What's up with core bludgeoning weapons?

[Eladrinblade]

You have one-handed bludgeoning weapons, from bad (club) to good (warhammer). I can understand not having many ranged ones, given that they just aren't too practical (there's only two: slings for projectile and throwing hammer for throwing, both "light"). Then, for two-handed, literally all there is is the greatclub, which is martial for some reason and sub-par to greataxes and greatswords.
edit: and heavy flails (gives up some damage for trip)

Why?

Is bludgeoning the superior damage type for some reason? In real life, there were two-handed clubs (without metal like the greatclub), morningstars, warhammers, lucerne hammers (kinda more piercing, though, I guess), unless I'm mistaken? Is there some balance issue to this?

[XionUnborn01]

Well, there's light and heavy maces, regular clubs, morningatars, flails, and more.

Is there anything else you really needed?

Edit: I forgot the confusing but still real heavy flail which is actually pretty decent.

[Tamior]

A medium character can only swing with that much force, and something sharp is intrinsically more damaging to most living things than something blunt.

[XionUnborn01]

A medium character can only swing with that much force, and something sharp is intrinsically more damaging to most living things than something blunt.

That's very true. People can take quite the beating and keep moving unless you break bones like femurs and ulnas. A sword can take someone basically out of the fight with a cut to the leg or side. Faster more efficient killing tools.

[KillianHawkeye]

What is your actual question here? :smallconfused:

[ExLibrisMortis]

A medium character can only swing with that much force, and something sharp is intrinsically more damaging to most living things than something blunt.
On an unarmoured soft-bodied target, like a human, sure, and I think that's probably what WotC was thinking of. Nevertheless, I do think it's a little silly to make slashing damage slightly higher, because the rest of the combat system doesn't really get into that kind of detail.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, in core the martial bludgeoning weapon options are a bit lackluster compared to slashing and piercing. Splatbooks offer plenty of new bludgeoning options including the greathammer, which is basically a bludgeoning version of a greatsword (x3 instead of 19-20, of course), if I recall correctly. Plus reach weapon options.

Out of the core options, I do really like Heavy Flail. Tripping and +2 disarm make nifty for lots of situations, and I prefer larger crit threat range to higher multiplier, and it's one of the rare bludgeoning weapons that gives 19-20 threat range rather than x3 multiplier.

Club also shouldn't be disrespected as a simple weapon. Can be used for melee or ranged, apply str to damage for either, and they're free so there's no reason not to keep some. One of the best simple weapons, I think. Sling is arguably better than bows and crossbows at early levels before you have iterative attacks (at least for those w/ high str), too. Dirt cheap and applies full str bonus to damage right from the start, vs. paying hundreds of gp for a composite bow.

[Manyasone]

I don't know, guys. In my opinion when you smack a mace against someone's face they generally stay smacked
Blunt trauma is one of the worst. It crushes without opening the wound leaving lots of internal goodness going on... A cut is easier to treat in my opinion

[Esprit15]

I don't know, guys. In my opinion when you smack a mace against someone's face they generally stay smacked
Blunt trauma is one of the worst. It crushes without opening the wound leaving lots of internal goodness going on... A cut is easier to treat in my opinion

A sword or axe to the face is generally way worse.

[Crichton]

A sword or axe to the face is generally way worse.

Thing is, at least with real medieval plate armor, slashing weapons can be deflected with little or no problem for the one being hit. Getting smacked in the face with a heavy flail, even with a plate helm, still does a lot of damage, and is very disorienting. Not sure what the game designers had in mind, but to say that swords or axes do more damage per hit just isn't true, at least not in all cases. On a perfectly lined up hit to an unarmored target, maybe, but with armor, of any kind, and a heavy bludgeoning weapon just might do more damage.

[noob]

Thing is, at least with real medieval plate armor, slashing weapons can be deflected with little or no problem for the one being hit. Getting smacked in the face with a heavy flail, even with a plate helm, still does a lot of damage, and is very disorienting. Not sure what the game designers had in mind, but to say that swords or axes do more damage per hit just isn't true, at least not in all cases. On a perfectly lined up hit to an unarmored target, maybe, but with armor, of any kind, and a heavy bludgeoning weapon just might do more damage.

two handed swords usually double up as heavy bludgeoning weapons.

