I've always thought it would be cool to dual wield maces but the options to make this not suck mechanically have just never existed. The best option I've found is Lightning Mace from Complete Warrior. If you weield 2 light maces It just allows you an extra attack if you roll a threat (so a 20. 19 if you got improved crit).
Anyone seen or created anything (feats or class abilities?) that would make dual wielding maces (heavy+light or light+light) a mechanically sound option?
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties
Circumstances (Primary Hand) (Off Hand)
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
................
So 2 Light Maces (one in each hand 1d6 damage) and you take a -2 to each attack as long as you have the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat.
Hardest part is having the 15 Dex needed to take the feat i think.
There's a reason the only place you ever see dual wielding maces is in World of Warcraft.
Lareth in Temple of Elemental Evil was a dual wielding maces cleric of Lloth.
There's a reason the only place you ever see dual wielding maces is in World of Warcraft.Lareth in Temple of Elemental Evil was a dual wielding maces cleric of Lloth.
God-hax.
I don't see the problem with dual-wielding maces. Is it somehow inferior to dual-wielding other weapons?
Use the short sword or kukri costs, damage, crits, etc but change the damage type to bludgeoning and call it a flanged mace.
I don't see the problem with dual-wielding maces. Is it somehow inferior to dual-wielding other weapons?
It's a smidgen inferior to two-weapon fighting with shortswords, for instance. I'm not sure I'd equate that to "sucking", though.
Bludgeoning weapons on the whole are a partial step below their slashing/piercing companions. The system seems to assume that bludgeoning is the best way to go. You can see that bludgeoning weapons have inferior crit ranges/crit multipliers when compared to other weapons of their bracket of the same damage die.
I can't honestly say how much truth there is in the concept, but bludgeoning is a big contender for DR penetration.
That lightning mace feat is the trick that evens it out. Assuming your attack bonus is up to snuff, then it basically turns those light maces from 20/x2 to 20x3(or more), so 19-20x3+ with improved crit which is on line with the legendary falcata. I believe the 3.5PHBII also had a bludgeon damage feat that gave chances to nauseate on multiple hits. Until you get those feats though, 1d6 20/x2 is basically the minimum damage choice you would reasonably do, so might want to carry an earthbreaker before that point and for whenever you can't get a full attack. Oh yeah, and in any case, you also gotta take perform (percussion), cause if you're gonna drum on a person like that you better also be able to keep a beat in the tavern.
Use the short sword or kukri costs, damage, crits, etc but change the damage type to bludgeoning and call it a flanged mace.
Yeah I was considering just creating a martial version mace.
I don't see the problem with dual-wielding maces. Is it somehow inferior to dual-wielding other weapons?
1d8 x2 or 1d6 x2 with maces and there is no blunt equivalent to longsword 1d8 19-20, shortsword 1d6 19-20
orBattleaxe 1d8 x3, handaxe 1d6 x3
the closest thing is Warhammer 1d8 x3, Light Hammer 1d4 x2 whch is still not as good and makes me wonder why they deviated from the idea of taking a weapon down one step and didn't make Light Hammer do 1d6 x3 and have a Throwing Hammer that did 1d4 x2.
It's always nice to be able to carry out a concept without it being inferior mechanically.
That lightning mace feat is the trick that evens it out. Assuming your attack bonus is up to snuff, then it basically turns those light maces from 20/x2 to 20x3(or more), so 19-20x3+ with improved crit which is on line with the legendary falcata. I believe the 3.5PHBII also had a bludgeon damage feat that gave chances to nauseate on multiple hits. Until you get those feats though, 1d6 20/x2 is basically the minimum damage choice you would reasonably do, so might want to carry an earthbreaker before that point and for whenever you can't get a full attack. Oh yeah, and in any case, you also gotta take perform (percussion), cause if you're gonna drum on a person like that you better also be able to keep a beat in the tavern.
Yeah but it takes a feat to get dual-wielding light maces to be as good an option as shortswords and two feats to get it to as good as an exotic weapon.
Taking one feat can make a martial weapon like the longsword or shortsword slightly better than an exotic weapon.Taking one feat will not bring a heavy or light mace (simple weapon) up the same amount, making them a little bit better than their martial counterparts. Improved Crit brings the mace on par with a martial weapon instead of slightly better like it does for a martial vs exotic.
I don't have the PHBII so I'll have to see if I can find that feat. Nausea might be enough to make the difference if the prerequisistes aren't too high.
Lol. Imagine a Bard using perform (percussion) while beating on people with a pair of maces. Hear that? It's the music of war!
Oh yeah, the point is to get them up to par, bludgeoning damage is always inferior, putting equivalent feats for edged/piercing weapons would again make them superior to the maces. Barring a whole lot of advanced skeletons and other dr/B foes, only reason to choose smash over slash is for the flavor, it's not a competitive path to power.
