrous Inventions AC11
granted is D&D, but there it is

[noob]

One word. Halfling.


+1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown weapons and slings.
Yaaay a boost to both of those fighting styles that under-perform relatively to ubercharging or spellcasting.

[Psyren]

Yaaay a boost to both of those fighting styles that under-perform relatively to ubercharging or spellcasting.

Pathfinder made slings much stronger; You could port some of those feats to 3.5 if your GM is on board.

[liquidformat]

I think it's mostly this. The PHB seems to think that bludgeoning is the best type, so B doesn't get the best weapons. Real life didn't seem to favor bludgeoning weapons much either.

Really, real life didn't favor bludgeoning weapons? Please actually do some research... In Medieval Europe at the height of knights and full armor bludgeoning was the best damage type. Flails, maces, and hammers were the best weapons to use against a fully armored knight because you didn't have to worry about breaking the armor to do serious damage to the person inside of it. Heck, historians even admit most of the swords used during that time were either sharpened points that you aim at the gaps in armor or not sharpened at all and used to bludgeon. It is similar idea to looking at car safety in the 40s and 50s. Sure the car could go through some pretty nasty accidents and still look great but everyone inside was dead...



The PHB weapon list, well people like to whine about how "oh nothing in dnd is realistic," but a lot of it is actually trying (even succeeds sometimes). Should a big wooden stick the size of a greatsword deal as much damage as a greatsword or axe? No, obviously not, they invented swords and axes for a reason, even if you put spikes or bands on it the thing won't be as good as a proper weapon. In dnd terms, that means less damage. What about real-life two handed axes and hammers? More like polearms actually, and notice the 3.5 polearms all deal 1d8, 2d4, or 1d10 damage. The fact that you're allowed to two-hand any one-handed weapon in dnd seems pretty inaccurate from what I've gathered: a hilt long enough for two hands leaves the weapon less secure and more awkward in one, while a properly one-handed hilt literally has nowhere for your other hand to grip, and controlling an overlong haft can't be any better. But 3.5 doesn't care and one-handed weapons are actually 1-2 with no penalties for either. So you have to kinda assume all the one-handed weapons have two-handed grips or haft lengths anyway. In that sense the standard warhammer is already a two-handed weapon, as would be the mace, which could also be one or two handed.


I think this really depends on the fighting style and weapon you are talking about. Traditionally the long sword fighting style of Medieval Europe had the knight gripping the blade just above the hilt with his second gloved hand. This was considered a very effective style and allowed for more power and range, where as yes something like a rapier or shamshir it is pretty much impossible to actually wield with two hands granted both of these weapons should fall under the the finesse line and not be allowed with two hands. If you start looking at hafted weapons traditional viking axes lend themselves well to one or two hands and are believed to be used interchangeably between one and town handed. Depending on how maces and hammers were designed the same could be said of them.

I have always found dnd polearms to be strange since they should be by all rights the highest damage weapons you come across, my only guess is their lesser damage is an attempt to represent the fact that they are harder to wield? Then again most armies were horrified of peasants with their modified war scythes to the point that they would kill any smith on sight who was known to modify them, so that would kind of put a damper on that argument.

I always thought of the full-blade to be a representation of the massive flamberge or zweihander whereas the greatsword is more of the slightly better scaled claymore.

[MrSandman]

Traditionally the long sword fighting style of Medieval Europe had the knight gripping the blade just above the hilt with his second gloved hand. This was considered a very effective style and allowed for more power and range,


Not really. Maybe you're thinking about claymores? I've seen it argued that swords gripped right above the hilt is a myth.

At any rate, longswords were never held that way. For close combat, the wielder would grip the blade about a third of the way from the point (as opposed to the hilt). There's loads of illustrations and explanations about that in books such as Il fiore de bataglia, written by one of the best-known Italian fencing masters of the Late Middle Ages.

[Deadline]

Weapons in D&D follow a formula. The gist is this - there are five items that are considered when creating a weapon.


Damage die/dice
Crit range/multiplier
weapon proficiency (simple, martial, exotic)
classification (light, one-handed, two-handed, ranged)
special benefit (bonus on combat maneuvers)


If you gain in one area, you generally lose in another. You can generally test this. You can see that the Battleaxe and the Longsword are equivalent in this model. Both are one-handed martial melee weapons that deal 1d8 damage. The Longsword has a crit range of 19-20/x2, and the Battleaxe is 20/x3. There are a couple of weapons that fail to follow this formula (the light hammer was pointed out as one), but most are similar.

[Fizban]

I have always found dnd polearms to be strange since they should be by all rights the highest damage weapons you come across, my only guess is their lesser damage is an attempt to represent the fact that they are harder to wield? Then again most armies were horrified of peasants with their modified war scythes to the point that they would kill any smith on sight who was known to modify them, so that would kind of put a damper on that argument.

I always thought of the full-blade to be a representation of the massive flamberge or zweihander whereas the greatsword is more of the slightly better scaled claymore.
I would expect it's because for all the attempt at realism in some places, in the end the designers were still running with the feel-good big sword/big axe= best damage. There's also a bit of mechanical balance as reach is a massive advantage, so having a tiny bit less damage makes things look more fair on paper to anyone who's not using a polearm. The halberd lacks reach, but still has anti-charge with a bit more damage, and the trip-capable quality is for some reason considered worth even on non-reach weapons where all it does is let you drop your weapon to avoid being tripped. How terrified knights are of peasants in DnD depends entirely on what class, level, and stats you assign to "peasant" and "knight," but in general a bunch of peasants can indeed wreck anyone without at least 5+ levels or the right magic (with or without longspears, and most likely with casualties).

[Nifft]

IThe halberd lacks reach, but still has anti-charge with a bit more damage, and the trip-capable quality is for some reason considered worth even on non-reach weapons where all it does is let you drop your weapon to avoid being tripped.

It does a bit more than that.

Normally to initiate a trip maneuver...

Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.

... so using a halberd means you don't provoke an AoO, plus you can drop it to avoid being tripped.

Of course, I'd expect someone who uses the trip maneuver to do so after taking Improved Trip, so at higher levels that feature might be a bit moot, but it's there.

Also it's got dual damage types, which can be nice.

[Fizban]

Aha! Thanks, now it actually makes sense. And is indeed quite useful for the peasant because that AoO is what makes tripping (or grappling) so risky for them, even without proficiency a trip weapon should reduce their casualties quite a bit.

[Deophaun]

Heck, historians even admit most of the swords used during that time were either sharpened points that you aim at the gaps in armor or not sharpened at all and used to bludgeon.
There are even historians who admit the pyramids were built by aliens.
https://i.imgur.com/CpFSJOv.png

[Nifft]

There are even historians who admit the pyramids were built by aliens.
https://i.imgur.com/CpFSJOv.png

Imgur pictures are broken for people who don't already have the image in the browser's cache -- in other words, it works for you but not others. I didn't even see that you had an image until I quoted your post. It's a new policy they just implemented. I've been using imgBB.com instead.

On that subject, here's some photographic evidence from a complex historical simulation program which directly supports the idea that ancient aliens existed:

https://image.ibb.co/nqh5Ko/I_m_not_saying_it_was_aliens.png (https://imgbb.com/)

[Deophaun]

It's a new policy they just implemented. I've been using imgBB.com instead.
Thanks for the heads up. So long, imgur.