[Blackhawk748]

two handed swords usually double up as heavy bludgeoning weapons.

When you turn them around and use the handle, sure, but DnD doesnt let you do that. Really, bludgeoning weapons in DnD are worse for no real reason, because, as far as damage is concerned, a sword and a mace are roughly equal. The primary difference is that a sword has better reach and is better against non or lightly armored opponents, while maces are better against more heavily armored opponents. Oh and maces need to be paired with a shield while swords dont, as they are better at parrying.

[gkathellar]

To the OP's comment: yes, it's odd that there are no two-handed bludgeons other than the greatclub. I think the oversight is grounded in pop-culture - two-handed flails, maces, and warhammers all exist and look plenty cool, but they don't get a ton of play in pop-fantasy. Heroes prefer swords (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroesPreferSwords) and all that.

Trying to rationalize the oddity with arguments about realism is a mug's game. The very concept of damage-types doesn't hold up when subjected to realistic scrutiny; to whit, is a lucerne hammer a bludgeoning weapon, or a piercing weapon? The answer is neither and both.

[ben-zayb]

Thing is, at least with real medieval plate armor, slashing weapons can be deflected with little or no problem for the one being hit. Getting smacked in the face with a heavy flail, even with a plate helm, still does a lot of damage, and is very disorienting. Not sure what the game designers had in mind, but to say that swords or axes do more damage per hit just isn't true, at least not in all cases. On a perfectly lined up hit to an unarmored target, maybe, but with armor, of any kind, and a heavy bludgeoning weapon just might do more damage.Considering its cost both in D&D and IRL, how many in an army of thousands or more would be able to afford and be trained to wear plate armor, just for a heavy flail's justification to be more damaging to matter?

I'm no military scientist, but heavy flails look horribly unwieldy and off-balancing compared to typical ancient/medieval weapons like swords, axes, and spears.

Consider bladed and pointed weapons, on the other hand, which can cause heavy wounds with as little effort as the wielder positioning these weapons at the right place (at the right time). Wall of blades and wall of spears are fantasy staples, even.

That said, my comments are more or less just my admittedly biased perception of these weapons. If we are going to pursue a RL reasoning, then I would highly recommend asking people from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?571567-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVII) thread instead, if slashing and piercing weapons are indeed generally more effective in inflicting damage than bludgeoning weapons.

[Particle_Man]

Also once we leave core behind there are Bludgeoning two handed weapons that keep up. Maybe Wotc changed their minds?

I have a horrible suspicion it all goes back to first edition when having each weapon have a to hit modifier vary by armor type of the target was a balancing factor. With the latter removed, two handed swords just did more damage, and that might have carried over through the editions.

[Eladrinblade]

Also once we leave core behind there are Bludgeoning two handed weapons that keep up. Maybe Wotc changed their minds?
There is a noted difference between the design philosophy of core and the splats that came later, like it's two completely different teams of people.


I have a horrible suspicion it all goes back to first edition when having each weapon have a to hit modifier vary by armor type of the target was a balancing factor. With the latter removed, two handed swords just did more damage, and that might have carried over through the editions.

This seems pretty likely.

Now, for balance concerns; would I be wrong to let people use a two-handed 2d6 morningstar as a simple weapon? Making a greatclub a simple weapon?

[HouseRules]

Heroes prefer sidearms over main arms. Remember the difference: Sidearms are secondary weapons, Main arms are primary weapons. Main Arms are all pole arms, pikes and spears wield in a one-handed fashion, but are otherwise mostly two-handed weapons in D&D.

[gkathellar]

There is a noted difference between the design philosophy of core and the splats that came later, like it's two completely different teams of people.

Dozens of different teams, really.


Now, for balance concerns; would I be wrong to let people use a two-handed 2d6 morningstar as a simple weapon? Making a greatclub a simple weapon?

Go for it.