There's a reason the only place you ever see dual wielding maces is in World of Warcraft.
Or all those movies in which Steven Seagal or Jeff Speakman beats the hell out of 16 guys with a pair of sticks (i.e., light maces or clubs).
hopefully Paizo will put in weapon style feats similar but hopefully better than what was put in 3.5 Complete Warrior in Ultimate Combat *crosses fingers.*
hopefully Paizo will put in weapon style feats similar but hopefully better than what was put in 3.5 Complete Warrior in Ultimate Combat *crosses fingers.*
Yeah they had some cool stuff in Complete Warrior but the weapon styles weren't expansive enough and in most cases, cool but not quite powerful enough to be worth the cost.
Feats to bring them up to par or even martial equivalent bashing weapons. I don't mind creating my own weapons but I might not be able to bring that stuff into someone else's game which kind of defeats the purpose.
I've never been good at balancing feats with prerequisites either.
hopefully Paizo will put in weapon style feats similar but hopefully better than what was put in 3.5 Complete Warrior in Ultimate Combat *crosses fingers.*Yeah they had some cool stuff in Complete Warrior but the weapon styles weren't expansive enough and in most cases, cool but not quite powerful enough to be worth the cost.
Feats to bring them up to par or even martial equivalent bashing weapons. I don't mind creating my own weapons but I might not be able to bring that stuff into someone else's game which kind of defeats the purpose.
I've never been good at balancing feats with prerequisites either.
thats why i said hopefully Paizo will make them better.
hopefully Paizo will put in weapon style feats similar but hopefully better than what was put in 3.5 Complete Warrior in Ultimate Combat *crosses fingers.*Yeah they had some cool stuff in Complete Warrior but the weapon styles weren't expansive enough and in most cases, cool but not quite powerful enough to be worth the cost.
Feats to bring them up to par or even martial equivalent bashing weapons. I don't mind creating my own weapons but I might not be able to bring that stuff into someone else's game which kind of defeats the purpose.
I've never been good at balancing feats with prerequisites either.I thought that you were the GM, is that for PF Society?
IMO: "Visual" changes are easy to understand, saying that you use light maces as short swords because it is how they do it in your town (stupid example) is ok, doesn't change the rules. Some GM would argue that Blugeoning is better than S or P, but it can argued, It shouldn't neve cost you more than a Trait IMHO.
Creating new feats, instead, is more difficult.
I do GM. I also like to be able to take concepts and make them work in other people's games (as a player) without having to convince the GM to allow it. I do play around with custom house rules but I also prefer to stay within the rules as much as I can. It's also nice to know what will work, conceptually and within the rules, in a PF Society situation where house rules don't fly.
I'm not really sure what the argument for B being more powerful than S or P. I've never heard one before. They're better against skeletons. What else has DR/Bashing? Is it really more common than DR/Slashing or DR/Piercing?
Blunt being weaker; i think is a left over effect from when Cleric could only use blunt weapons.
Have you seen how many attacks those guys have to do to take down mooks with sticks. Just goes along with something I often point out to my pals, most awesome movie action sequences are a long series of misses and minimal damage, if those action heroes were properly optimized, they could've one-rounded those fights instead of 10 minutes of awesome.
Have you seen how many attacks those guys have to do to take down mooks with sticks. Just goes along with something I often point out to my pals, most awesome movie action sequences are a long series of misses and minimal damage, if those action heroes were properly optimized, they could've one-rounded those fights instead of 10 minutes of awesome.
I assume all D&D "hits" are actually near misses and minimal damage, until the enemy is down to his last few hp.
A 5 minute action sequence is 50 rounds. If a D&D encounter with same # of opponents takes 50 rounds, chances are both sides are completely missing or doing crap relative hp damage. Watching this, exciting. RPGing this, frustrating.
A 5 minute action sequence is 50 rounds. If a D&D encounter with same # of opponents takes 50 rounds, chances are both sides are completely missing or doing crap relative hp damage. Watching this, exciting. RPGing this, frustrating.
If we assume "film time" corresponds to "real time," which it obviously doesn't -- real-life fights with sticks are over in seconds, not minutes. Cinematic license reins supreme.
|
Mace is a simple weapon; which is by design slightly inferior to martial weapons. Further, dual wielding is an inferior fighting style; though at least somewhat starting to bridge the gap.
Still, foe the fact the crit range is lower than dual short swords, if you really want the flavor it doesn't kill you THAT much.
True that, but D&D action has more in common with cinematics than realism as far as I can tell, so I find it easier to compare a fighter to an action hero than to a soldier.
Wow... No one said 'Three Mountain Style'?
Nauseate with every 2-hit is rather nice...
Hmace/LMace/Hmace