Because the earthbreaker in the picture is just an artists rendering, the Paizo people have been on other threads and stated that the eathbreaker is just their fancy campaign setting specific name for the maul, and a maul is just a large two handed hammer. However, adding spikes to a weapon like that doesn't really change the damage type to piercing, that weapons damage comes from the crushing hammer head slamming into you, the spikes are at best comparable to meat tenderizers, they dont really damage, just soften up.Using something blunt, like an earthbreaker (dunno why it only does crushing damage, with those spikey things)
Yeah, that's more or less the flavor explanation my group came up with on the fly.
I don't know if I would buy it if someone was actually swinging one at me though, focusing that weight on a few points would go right through skin. Even if they're a bit dull.
Never the less, I've always loved the idea of swinging around enormous hammers so I was squealing like a schoolgirl when I first cracked open the RotRL splat that my buddy handed me.
Meh. Bigger bludgeons should score more damage, but for bladed weapons, skill counts a LOT more than weapon size when attempting to inflict injury. A wieldable sword will kill far more efficiently than that silly 10-ft. monstrosity that Orik is toting in PF#1 (what's he compensating for?). A pity the game rules can't reflect that...
Meh. Bigger bludgeons should score more damage, but for bladed weapons, skill counts a LOT more than weapon size when attempting to inflict injury. A wieldable sword will kill far more efficiently than that silly 10-ft. monstrosity that Orik is toting in PF#1 (what's he compensating for?). A pity the game rules can't reflect that...
Isn't he caucasian? I thought they all had huge... swords.
but for bladed weapons, skill counts a LOT more than weapon size when attempting to inflict injury
Yes, and no. Skill counts a lot for how effectively a specific weapon is used, but when used with equal skill, a larger weapon will be more damaging.
Isn't he caucasian? I thought they all had huge... swords.
<snort>
It's typically proportional to the individual's height, which is a statistical distribution, modified by environment, like most other hereditary factors. Which is true with swords and... swords.
but for bladed weapons, skill counts a LOT more than weapon size when attempting to inflict injuryYes, and no. Skill counts a lot for how effectively a specific weapon is used, but when used with equal skill, a larger weapon will be more damaging.
Isn't he caucasian? I thought they all had huge... swords.<snort>
It's typically proportional to the individual's height, which is a statistical distribution, modified by environment, like most other hereditary factors. Which is true with swords and... swords.
*snicker*
*snicker*Isn't he caucasian? I thought they all had huge... swords.<snort>
It's typically proportional to the individual's height, which is a statistical distribution, modified by environment, like most other hereditary factors. Which is true with swords and... swords.
I'm usually both slightly amused and exasperated at the topic. Some people seem to spend way too much time obsessing over it (and other body image issues), IMO. Then again, I'm 6 ft, 2 in tall and in pretty good shape...
I'm usually both slightly amused and exasperated at the topic. Some people seem to spend way too much time obsessing over it (and other body image issues), IMO. Then again, I'm 6 ft, 2 in tall and in pretty good shape...*snicker*Isn't he caucasian? I thought they all had huge... swords.<snort>
It's typically proportional to the individual's height, which is a statistical distribution, modified by environment, like most other hereditary factors. Which is true with swords and... swords.
If you're fishing for a date, I don't think you're my type...
;)
I'm usually both slightly amused and exasperated at the topic. Some people seem to spend way too much time obsessing over it (and other body image issues), IMO. Then again, I'm 6 ft, 2 in tall and in pretty good shape...*snicker*Isn't he caucasian? I thought they all had huge... swords.<snort>
It's typically proportional to the individual's height, which is a statistical distribution, modified by environment, like most other hereditary factors. Which is true with swords and... swords.
If you're fishing for a date, I don't think you're my type...
;)
No, that was a disclaimer. Some people are easily offended over body image issues, so it was a "take this commentary with a grain of salt" type of thing. Amused and exasperated as I may be, I understand that this can be a sensitive topic.
Are you aware of all the condensed double-entendre in this thread's title?
Meh. Bigger bludgeons should score more damage, but for bladed weapons, skill counts a LOT more than weapon size when attempting to inflict injury. A wieldable sword will kill far more efficiently than that silly 10-ft. monstrosity that Orik is toting in PF#1 (what's he compensating for?). A pity the game rules can't reflect that...
You're right, in a way. And it should, and it's an easy fix. But nobody likes the easy fix. Back in ye olden times, the guy with a battle ax or great sword wasn't swinging it to cut someone up, he was swinging it to pulverize your bones through your armor and send them shooting through you like shrapnel. Same as with the maul. The difference? The sword weighs 10lbs, the maul weighs 10lbs. The maul's head is 4x4 inches square, where as the great sword is hitting on a surface area about 4 inches long but only a finger's breath wide. So... call it half an inch. That's 8 times more force per square inch. Battle ax is similar. You can also get a minimal bonus to your swing from the fact that the sword and ax are aerodynamic. The reason the maul was still used was that you transferred 100% of the energy to the person if you hit solid with it (probably knocking them down and winding them if you didn't break ribs into shrapnel). The sword/axe were easier to deflect with a shield and concentrated the force, making it less of a 'knockdown' weapon.
Short story long, I know. Either way, you can fix it by making Greatswords and Battle ax's bludgeoning weapons if the target has armor, and slashing if they don't (they did keep them kinda sharp for a reason). :)
but for bladed weapons, skill counts a LOT more than weapon size when attempting to inflict injuryYes, and no. Skill counts a lot for how effectively a specific weapon is used, but when used with equal skill, a larger weapon will be more damaging.
Isn't he caucasian? I thought they all had huge... swords.<snort>
It's typically proportional to the individual's height, which is a statistical distribution, modified by environment, like most other hereditary factors. Which is true with swords and... swords.
And then there's Monkey Grip - no spanking allowed!
Are you aware of all the condensed double-entendre in this thread's title?
Painfully!
Are you aware of all the condensed double-entendre in this thread's title?I just wanted to say, read Dogbert's post again, now picture the words coming from V's mouth. (Since that was his Icon at the time of posting)
Makes it even funnier.
I've read it six times. It's the expression on V's face that kills me.