[Zanos]

Don't think anyone mentioned it, but DR/Bludgeoning is the most common damage reduction type. Bludgeoning weapons also do full damage to tiny swarms.

In that sense bludgeoning is the best damage type to have. Also bludgeoning weapons are cheap, but that doesn't usually matter.

[Blackhawk748]

Considering its cost both in D&D and IRL, how many in an army of thousands or more would be able to afford and be trained to wear plate armor, just for a heavy flail's justification to be more damaging to matter?

I'm no military scientist, but heavy flails look horribly unwieldy and off-balancing compared to typical ancient/medieval weapons like swords, axes, and spears.

Consider bladed and pointed weapons, on the other hand, which can cause heavy wounds with as little effort as the wielder positioning these weapons at the right place (at the right time). Wall of blades and wall of spears are fantasy staples, even.

That said, my comments are more or less just my admittedly biased perception of these weapons. If we are going to pursue a RL reasoning, then I would highly recommend asking people from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?571567-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVII) thread instead, if slashing and piercing weapons are indeed generally more effective in inflicting damage than bludgeoning weapons.

A lot, considering that DnD generally looks to be about the same tech level of the 14th century and there was an awful lot of plate and coats of plates during that time. On top of this the flail is a farming implement, most often used by militias (the so-called peasant flails, which are just unspiked versions of the heavy flail), the Hussites used these in large numbers during the 1400s.

Also, walls of blades are ridiculous and were far from typical. Swords are a sidearm. Spears (and other polearms) are the mainline battlefield weapons. Blunt weapons actually could see more mainline battlefield usage, with the Lucerne hammer, as well as several German cavalry hammers, seeing widespread use because plate was so common during this period as well as the fact that they just worked better than a sword from horseback as it was more forgiving.

So ya, DnD craps on blunt weapons for no good reason, just look at the Heavy Mace, it's inferior to the morning star in literally every way.


Heroes prefer sidearms over main arms. Remember the difference: Sidearms are secondary weapons, Main arms are primary weapons. Main Arms are all pole arms, pikes and spears wield in a one-handed fashion, but are otherwise mostly two-handed weapons in D&D.

The only one of thoise listed that can be wielded in one arm are Spears, whcih have one handed versions in DnD. The rest are two handed and in the case of the Pike, are useless outside of a formation (which is why DnD doesnt have them). Spears in two hands are also perfectly fine and in fact can be better against a sword and shield in a one on one fight than a spear and shield vs sword and shield, as you have a greater reach advantage. Of course, DnD doenst care about this, so spears just suck in general.

[HouseRules]

Spears are technically a type of pole-arms (pole-daggers), but they are one-handed in D&D.

D&D started from war games, so fighting in formation makes sense at first. However, heroes are specifically more important.

Level 1 = Sergeant
Level 2 = 3rd Lieutenant
Level 3 = 2nd Lieutenant
Level 4 = 1st Lieutenant
Level 5 = 3rd Captain
Level 6 = 2nd Captain
Level 7 = 1st Captain
Level 8 = Major
Level 9 = Lieutenant Colonel
Level 10 = Colonel

Fantasy and heroism made the characters so much more powerful than the TRUE MUNDANES.

Also, I agree that bludgeoning damage is too low because the hit point system sucks. Bludgeoning Damage should do non-lethal damage on top of their standard lethal damage for balance.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Now, for balance concerns; would I be wrong to let people use a two-handed 2d6 morningstar as a simple weapon? Making a greatclub a simple weapon?

As a Simple Weapon? Yes, that would be unbalanced. There are no 2H simple weapons that do 2d6 base damage to my knowledge, even out of core.
As a martial weapon? It'd be fine.

Not sure about Greatclub as a simple weapon, either. 1d10 and x3 crit is better than the rest (technically on par w/ longspear's d8 and reach w/ a x3, but longspear is probably the best melee simple weapon in the game, and the designers seemed reluctant to have a "straight damage" 2H option for simple weapons)

[Menzath]

I thought battlefield full plate didn't go into full usage till after the Advent of basic firearms which made them worthless. Granted there was still ornametel plate abound, but that was of course for events.
Mostly it was chain mail and layerd leather armor with solid helmets. Chain was great for deflecting most swords and hit or miss on pikes and Spears. But did verly little to your typical bludgeoning weapons.

