Inspired by the "Who wants to use a bastard sword thread" I am asking who wants to use a great club as a way to ask why is it a martial weapon?
It's d10 damage x2 crit mutliplier and crit range of only 20 all make it one of the weakest, if not the weakest martial two handers around.
I would love to see it moved to a common two handed melee weapon. First because it's stats are very much in line with common weapons, second because the common two handers have a noticable missing weapon, something with a big damage die (d10 for a common weapon is big). They have the high crit multiplier weapon (spear d8 x3 fits that.) But no big die low crit multiplier.
I would add it also isn't a complex weapon, it's just a big club and all.
Anyway what do you think? Is it valuable were it is or should it be moved where it would be of use?
It's good for smacking rust monsters?
I'd prefer to not see it as a simple weapon; the 1d10 damage would make it stick out like a sore thumb when everything else does 1d8 max. If I were going to change it, I'd maybe change the price to 0 gp (like the club and quarterstaff).
It's good for smacking rust monsters?
I'd prefer to not see it as a simple weapon; the 1d10 damage would make it stick out like a sore thumb when everything else does 1d8 max. If I were going to change it, I'd maybe change the price to 0 gp (like the club and quarterstaff).
But since the one handed mace and morning star are both d8s, why wouldn't giving up your shield be worth a d10?
The spear is a d8, but with a crit multiplier of x3. This would give you a choice, go for the big crit or the big damage die.
Yeah... if the "club" is supposed to represent picking up a stick and swinging it with one hand, then I don't see why there can't be a "picked up a bigger stick that needs two hands".
So yeah, 0gp and Simple seems fine to me. Don't really understand the reasoning for it to be martial. The PHB description basically says it's a "big club", and mentions that it "often" has nails or studs (however, it's listed as only bludgeoning, so I'm assuming it's not a crucial aspect of the weapon).
Is this a holdover from previous editions? I'm guessing it hasn't really been looked at because no one really cares about it that much. The people using it the most tend to be Giants and such, which get Martial proficiency from their race. Which is also something I found extremely weird.. maybe just so they can use a weapon like the greatclub? Isn't this circular logic? Would it not be simpler to give Giants only Simple weapon proficiency, which would be why they have to use a Greatclub?
I dunno..
Yeah... if the "club" is supposed to represent picking up a stick and swinging it with one hand, then I don't see why there can't be a "picked up a bigger stick that needs two hands".
There is already a simple weapon "like a club, but bigger" -- a Large-sized club (or, even better, a Large-sized morningstar). Of course, you suffer a -2 penalty on attacks, but if you wanted to avoid that, maybe you should've gone to Fighter school for a semester.
If you read the PHB though (not the SRD, it's been left out of there for some reason), the Greatclub's description is literally "A two-handed version of a club". And that's what I'm talking about.
If you can pick up a rolling pin and treat it as a club, then picking up a long two-by-four makes sense to be treated as a greatclub. I still don't see a reason for it being martial.
"Because you like it being martial" fits fine for you. I'm not saying you should change your opinion (and you have the RAW behind you). What I'm saying is that if a DM wanted to rule it this way (like I would if push came to shove), I couldn't see any mechanical or thematic reason against it.
You could probably make the same kind of argument about all kinds of martial weapons (e.g. mace vs. warhammer).
From a metagame standpoint, I prefer to not have a simple weapon that does better base damage than every other simple weapon.
Simplify it by all means. Nothing about the greatclub is martial - not the concept, not the training needed, not the stats.
You could probably make the same kind of argument about all kinds of martial weapons (e.g. mace vs. warhammer).
From a metagame standpoint, I prefer to not have a simple weapon that does better base damage than every other simple weapon.
And why have a martial twohander that is clearly weaker then any other martial two hander?
It would be one of only two two handers for simply weapons (the staff is for dual wielding really). Unless you want them to have idenical stats why not have one a higher base die and the other a higher crit multiplier?
From a metagame standpoint, I prefer to not have a simple weapon that does better base damage than every other simple weapon.
