Hammer of Thunderbolts

[tristan_rt]

Hi,

My DM and i have been wondering about the artifact Hammer of Thunderbolts.

Is it a thundering weapon, it does not have the thundering descriptor, but when you read what it does, the noise like a thunderclap, the stunning ability, it certainly seems like it is.

Another question is, what kind of damage is it, it states concussive force.... but just as with a modern day sonic boom, that force is actually vibratory it causes damage; sonic damage. Concussion is a force via sound also. Or if not sonic in nature, than certainly force damage. The thunderclap is not electrical,fire,cold,holy, etc, it is either sonic, or force damage.

Which do you think???? and what of it being a thundering weapon???

[Amal Ulric]

I think you need to read the description in the DMG a little closer. No, the Hammer of Thunderbolts is not a thundering weapon. Making it so would be gilding the lily, i.e. not really necessary. Additionally, the 4d6 damage it does on a hit is weapon damage and does not use a descriptor. It is not sonic, electric, or anything else of that nature. I don't know of anything other than spells that does force damage. As for the concussive, deafening thunder, that is flavor text for the stunning effect and not really a damage-relevant game mechanic.

[tristan_rt]

Thank You for your response:

(I think you need to read the description in the DMG a little closer. )

OK let's do that.

"Hammer of Thunderbolts: This +3 Large returning warhammer deals 4d6 points of damage on any hit. Further, if the wielder wears a belt of giant Strength and gauntlets of ogre power and he knows that the hammer is a hammer of thunderbolts (not just a +3 warhammer), the weapon can be used to full effect: It gains a total +5 enhancement bonus, allows all belt and gauntlet bonuses to stack (only when using this weapon), and strikes dead any giant upon whom it scores a hit (Fortitude DC 20 negates the death effect but not the damage). When hurled, on a successful attack the hammer emits a great noise, like a clap of thunder, causing all creatures within 90 feet to be stunned for 1 round (Fortitude DC 15 negates). The hammer’s range increment is 30 feet."

To verify that I have read it, and to put it out there for all others that have not read it, but are interested in this discussion.

Here is the information on a Thundering weapon:

Thundering

A thundering weapon creates a cacophonous roar like thunder upon striking a successful critical hit. The sonic energy does not harm the wielder. A thundering weapon deals an extra 1d8 points of sonic damage on a successful critical hit. If the weapon’s critical multiplier is ×3, add an extra 2d8 points of sonic damage instead, and if the multiplier is ×4, add an extra 3d8 points of sonic damage. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the sonic energy upon their ammunition. Subjects dealt a critical hit by a thundering weapon must make a DC 14 Fortitude save or be deafened permanently.

"Gilding the Lily" interesting perspective.

In the weapons description it states : "When hurled, on a successful attack the hammer emits a great noise, like a clap of thunder" and in the Thundering weapon descriptor it states: "A thundering weapon creates a cacophonous roar like thunder upon striking...." Hmmmm, seems similar to me almost identical.

Further the damage for this weapon on a critical hit is x3, which they go out of their way to include in the Thundering Weapon descriptor :" If the weapon’s critical multiplier is ×3, add an extra 2d8 points of sonic damage instead, and if the multiplier is ×4, add an extra 3d8 points of sonic damage."

They point out it is sonic damage, the extra damage that is. The damage of a thundering weapon on a critical hit.

I understand what you are saying and i guess i didn't clarify myself....... i completely agree that the 4d6 dice of damage is physical weapon damage,,,,,, what i am asking is 1) On a critical hit would you also gain the +3d8 points of sonic damage, and 2) is the stunning effect caused by sonic means, so if you were say deaf or in a sound proof area, etc it would have no effect.

This is relevant in two ways: First if the stunning effect of a hammer of thunderbolts is not sonic than it effects you everywhere deaf or not soundproof or not, and that would follow in line with it not being a thundering weapon, but if it is a sonic effect and you can avoid it with a silence spell, being deaf etc, than that sounds sonic in nature, and the weapon should therefore have the thundering descriptor, and also get the bonus on a critical hit.