Also the standard old style great sword was mostly a chunk of iron given a basic edge, it "cut" with mostly it's sheer weight and the force needed to swing it. This was done so that little matinence would be needed and to be useful against various types of armor(or no armor).

The whole system is definitely not based on rl, and in various parts of 3/3.5 you see relics from older editions that don't make sense.

So if you as a DM want to change some things up to make sense, all for it.

I know at my table though we have two things we say for when things don't make sense.
"Effing magic" and
"Snow on flat roofs"

[Blackhawk748]

I thought battlefield full plate didn't go into full usage till after the Advent of basic firearms which made them worthless. Granted there was still ornamental plate abound, but that was of course for events.
Mostly it was chain mail and layered leather armor with solid helmets. Chain was great for deflecting most swords and hit or miss on pikes and Spears. But did verly little to your typical bludgeoning weapons

No, plate and guns coexisted for several hundred years, with plate finally dying in the 17th century. Hell, early hand gunners wore plate to allow them to close the distance to the enemy before unleashing a barrage of fire.


Mostly it was chain mail and layerd leather armor with solid helmets. Chain was great for deflecting most swords and hit or miss on pikes and Spears. But did verly little to your typical bludgeoning weapons

Mail started getting phased out in the 14th and 15th century with Coats of Plates being cheaper and easier to make as well as being just better at protecting what they covered. Mail just covered the parts that they couldn't cover with plates.

Also, there is no evidence of them using layered leather with mail at any point, they wore gambesons underneath, which are made of linen.


Also the standard old style great sword was mostly a chunk of iron given a basic edge, it "cut" with mostly it's sheer weight and the force needed to swing it. This was done so that little matinence would be needed and to be useful against various types of armor(or no armor).

No, no, no, no, not even a little. Swords had edges, they had sharpened edges because they are designed to cut, even the big honking Greatswords (the ones that are basically a sword-shaped polearm included). If they ran into Plate they either half sworded and just stabbed through the gaps in the armor with the tip (this is why later period swords have a far more pronounced taper into the tip) or they spun it around and used it as a mace in the Murder Stroke.

Swords where best against lightly or non-armored enemies, which is why there made great sidearms for civilians, and they could do ok against fully armored opponents which is why soldiers used them.

[Zanos]

Plate wasn't phased out because it was useless against early firearms, it was phased out because lightly trained peasants with guns are much cheaper than trained knights with expensive armor, and national armies were becoming the dominant engine of warfare over families of landed knights. Firearms did also get better, though.

Full plated knights were the backbone infantry of pretty much every army for hundreds of years.

[HouseRules]

Bronze plate did not develop in the Ancient Era and Classical Era because a full set of armor could create 10 or more weapons. The same could be said between full plate and firearms. It is cheaper to create a large army than a well armored army.

[Blackhawk748]

Hell, there is evidence that early firearms actually couldn't pierce plate at anything other than point blank ranges. There are dents that appear to be from early bullets that have been found in plate armor of the period.

As others have said, it was just cheaper to have 10 guys with muzzleloaders than it was to have the one well-equipped knight and his horse, even though they did keep the horseman around for a bit longer simply because they still served a purpose.

[Menzath]

And that's why I'm not a historian. Hurray for learning something new.

[HouseRules]

Even during the Napoleon Wars, full plate could stop far away bullets. In fact, Cavalries tend to use their sabres more often then the pistols, because they are not trained in using pistols.

[Particle_Man]

Technically they still have versions of plate armour that can stand up to most hand gun and rifle bullets, but they call them tanks now. But yeah, tanks ain't cheap.

[Zanos]

Technically they still have versions of plate armour that can stand up to most hand gun and rifle bullets, but they call them tanks now. But yeah, tanks ain't cheap.
No, it's called a level IV plate, and is literally a hardened steel or ceramic plate inside a kevlar vest. Costs a few hundred dollars.