First of all, I don't think the same argument applies to a Warhammer: It has a better crit range than the mace. Whereas the greatclub is just plain worse than the Heavy Flail, and far worse than a greataxe or earthbreaker.
I think the Greatclub would be great fit for the simple list. It's not strictly better or worse than the other two-handed weapons. It does, on average, one extra damage than a spear, but can't be set against a charge and has a worse crit. That sounds fine to me.
More to the point, with the Earthbreaker in the rulebook for pathfinder, the greatclub is just out of place and should either be moved to the simple list or cease to exist.
From a metagame standpoint, I prefer to not have a simple weapon that does better base damage than every other simple weapon.First of all, I don't think the same argument applies to a Warhammer: It has a better crit range than the mace. Whereas the greatclub is just plain worse than the Heavy Flail, and far worse than a greataxe or earthbreaker.
Sorry, I meant this argument:
"If you can pick up a rolling pin and treat it as a club, then picking up a long two-by-four makes sense to be treated as a greatclub. I still don't see a reason for it being martial."
While I agree with the majority of the point being made, there is one other item of note:
Clubs are cheap. Compare Club to other simple one-handed weapons - it is inferior because it is free.
A simple two-handed weapon that does 1d10 with a x2 multiplier and no special qualities would be fairly reasonable, but it should have a mildly high price, comparable to the other more decent simple weapons.
I don't know that a greatclub would fit in at 1d10. I could easily see a simple greatclub at d8 damage (a large d6 club would be d8 after all).
However backwards-compatibility I wouldn't want to change the die damage.
*shrug*
While I agree with the majority of the point being made, there is one other item of note:
Clubs are cheap. Compare Club to other simple one-handed weapons - it is inferior because it is free.
A simple two-handed weapon that does 1d10 with a x2 multiplier and no special qualities would be fairly reasonable, but it should have a mildly high price, comparable to the other more decent simple weapons.
I don't know that a greatclub would fit in at 1d10. I could easily see a simple greatclub at d8 damage (a large d6 club would be d8 after all).
However backwards-compatibility I wouldn't want to change the die damage.
*shrug*
The as listed price of a great club is 5gp, same as the long spear and the spear is only 2 gp, both simple two handers. Seems pretty in line with those costs.
Sorry, I meant this argument:
"If you can pick up a rolling pin and treat it as a club, then picking up a long two-by-four makes sense to be treated as a greatclub. I still don't see a reason for it being martial."
Ah! I usually have to break that down on a weapon by weapon basis, but in this case:
Mace: In effect, a mace is a club with a weighted metal head (I really wish it and the morningstar were not separate weapons, because they're really the same darn thing.) It's not a complex weapon, but someone has to take the care to craft it and make it balanced, hence it has a cost. There are objects you can pick up that vaguely fit this model. Some of them really are maces, like some farm tools once used to thresh grain, and should be treated as such. However, most of the 'random crap' type items are either just clubs or are imbalanced (treat as 'improvised' with the -4 penalty.) For instance, a fire poker (an often used improvised weapon in Victorian literature) hits as hard as a mace, but is lopsided compared to an actual mace.
In short, the mace is a simple weapon to use, but must still be crafted.
Warhammer: Most hammers in the game world, if used as a weapon, would translate into light hammers (carpenter's hammers), or two-handed Earthbreakers (sledgehammers). The category of hammers that can be easily wielded in one hand and deserve 1d8 damage is fairly narrow. Hammers are martial weapons because unlike a mace or club, they have a front. If the head turns sideways or strikes at an angle, they are much less effective. Further, most hammers-as-tools are not built for fighting: Just as the scythe and pick weapon descriptions say 'these are the weaponized version, not tools', this applies to the warhammer as well. A few exceptions exist, such as the cow hammer in PF #7: It's a weapon because it is designed to kill things, not drive nails.
What makes a hammer better than a mace is the fact that its weight is lined up, rather than radially symmetric. At the same time, that makes it harder to wield and more specific to craft.
A warhammer, thusly, is not a simple weapon.
What I think I'd want to see is the greatclub as a simple weapon with a cost of 5 silver pieces.
