|
Hello all,
I'm of the opinion that with the maul and earthbreaker around that the great club is now not all that useful of a martial weapon. Thematically it seems to be just a big stick (club) or with proper function a large morningstar. With these other two weapons now usurping its bludgeoning prowess it seems to have fallen by the way-side except by ogres.
My question is: should we make the great club a simple weapon?
makes sense to me, considering Longspear is
possibly Sap too, since Light Mace is
|
|
Well, what are the considerations for changing the greatclub to a simple weapon...
This makes a d10 weapon available to some classes, such as the cleric, druid, rogue, bard, and sorcerer. Its still now a weapon that a bard or rogue would probably use but I could see a cleric, druid, and even the sorc choosing this weapon then.
It still only has a x2 critical threat, meaning it won't crit as hard as a spear. A longspear or spear, in most cases, is still better since one has reach and the other can be thrown and each has a higher critical. Therefore, the greatclub is still slightly under par in my opinion.
Is there a reason to leave it as a martial weapon?
It makes sense, especially when compared to the Morningstar: Simple Weapon, Bludgeoning AND Piercing, 1d8, x2.
Given the fact that, as a 1-handed weapon, can still be used with two hands (and so, benefit from Power Attack, Overhand Chop, and so on) with an average damage 1 point less than the Greatclub but 2 types of damage, it's superior to the Greatclub (IMHO) and accessible to almost all classes.
Plus, a Greatclub is basically a larger Club (with a slightly different size-progression) - which is a Simple weapon.
Just my 2c.
Seconded. Make it simple.
I'm undecided. I think one reason it's how it is, is because it's considered that it requires "Martial Training" to fight EFFECTIVELY with a Great Club, vs. a normal one... SO anyone CAN use it, they are just less effective/accurate. I'm not saying that it would be so horrible if it were made Simple, just that there might be some reasoning for not making it so.
I *DO* think the Earthbreaker/Great Hammer and Great Spear should go into Core (as Martial Weapon)
(E.B. renamed as Great Hammer if necessary for flavor neutrality).
The concept doesn't seem that setting specific, and it doesn't seem to make much sense to republish it in every Players Guide to each new AP.
I'm undecided. I think one reason it's how it is, is because it's considered that it requires "Martial Training" to fight EFFECTIVELY with a Great Club, vs. a normal one... SO anyone CAN use it, they are just less effective/accurate. I'm not saying that it would be so horrible if it were made Simple, just that there might be some reasoning for not making it so.
Think about it this way, then: A human PC trained in simple weapons can swing a Large morningstar for 2d6 damage with a -2 penalty, or a greatclub for 1d10 damage with a -4 penalty. Presumably the technique is about the same (bash someone over the head with something heavy), but one is superior in every way.
A martial greatclub that did 1d12 or 2d6 damage would make sense. So would a simple greatclub that did 1d10 damage.
Well... I currently have a human character using their human martial training to have greatclub proficiency. This is based on A&E/DMG weapon equivalency rules, as the character is an "Oriental" style character and chose to use a bokken/bokuto (being listed as using greatclub stats), which are the wooden training swords most Asian martial art sword schools use for practice. But these wooden blades are deadly in the hands of a trained wielder, and the famed Miyomoto Mushashi is said to have slain his greatest personal rival with such a weapon. As such, I can totally understand why it should be a martial weapon proficiency, at least in this context. It's not just something any person can pick up and use effectively. It requires a degree of training and skill to make this wooden sword into a lethal weapon. You can of course pick it up and swing about, but you'd just be using it with less potential than a warrior. Granted the stats are perhaps underwhelming, but from a certain point of view it is basically a blunt bastard sword. The crit range could stand to be increased a bit, to maybe 19-20, but it's not a deal breaker for me, as I picked the proficiency for story reasons.
Well... I currently have a human character using their human martial training to have greatclub proficiency. This is based on A&E/DMG weapon equivalency rules, as the character is an "Oriental" style character and chose to use a bokken/bokuto (being listed as using greatclub stats), which are the wooden training swords most Asian martial art sword schools use for practice. But these wooden blades are deadly in the hands of a trained wielder, and the famed Miyomoto Mushashi is said to have slain his greatest personal rival with such a weapon. As such, I can totally understand why it should be a martial weapon proficiency, at least in this context. It's not just something any person can pick up and use effectively. It requires a degree of training and skill to make this wooden sword into a lethal weapon. You can of course pick it up and swing about, but you'd just be using it with less potential than a warrior. Granted the stats are perhaps underwhelming, but from a certain point of view it is basically a blunt bastard sword. The crit range could stand to be increased a bit, to maybe 19-20, but it's not a deal breaker for me, as I picked the proficiency for story reasons.
I disagree with the two (bokken and greatclub) being considered the same for the purpose of proficiency. While it is true that the two CAN be wielded similarly, I would argue that the bokken, being lighter with a smaller striking area, would do less damage in the hands of someone not skilled in the use of its more lethal sister-weapon, the katana. Basically, because of its form, only someone truly practiced at the katana could bring the most out of a bokken. In order to get greatclub stats from a bokken, you should at least have access to it as a martial weapon (and as an exotic weapon to use it one-handed and retain the damage). The greatclub is just a large piece of wood, possibly banded with metal, that anyone with sufficient strength can swing and club the bajeezus out of things. Therein lies the difference.
