Teyvin's page

Welcome.

Teyvin wrote:

the other double weapons meant for use by medium-size users all do 1d8/1d8, and the urgrosh should as well.

Nope. That just doesn't follow. There's no reason why everything should match up that way. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but one could just as easily say "All these double weapons are far too similar. Lets mix them up a bit, like the urgosh."

Overall, I don't think anything you've said will hurt the game in any noticeable way, but there's really no need to apply the logic you've used. There are all sorts of reasons why it might work like any particular kind of spear (the axe head gets in the way, you have to use a different spear head, the balance is different, etc).
Besides, it's a made up weapon and I'm pretty sure the description was written to match the mechanics, not the other way around. If it really bugs you, you might find it easier to change the fluff instead.

Actually, as I am attempting to make a case for an errata change to a core weapon, logic is essential to my argument. The point you quote is the third I listed and I listed them in descending order of importance. The first was an actual point made with the rules as they stand, making the present stats inconsistent. The second is the fluff argument, using the text of the description to support my case. The third was put in for the min/max argument, as the urgrosh has inferior stats (to an orcish weapon, no less). An urgrosh is essentially a short halberd with the spear point moved from ahead of the axhead to the butt of the haft, and as the axhead is scaled down a tad for apparent balance-related issues (d8 instead of d10) it stands to reason that the spear point would need to be heftier for similar reasons.

This response is in the hope that a Paizo poster might catch it and respond.

Hope your week goes well...Steve

...close to my exact point...it is an excellent weapon, I just feel that it is misrepresented in the rules. I am attempting to redress this through semi-official channels in order to spread the gospel of the urgrosh to the unclean (and undead) masses...;-)

Hello, this is my first post here. While absorbing PRPG, and enjoying the depth it allows, I noticed an inconsistency which I felt worth addressing. Please note that this is NOT a re-opening of the debate over the wording of the entry concerning attack adjustment, etc.

I propose that the Dwarven Urgrosh be adjusted to be comparable with the other medium-size double weapons. While the axe-end matching a battle axe makes sense from a balance standpoint as opposed to using a dwarven waraxe-sized head, which is specified as "large and ornate"), the spear-end should NOT match a short spear (and SHOULD match a normal spear) for several reasons. First, a short spear cannot be braced, while the urgrosh can. Second, a short spear is listed as on a short haft, while the urgrosh is listed as using a long haft. Third, the other double weapons meant for use by medium-size users all do 1d8/1d8, and the urgrosh should as well. Also, given the known uses of long-hafted axes in history, the urgrosh should be allowed to make trip attacks (the orc double-axe, too, for that matter). For a bit of additional flavor, you could allow that the axehead has a maulaxe-design, and allow the urgrosh to do bludgeon (B) type damage, too, making it a very versatile weapon, assuming one did not want the protection of a shield (yes, I realize that you could use it with a shield, so long as you used it one-handed, with the restrictions that entails).

Thus, the new entry for the urgrosh would be 1d8/1d8/1d8 (allowing a warhammer-size maulaxe head, scaled-up from the handaxe-size of the one-handed weapon), S or P or B, and double/trip/brace. The critical would remain x3. If you prefer to not go with the maulaxe concept, then the new entry would be 1d8/1d8, x3, S or P, and double/trip/brace.

Yes, I know that one can do whatever one wants with house rules, but the differences in the spearhead made it feel like more of an errata level issue.

Thanks for your time...Steve