A warhammer, thusly, is not a simple weapon.
"Well, you see, in real life most clubs you use would be either a small tree limb (a Medium-sized club) or a big tree limb (a Large-sized club). But a greatclub would be more like a froobie with a bodinkle, and thusly a greatclub is not a simple weapon."
See? The same argument applies because the line between simple and martial weapons is pretty arbitrary.
See? The same argument applies because the line between simple and martial weapons is pretty arbitrary.
There is a clear mechanical division: Martial weapons are almost always better than a similar simple weapon. Greatclubs are bad for martial weapons, and don't make any simple weapons obsolete, so it fits here.
The flavorful distinction is more murky, but tends to relate around ease of use. There is no 'sideways' to hitting with a mace. There is with a sword or a hammer. Greatclubs pass this test, too.
The 'random item counting as' thing only applies to free weapons (club and quarterstaff), because just about any reasonable length of pole would count as one of those. Even so, I'm liable to slap the 'improvised' penalty on anything that wouldn't hold up under long term use as a weapon. (Even in the treebranch category, I'd expect a little bit of whittling to go into it.)
I don't think a greatclub should be completely free: it is both harder to find something large and solid enough to be a greatclub (compared to an ordinary club) and it takes more work to finish it as a weapon. But 5 gp is silly.
Simplify it by all means. Nothing about the greatclub is martial - not the concept, not the training needed, not the stats.
I agree completely!
More to the point, with the Earthbreaker in the rulebook for pathfinder, the greatclub is just out of place and should either be moved to the simple list or cease to exist.
Our current group as a whole agrees with this! In regards to my Pro-Earthbreaker statement I'm going to quote my favorite quote for this board again... "Bull$***! Same Rules for everyone!"
Meaning, why should the Bludgeoning 2-hander be such a huge piece of crap compared to the other two?(sword & axe) Would I remove the Greatclub? No, but I would love to see it filed under simple weapons! Remember the spiked club from 2E? Ya know the 2x4 with nails hammered through it? Yea, we call that the Morningstar now. A reduction in cost would be quite reasonable.
SIDE NOTE: Halls of the Minotaur, 0-level adventure from Goodman Games has an awesome conversion for quite a few "farm impliments" or "peasant weapons" that would normally be martial weapons... ex: Trident vs. Pitchfork. The general nature of the conversion is to just lower the damage die by one and I believe the crit for weapons that are higher than x2. The cost for all of them is free, as they are not made/meant for combat purposes, but are still adaquate at dealing damage for the unskilled adventurerer and you have easy access to them as a 0-level villager.
There is a clear mechanical division: Martial weapons are almost always better than a similar simple weapon. Greatclubs are bad for martial weapons, and don't make any simple weapons obsolete, so it fits here.
I agree that it's bad for a martial weapon. Likewise for the throwing axe, trident, and shortbow.
But I don't think the "doesn't make a weapon obsolete" argument doesn't hold water. A simple weapon greatclub would be better than all simple weapons in one respect. Similarly, the spiked chain doesn't make any martial weapon obsolete, but it's still obviously better than all martial weapons in one respect.
A simple "bigclub" that did 1d8 damage would be perfectly acceptable to me.
A simple greatclub that did 1d8 damage would be perfectly acceptable to me.
If it cost exactly 0, I'd be okay with this. However, if it has any sort of cost, I'd say that it was inferior to the heavy mace.
Anyway, yes, a d10 would be the biggest die for a simple weapon. But it's not like the spear's better crit is a minor issue. There is allowed to be a 'best' in given categories. The greataxe has the biggest die for a martial weapon. Does that make it exotic?
There is a clear mechanical division: Martial weapons are almost always better than a similar simple weapon. Greatclubs are bad for martial weapons, and don't make any simple weapons obsolete, so it fits here.I agree that it's bad for a martial weapon. Likewise for the throwing axe, trident, and shortbow.
But I don't think the "doesn't make a weapon obsolete" argument doesn't hold water. A simple weapon greatclub would be better than all simple weapons in one respect. Similarly, the spiked chain doesn't make any martial weapon obsolete, but it's still obviously better than all martial weapons in one respect.