Edit: Also worthy of note, making the greatclub a simple weapon is one of the few things that 4th Ed. definately got right.
to me it's a bit hit and miss, as to which weapons are where atm
"simple" implies construction, hence availability
"martial" infers quality, design complexity and access, thus availability
"exotic" implies foreign construction and materials, again availability
weapon style usage are sub-categories within each - the training
as in trained for light, heavy, ranged, 2 handed, etc
seems pretty straight forward to me, but a couple weapons listed don't abide by that
if the great club is just a bigger club, then it's just as simple.
if it's a spiked warclub, makes perfect sense to be a martial weapon.
even if just banded with metal, makes it a martial weapon - by design.
if crafted in an unusual way or shape, then it's exotic - by design.
the exact same weapon style is used to wield it in all four cases.
weapon damage shouldn't be a category factor, it's a tendency of coincidence
style used effects damage, style restricts both design and size used
better design causes more damage, design effects style used
bigger weapons cause more damage, size effects style used
better is not bigger, but may be. bigger is not better, but may be.
martial weapons cause more damage, because they are designed better for warfare
exotic weapons are martial weapons designed differently, not necessarily better
thank you for the example Asturysk, perfect timing :)
the core listing is western, eastern weapons are exotic
that bokken/bokuto should be an exotic weapon per description
but in an eastern setting it should be a martial weapon
the exotic and martial weapon categories swap names in that setting
the underlying problem causing great club to even be an issue seems clear to me.
why is a feat required, when the exact same weapon style is used?
it's like costing a feat to learn more spells in the same domain or school.
What makes sense to me:
Weapon styles that include weapon size, as is done now.
Restrict weapons used with a weapon style, as is done now.
Character size based weapon restrictions and exclusions for weapon styles.
Str and Dex requirements for weapon styles; same for certain weapons.
simple/martial/exotic effects price and availability, nothing more.
Restrict class weapon style access, ie those known and may learn.
Extremely odd design, or strange use, needs a special weapon style.
Weapon style based feats, instead of weapon design based feats.
Minor differences in looks or weight balance should not require a feat, as they do now.
But these wooden blades are deadly in the hands of a trained wielder, and the famed Miyomoto Mushashi is said to have slain his greatest personal rival with such a weapon. As such, I can totally understand why it should be a martial weapon proficiency, at least in this context.
Things Miyamoto Musashi did should not form the basis for any D&D considerations. That's as if saying that because Chuck Norris can skewer three guys on a single beard hair, people need to spend feats to be allowed to grow beards, or that female characters have a lower CR for lack of this deadly weapon.
Sure, Musashi did a lot of crazy things and got away with it, but that doesn't mean anything to a regular D&D character.
In the hand of someone who is merely trained, a bokken is not nearly as deadly as an actual katana, and the same goes for greatclub and greatsword.
Those wooden swords were so powerful in Musashi's hands because he was a high-level character, probably with really neat stats, and the proper feats.
In D&D, create a fighter 20 that specialises in the, say, gauntlet, and let him fight against a level 1 character with a +5 greatsword. That poor swordsman will be pummeled to pulp by that fighter. But that doesn't make a gauntlet an artifact-level exotic weapon. It just means that in the hands of an accomplished warrior, pretty much anything can become deadly.
|
|
I'm saying there's no love for the great club. There can be all kinds of reasons of fluff for why its not simple, but it comes down to the mechanics of the game. Unless the statistics of the great club change (which isn't likely to happen), it just doesn't stack up where it is. A greatclub costs exactly the same as a maul, has a lower critical, and cannot be used one handed without penaly (even the oft-dreaded monkey grip cannot save it).
I also contend that the makeup of a weapon doesn't actually determine its position in the D&D weapon tree. Crossbows are simple weapons, and they are some of the most complex weapons made before the invention of gunpowder.
Yes, how a weapon is made or its construction does not entail how much training is necessary in its use.
A simple weapon is a means of stating how common a weapon is, basically things that go smash or poke. These are simple combat movements.
a hoarde of commoners chasing frankenstien out of the castle can be seen with pitch forks (spears) clubs and knives.
More formal (trained/martial) combat entails things like bows, swords and axes.
Exotic weaponry is something that would likely be a martial weapon in a foreign culture.
In the orient, nunchucks and kamas would be martial weapons, heck the kama would more likely be a simple weapon there.
but their use isn't common in "standard" training, and there for the weapons have to be trained with separately. (requireing feats)
The great club was originally put in martial weapons because of its size and unweildy-ness. Swinging with a great club and missing could easily throw an unskilled fighter off balance and maybe even knock him down.
No other simple weapon is of the two handed swinging type, they are of the pokey type. Two handed simple weapons dont have that amount of weight all at one end, they are all much more balanced.
No other simple weapon does that much damage, except for the heavy crossbow, which is a machine and takes alot of time to reload.
if you want to swing a simple bludgeoning weapon two handed, choke up on your club and plant you second hand on that to add a little extra strength to it.
my 2 copper
I used the wrong word for martial, I didn't mean complexity as taken,
but rather as meaning improved/better designed for warfare
my apologies, it's my fault I was misunderstood
crossbows were very common because so simple to learn (days to weeks) compared to longbows (years), until outlawed by the church which made them martial - by access
that didn't happen in fantasy settings so simple still applies
the crossbow was a simple version of the roman arbalest, made for irregulars
it's true that construction is also coincidence to availability
availability to commonfolk being the key factor - access
the table stems back to an old tabletop wargaming rhetoric is all
it's not exclusive to AD&D, both forms of gaming have progressed since then
What I was trying to say (and apparantly failed miserably to do so), is let's move forward, further from that.