[Blackhawk748]

No, it's called a level IV plate, and is literally a hardened steel or ceramic plate inside a kevlar vest. Costs a few hundred dollars.

You can make stuff for like 20 bucks that can stop shotguns and most handgun rounds. Its literally just resin and thick fabric all layered together.

Besides, we all know tanks are cavalry.

[Remuko]

back on topic, Tanks can also be a bludgeoning weapon :P

[HouseRules]

back on topic, Tanks can also be a bludgeoning weapon :P

So are Kinetic Energy Penetrators, or are they Piercing/Bludgeoning and Ballistics since they travel so fast?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Besides, we all know tanks are cavalry.

https://i.imgur.com/PzlsQC3.png

[King of Nowhere]

the videogame dragon age handled it in a good way: weapons had base damage, speed, and armor penetration. Armor gave a percentage damage reduction, and armor penetration reduced that amount. swords had greater base damage and speed, so you made more attacks for more damage, but hammers had more penetration, so they were better against armored enemies.

Unfortunately, that's not possible in d&d. A videogame can easily handle having two percentage modifier for every hit damage, but for pen and paper the math takes already enough time.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, in core the martial bludgeoning weapon options are a bit lackluster compared to slashing and piercing. Splatbooks offer plenty of new bludgeoning options including the greathammer, which is basically a bludgeoning version of a greatsword (x3 instead of 19-20, of course), if I recall correctly. Plus reach weapon options.

The Minotaur Greathammer in MMIV is about as good as exotic weapons get - though opinion is heavily divided on whether it's crit range (19-20/x4) has been misprinted or not.

[Gallowglass]

Way back in 1e DnD there was an (optional) table of weapon vs armor where damage and AC changed depending on the weapon used vs the armor used. This was to enable the exact issue(s) you are referencing. For example, plate armors deflect slashing weapons but are weak vs piercing weapons and bludgeoning weapons. (as an example, I don't want to hear about all the ways that statement is wrong)

It was convoluted and confusing and abandoned in later versions as being too much work for too little benefit. So we end up where we are today. Not counting magic there are specific weapons that are just better than other weapons. You can use convoluted feat chains to make some weapons improve, however there are simpler feat chains that keep those same weapons just... better.

It wouldn't be too hard to envision a game where you find a way to make all weapons at least somewhat balanced by giving them strengths and weaknesses so that there is a sling build that competes to a great sword build or something BUT it would either be very complex and convoluted or simplified to a point where instead of wielding a lucerne hammer or long sword you are wielding a slashing weapon 1 or bludgeoning weapon 3 or similar then simply calling it what you want to call it. *shrug*

To add to that, magic is so much more of a concern the way the game is built that there isn't a lot of space to make a fun and interesting mundane weapon vs mundane armor differentiation. I mean, the best most wonderful mundane weaponcraft gives you +1 to hit, +0 to damage. Not a long of wiggle space there.

I remember someone coming up with a homebrew system where they slapped certain feat chains intrinsic on weapons so that if you took weapon focus (sling) for example, you automatically got access to some feats at level points you can use with the sling without having to take the feats. On some weapons, they let you chose some feats at level points in order to give you some customization. Basically it was "if you chose to specialize in a weapon, you get feats for free so you can use your actual feats to do something else" It was kind of a way of getting out of the must-have feat chains where, if you want to be an archer, you know what feats you are going to take from 1-20 already with no ability to be good at anything else. It was kind of a cool system, but I never played it, just thought it seemed pretty cool. It certainly made it more interesting to pick a Glaive Guisarme instead of a Glaive and have a reasonable reason why.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The Minotaur Greathammer in MMIV is about as good as exotic weapons get - though opinion is heavily divided on whether it's crit range (19-20/x4) has been misprinted or not.

I was thinking of the Goliath Greathammer, which is basically a Greatsword, except bludgeoning rather than slashing, x3 rather than 19-20, and (obviously) heavier.

[Segev]

It is worth noting that the rules permit non-light weapons to be wielded two-handed even if they’re one-handed, normally. So go ahead and two-hand that heavy hammer for strength-and-a-half bonus damage.