A simple "bigclub" that did 1d8 damage would be perfectly acceptable to me.
You do that and you've made the great club clearly weaker then all the two-handed simple weapons. What would be the point of that?
It would be one of only two (long spear and spear I am calling one weapon for this purpose) simple two handed weapons. If it's stats weren't the same as the spear and yet it was the equal of it, sure it would be best in some aspect. Either larger crit range, larger threat range, or large damage die.
If it cost exactly 0, I'd be okay with this.
Of course.
Anyway, yes, a d10 would be the biggest die for a simple weapon. But it's not like the spear's better crit is a minor issue. There is allowed to be a 'best' in given categories. The greataxe has the biggest die for a martial weapon. Does that make it exotic?
No, but that's not the same thing; a maximum damage of 12 is perfectly acceptable for martial weapons (IMO), just like a maximum of 8 damage is perfectly acceptable for simple weapons.
Suppose the greatclub did 2d8 damage with a x2 modifier. Do you think that would make a good martial weapon?
How's this sound:
A two-handed free weapon, the big club aka cudgel: 1d8 (Club up one size.)
A two-handed weapon with a cost: 1d10 (Basically a mace up one size, nerfed to d10 because 2d6 and 1d12 weapons probably should stay martial.)
A simple weapon greatclub would be better than all simple weapons in one respect.
A heavy crossbow does 1d10 damage. And a 19-20 crit range at that.
It's also currently the ONLY simple weapon that does 1d10 damage. Or if you want to keep it into melee vs ranged: the heavy crossbow is better than all other ranged weapons "in one respect".
A simple weapon greatclub would be better than all simple weapons in one respect.A heavy crossbow does 1d10 damage. And a 19-20 crit range at that.
It's also currently the ONLY simple weapon that does 1d10 damage. Or if you want to keep it into melee vs ranged: the heavy crossbow is better than all other ranged weapons "in one respect".
You've convinced me -- a 2-handed club that does 1d10 damage and takes a full round action between blows would be a simple weapon. :)
Suppose the greatclub did 2d8 damage with a x2 modifier. Do you think that would make a good martial weapon?
I'd say it'd be too good, actually. 2d6 or 1d12 seems to be a pretty reasonable cap for martial weapons. Yor greatclub would do on average two more damage than a greatsword. (One more seems to be the standard trade for crit range, not two.)
It would work at 1d14 or 2d7 if such a thing existed.
You've convinced me -- a 2-handed club that does 1d10 damage and takes a full round action between blows would be a simple weapon. :)A simple weapon greatclub would be better than all simple weapons in one respect.A heavy crossbow does 1d10 damage. And a 19-20 crit range at that.
It's also currently the ONLY simple weapon that does 1d10 damage. Or if you want to keep it into melee vs ranged: the heavy crossbow is better than all other ranged weapons "in one respect".
Oh no, you can't play that game. ;)
You said "beats all others in one respect". If you take out the fact that a spear can be held for charge, can be thrown, and has a greater crit multiplier.. then you can't start taking into account the crossbow's other factors.
Your point was that 1d10 was "too much" for "any simple weapon". Clearly, that's not the case. You'll need a better argument.
.
However, I feel the best thing on your side is that a 1d6 increased by one step in damage is 1d8. Simple as that.
So a twohanded piece of wood should simply be 1d8 and free.
A metal one, or one that had a decent amount of metal in it (to hold it together, etc, such as the description of the greatclub currently has), would make sense at 1d10, as something of an upstep of the heavy mace.
*Edit*
I just want to make it known that while I concede the damage/cost design, I do not concede that simple weapon = capped at 1d8. 1d10 bludgeoning weapon that's basically a large two-handed mace should still require only simple proficiency to use.
Training-wise, no different than using a Qstaff twohanded.. only it's built a lot more sturdy for this type of usage.
Suppose the greatclub did 2d8 damage with a x2 modifier. Do you think that would make a good martial weapon?I'd say it'd be too good, actually. 2d6 or 1d12 seems to be a pretty reasonable cap for martial weapons. Yor greatclub would do on average two more damage than a greatsword. (One more seems to be the standard trade for crit range, not two.)