What would be unfair is to try to "Gild the Lily" as you say the other way, and penalize the weapon as not being Thundering, but also it's effect are sonic, so that being deaf would aid you against it's stunning effect.

Oh and the very nature of not only how it functions in comparrison to the Thundering descriptor being so obviously similar, but the name itself "Hammer of Thunderbolts", doesn't that state the defacto nature of this weapon being a Thundering item. Isn't it obvious that that was the intent ???!!!!

Anyway, thank you for the reply, but i'm still not sure. Perhaps the input of others who can also state your position in response to what i have posted will help me to see it.

thanks again

No, the Hammer of Thunderbolts is not a thundering weapon. Making it so would be gilding the lily, i.e. not really necessary. Additionally, the 4d6 damage it does on a hit is weapon damage and does not use a descriptor. It is not sonic, electric, or anything else of that nature. I don't know of anything other than spells that does force damage. As for the concussive, deafening thunder, that is flavor text for the stunning effect and not really a damage-relevant game mechanic.

[Aberzombie]

Aaahhh...the good ol' Hammer of Thunderbolts. I has a 2E character that carried two of them. It wasn't a character from a regular campaign, just one that I would run with my little brother, in order to sharpen his DM skills. So the guy was a Chaotic Good Yuan-Ti Fighter-Mage, wielding two hammers and wearing a girdle of giant strength and gautnlets of ogre power. He even fought a Witchlit Marauder (from Spelljammer) by himself. Like I said, it was just for fun.

[christian mazel]

"Hammer of Thunderbolts: This +3 Large returning warhammer deals 4d6 points of damage on any hit. Further, if the wielder wears a belt of giant Strength and gauntlets of ogre power and he knows that the hammer is a hammer of thunderbolts (not just a +3 warhammer), the weapon can be used to full effect: It gains a total +5 enhancement bonus, allows all belt and gauntlet bonuses to stack (only when using this weapon), and strikes dead any giant upon whom it scores a hit (Fortitude DC 20 negates the death effect but not the damage). When hurled, on a successful attack the hammer emits a great noise, like a clap of thunder, causing all creatures within 90 feet to be stunned for 1 round (Fortitude DC 15 negates). The hammer’s range increment is 30 feet."
Nowhere it is written that it's a thundering weapon, no reading between the lines, it would have been worded:This +3 Large returning THUNDERING warhammer deals 4d6 points of damage on any hit....
The rules are sometimes difficult to understand, we have to stay close to the text, nobody becomes an archmage by wielding a robe of archmagi.

[Amal Ulric]

I apologize if my first post seemed condescending. I agree with Christian in that the 3.5 game seems remarkably clear in much of its item descriptions. If the item (hammer, in this case) doesn't say that it's thundering, then it isn't thundering. I agree with you that the text of both the artifact and the thundering weapon quality shows remarkable similarities, but that should not be taken on its face. Now, the stunning ability of the hammer seems directly linked to a sonic power, i.e., the sound waves cause a minor concussion or some such. As to whether that would work in an area of magical silence? Well, of course it's the DM's discretion, but I'd be inclined to say that it *is* an artifact...

[cwslyclgh]

but I'd be inclined to say that it *is* an artifact.

I wouldn't.... minor artifacts are not artifacts... they are just very powerful magical items that WotC arbitrarily decided that PC should never be able to make... in fact although I much enjoy the current rules set I have to say that "Minor Artifacts" are probably the stupidist idea that was ever concieved... Just leave artifacts alone ai say and let there be some magical items that a PC can't create with the feats in the PHB.

[Tatterdemalion]

cwslyclgh wrote:

...I have to say that "Minor Artifacts" are probably the stupidist idea that was ever concieved... Just leave artifacts alone ai say and let there be some magical items that a PC can't create with the feats in the PHB.

I agree the category minor artifacts is, at the least, annoying. Artifacts have always held a special place in the D&D universe(s) -- there's no need to blur their definition with more run-of-the-mill items.

Jack