It would work at 1d14 or 2d7 if such a thing existed.
Makes me think of previous editions. Wasn't there a sword that did 1d8+1 damage instead of doing a larger die? I'm thinking of the bastard sword for some reason... or was it when used against certain sized creatures?
Man.. I'm so glad we don't have that kind of stuff anymore.
This occured to me while I was thinking about this problem:
Here's a base guideline for weapon damage:
Light weapons 1d6
One handed weapons 1d8
This applies regardless of category.
Simple weapons get this only.
Martial weapons get this damage with improved crits.
In order to improve crits, drop a die size. (Dagger vs. light mace, pick vs. warhammer)
To improve damage, go up a size. (Longsword vs. greatsword)
Free weapons also drop a die size. (Club vs. mace)
All the d10 weapons break this pattern: d10 doesn't appear on the size advancing charts. Being d10, then, is either a bonus or a drawback, depending on where it appears.
A halberd, for instance, has a d10 as a drawback to make up for its tripping ability. A heavy flail is d10 to make up for its disarming bonus, etc. (They step down from weapons like the Greatsword or Greataxe.)
A bastard sword, on the other hand, has a d10 as a bonus for getting a feat.
So what is a greatclub? A stepped up club would just be 1d8. A stepped up mace would be 2d6 or 1d12.
If a greatclub has a cost, then it could be bumped up to 1d10 from 1d8 for not being free. Alternatively, it could be nerfed from 2d6 (the two-handed mace) just because simple weapons shouldn't be great.
It would work at 1d14 or 2d7 if such a thing existed.
I know there's no precedent for it, but why not 1d8+1d6? That's no more difficult, physically, than rolling 2d6 after all... ah, but then we'd have all sorts of fun figuring out what the damage for a Large version would be... This is fun!
It would work at 1d14 or 2d7 if such a thing existed.I know there's no precedent for it, but why not 1d8+1d6? That's no more difficult, physically, than rolling 2d6 after all... ah, but then we'd have all sorts of fun figuring out what the damage for a Large version would be... This is fun!
Clearly, it would be 2d6+1d8. (1d8->2d6, 1d6->1d8). A Huge version would be 5d6.
So what is a greatclub? A stepped up club would just be 1d8. A stepped up mace would be 2d6 or 1d12.
If a greatclub has a cost, then it could be bumped up to 1d10 from 1d8 for not being free. Alternatively, it could be nerfed from 2d6 (the two-handed mace) just because simple weapons shouldn't be great.
Hadn't thought of that. Interesting.
Giving "a big piece of wood" a cost seems weird to me. If it needed to be worked or have certain things added, then yeah.. cost makes sense. But then it's not "just a big club" anymore is it?
"Just because simple weapons shouldn't be great" is tough to swallow though, because it sounds just to arbitrary. I'd rather see a mechanical reason (like the halberd, etc) from either direction to account for it.
It's a strange situation, the greatclub.
No, but that's not the same thing; a maximum damage of 12 is perfectly acceptable for martial weapons (IMO), just like a maximum of 8 damage is perfectly acceptable for simple weapons.
Why 8 and not 10? It seems odd that I can get a 1d8 one-handed simple weapon, and if I move up to two hands, I get can get features (crit range, throwing, charge resistance for) but not damage. If one-handed weapons for simple capped out at 1d6 I'd say you were on to something, but they don't.
Actually, look at it this way:
The shortspear vs the spear.
Shortspear is one handed, 1d6 20/x2, thrown 20'.
Spear is twohanded, 1d8 20/x3, thrown 20'.
It goes up two steps from onehanded to two handed. An extra die in damage, and an extra crit multiplier. It doesn't "conform".
Possible, because the one-handed version is an extra step inferior? It is one of the first and longest used "weapons" in history, short of the club incidentally.
Having a halfstep higher for the Greatclub wouldn't be any different from the shortspear/spear comparison. And since 1d10 damage is acceptable for simple weapons (via crossbows), maybe that's reason enough?
If a greatclub has a cost, then it could be bumped up to 1d10 from 1d8 for not being free. Alternatively, it could be nerfed from 2d6 (the two-handed mace) just because simple weapons shouldn't be great.
Alternatively, a greatclub could be 1d10 for being free, stepped down from 1d12 as the scaled up mace. (This is the same as the 1d8 'bigclub', only applying the changes in an opposite order, and treating 'free' as a bonus ability, not as bonus damage)
Actually, look at it this way:
The shortspear vs the spear.
Shortspear is one handed, 1d6 20/x2, thrown 20'.
Spear is twohanded, 1d8 20/x3, thrown 20'.It goes up two steps from onehanded to two handed. An extra die in damage, and an extra crit multiplier. It doesn't "conform".
Possible, because the one-handed version is an extra step inferior? It is one of the first and longest used "weapons" in history, short of the club incidentally.
Having a halfstep higher for the Greatclub wouldn't be any different from the shortspear/spear comparison. And since 1d10 damage is acceptable for simple weapons (via crossbows), maybe that's reason enough?
In 3.0 the shortspear was an x3 crit, IIRC, so I'd chalk this up to an editing trap where both should have been changed, with 'anti-charge' and 'throwing' as the bonuses to make up for the shortfall in crit. (With x3 crit, both match the pattern without the other abilities.)
Actually, the SRD and PHB don't list "anti-charge" for the shortspear. At least, in 3.5e.
So maybe it should be at x3 crit? It'd be the only one-handed melee weapon with anything but a 20/x2 crit. However, the light weapons have both a 19-20/x2 and 20/x3, so it's not breaking anything to have that.
A simple weapon greatclub would be better than all simple weapons in one respect.
That doesn't mean it can't be a simple weapon. There's plenty of instances where one weapon is better than the rest in its category:
It happens in all weapons categories, in all sizes.
And the greatclub just doesn't fit into the martial two-handed weapon category: It is simply the worst two-handed melee weapon. A lot of other weapons are as good as, or better than, the greatclub in all aspects. Others are worse in some aspects, but more than make up for it elsewhere.
No matter what you want to do with the greatclub, you can do it better with another weapon of its category. It has no advantage over the rest. (Price just doesn't count, and even if it did, it wouldn't be nearly enough to make anyone choose the club over anything else just so they can save 10 bucks)
On the other hand, it would fit perfectly into the simple two-handed weapons category:
The greatclug is better than everything else there in some aspects, but in the end, it will all balance out. It even fits right into the price category (though half the one-handed weapons are more expensive)
To answer the original post...
Heracles.
Mostly because he generally didn't want to kill things, as a DM once told me, "It's really hard to subdue an opponent when you critical with a greataxe for 3d12+50 damage."
Tel that to the Nemean Lion, or HippolytaMostly because he generally didn't want to kill things, as a DM once told me, "It's really hard to subdue an opponent when you critical with a greataxe for 3d12+50 damage."To answer the original post...
Heracles.
Generally is a funny word, as it doesn't mean always and doesn't mean never...
All in all he killed very few times considering what he could have done, I blame Hera.
That doesn't mean it can't be a simple weapon. There's plenty of instances where one weapon is better than the rest in its category: [lots of examples deleted]
A simple weapon greatclub would be better than all simple weapons in one respect.
I know. I just don't want to lobby for one more to be added; that's inflation, in my opinion.
Similarly, I don't want to see a (martial) bow that does 1d10 damage, or a (martial) weapon that does 2d8 damage.
Just my opinion, of course.
I know. I just don't want to lobby for one more to be added; that's inflation, in my opinion.
Not in mine. It won't really increase the average power level of simple two-handed weapon users. It's not better than the other weapons.
It would mean more choices for those who want to wield a two-handed simple weapon. If you call that inflation, I'll gladly embrace inflation.
Similarly, I don't want to see a (martial) bow that does 1d10 damage, or a (martial) weapon that does 2d8 damage.
Not really the same. Those weapons wouldn't fit the patterns:
The bow would need a worse crit multiplier for the system to remain coherent, and I won't see it.
And no medium-size weapon deals more than (1d12/)2d6 damage.
On the other hand, there are two-handed weapons that deal 1d10. in fact, there are two-handed martial weapons that deal more.
A simple greatclub wouldn't outperform any martial two-handed weapon, in any way. It would always be inferior to its martial equivalents. Sounds reasonable to me.
And to leave all the esoteric discussions about maximum damage dice allowed or the inflation of local maxima and all that aside, the facts remain:
Similarly, I don't want to see a (martial) bow that does 1d10 damage, or a (martial) weapon that does 2d8 damage.
Not really the same. Those weapons wouldn't fit the patterns:
The bow would need a worse crit multiplier for the system to remain coherent, and I won't see it.
That's what I meant; a bow that does 1d10/x2 and a melee weapon that does 2d8/x2. I agree with you; I don't want to see it.
That's what I meant; a bow that does 1d10/x2 and a melee weapon that does 2d8/x2. I agree with you; I don't want to see it.
Greatbow does 1d10. (Dragon #349 & Races of the Wild, I think.)
"Large" Bastard Sword does 2d8. (Just because I could :D)Each weapon category as a whole generally have their own benefits…
Piercing - Higher Crit Multipler, No Penalty Under Water(not including ranged, but great for a spiked chain, LMAO!)
Slashing - Higher Threat Range
Bludgeoning - Capable of bypassing Skeleton's DR, damaging swarm monsters, smacking Rust monsters and beating on slimes/oozes without random effects, like splitting. (Uh Yeaaaa, bludgeoning just needs some love probably.)
Can bludgeoning be switched to non-lethal without penalty? I forget.
*starts chanting "Earthbreaker, Earthbreaker, Earthbreaker" encouraging the mob behind him to follow suit.*
|
Tel that to the Nemean Lion, or HippolytaMostly because he generally didn't want to kill things, as a DM once told me, "It's really hard to subdue an opponent when you critical with a greataxe for 3d12+50 damage."To answer the original post...
Heracles.
Generally is a funny word, as it doesn't mean always and doesn't mean never...
All in all he killed very few times considering what he could have done, I blame Hera.
Well, yes, I blame Hera too. And I can't deny your hedge but... Heracles had a tendency to kill animals and people, even if he liked them. He slew his children, Iphitus (and children and siblings) and more. Admittedly he captured those he was ordered to capture, and he rarely murdered women (although Hippolyta died at his hand).
Mostly I just respect his skill at scrumping.
That's what I meant; a bow that does 1d10/x2 and a melee weapon that does 2d8/x2. I agree with you; I don't want to see it.
A good rule for this might be that you can trade damage for crits but not vice versa.
That's what I meant; a bow that does 1d10/x2 and a melee weapon that does 2d8/x2. I agree with you; I don't want to see it.Greatbow does 1d10. (Dragon #349 & Races of the Wild, I think.)
"Large" Bastard Sword does 2d8. (Just because I could :D)
Large morningstar is simple and does 2d6. :D :D
Greatbow (from Complete Warrior) is an exotic weapon.
Tel that to the Nemean Lion, or HippolytaMostly because he generally didn't want to kill things, as a DM once told me, "It's really hard to subdue an opponent when you critical with a greataxe for 3d12+50 damage."To answer the original post...
Heracles.
Generally is a funny word, as it doesn't mean always and doesn't mean never...
All in all he killed very few times considering what he could have done, I blame Hera.
Well, yes, I blame Hera too. And I can't deny your hedge but... Heracles had a tendency to kill animals and people, even if he liked them. He slew his children, Iphitus (and children and siblings) and more. Admittedly he captured those he was ordered to capture, and he rarely murdered women (although Hippolyta died at his hand).
Mostly I just respect his skill at scrumping.
To be fair those he killed that he liked generally were during fits of madness driven (again) by Hera and her jealousy. I think Hercules was definitely one of the more interesting characters in greek mythology, divine by birth, hero by accident, villain by another's hand... a very compelling story.