| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think I know how this goes but I figured I should run it by here anyway.
A noble warrior has specialised in the lucerne hammer; the pertinent parts of this are the bludgeoning or piercing damage. She then wishes it to become Keen. As a (part-time) piercing weapon, it should qualify. So, would that expanded range apply only when she's swinging to pierce, and not when she wants to mash skeletons?
That's the way I read it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The weapon is B or P depending on how you use it so yes. If it were B and P (as with a morningstar) keen would apply all the time.
|
As a (part-time) piercing weapon, it should qualify. So, would that expanded range apply only when she's swinging to pierce, and not when she wants to mash skeletons?
That sounds right to me.
[tangent] When I first played AD&D, decades ago, there were no pictures of the various polearms and my Cleric used a Lucerne hammer, which, being named 'hammer', I assumed was a blunt weapon... [/tangent]
As a (part-time) piercing weapon, it should qualify. So, would that expanded range apply only when she's swinging to pierce, and not when she wants to mash skeletons?That sounds right to me.
[tangent] When I first played AD&D, decades ago, there were no pictures of the various polearms and my Cleric used a Lucerne hammer, which, being named 'hammer', I assumed was a blunt weapon... [/tangent]
That tangent thought caught me off-guard once too, tho with the morningstar. Every other game and reference, it was the stick-with-spiked-ball-on-chain deal. And Pathfinder isn't the only game with a piercing 'hammer'.
Add me to the 'keen only when piercing' camp.
I think raw would allow either to have the expanded crit range. As in keen it only says the weapon must been keen to have this benefit. But you are splitting hairs at that point.
In my home game I would say only when piercing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that the handful of corner cases that the difference would apply to make it an important distinction to make.
I'd just call it Keen with the expanded range regardless of the damage type the wielder wants to deal - the Keen enchant does not restrict its effect based upon the type of damage being delt, just as to which weapons can have the enchant put on at all.
|
My take on this would be that you could enchant the lucerne hammer with keen, but it would only apply to piercing attack made with it. (or slashing, if you manage to do it).
So unless fighting skeleton or the like, you should always have the keen ability "on".
As far as I remember, damage-type is a changeable property (unlike two handed, one handed and light, which are distinct categories). This is because there is no definition/category of 'piercing weapon' or 'bludgeoning weapon' beyond what damage a weapon does/is doing.
Which would mean that using a lucerne hammer to deal bludgeoning damage makes it a bludgeoning weapon for that attack, which would mean that it can't be Keen while being a bludgeoning weapon.
I think that's the most RAW answer anyhow.
OK, we already agree that putting the enchant on the weapon is legit.
Disregarding my basic opinion of "Why do you have to make things more difficult and fiddly then it has to be?"
Nowhere under the Keen enchant does it say something like "this enchant only applies when dealing slashing or piercing damage."
We can break down the text of Keen.
"This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon."
Got it, has no impact on this discussion.
"Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen."
As a P/B melee weapon, all damage is both types, and the wielder can choose to deal only one or the other type if the situation matters.
The P part of P/B allows Lucerene Hammer to pass this definition, it can be Keen.
"If you roll this special ability randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll."
Got it, has no impact on this discussion.
"This benefit doesn’t stack with any other effects that expand the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)."
Got it, has no impact on this discussion.
That's the whole text of Keen. So you're really ONLY concerned about if you can crit 5% more often on skellys...and I can't see any rules support for Keen turning OFF based upon the damage type it is doing at the time that it is used.
This is not a double weapon in which the various ends do different damage types and are enchanted separately. This isn't even Spear Dancing Style.
Rule however you like at your table, and expect table variation.
This really isn't any different than weapons that can be used both in melee and at range.
You can put Seeking on a dagger, but it won't ignore concealment when used in melee, and Mighty Cleaving won't function at range.
As far as I remember, damage-type is a changeable property (unlike two handed, one handed and light, which are distinct categories). This is because there is no definition/category of 'piercing weapon' or 'bludgeoning weapon' beyond what damage a weapon does/is doing.
I dispute this. The weapon is what it is, based on the B,P, or S rating in the weapons table (yes there are some that are B AND P, or B OR P, or other combinations). If I use something like Weapon Versatility to do a different sort of damage, the weapon itself has not changed. It is still whatever sort of weapon the weapons table says it is.
Which would mean that using a lucerne hammer to deal bludgeoning damage makes it a bludgeoning weapon for that attack, which would mean that it can't be Keen while being a bludgeoning weapon.
This, however, I agree with. While the Lucerne Hammer is still B or P, you are using the OPTION built into the weapon to have it be B.
As far as I remember, damage-type is a changeable property (unlike two handed, one handed and light, which are distinct categories). This is because there is no definition/category of 'piercing weapon' or 'bludgeoning weapon' beyond what damage a weapon does/is doing.I dispute this. The weapon is what it is, based on the B,P, or S rating in the weapons table (yes there are some that are B AND P, or B OR P, or other combinations). If I use something like Weapon Versatility to do a different sort of damage, the weapon itself has not changed. It is still whatever sort of weapon the weapons table says it is.
I might be wrong, but as far as I remember there's zero definition of 'damage type' beyond the statement "Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal". If this is taken at face value, then changing the type of damage they deal changes their 'damage type'. If the lucerne hammer is simply set as "type: bludgeoning or piercing", then by definition it's also a piercing weapon even when it's dealing bludgeoning damage, because the types are fixed.
huh, I've never noticed that weapons could be "B and P" or "B or P".
As a (part-time) piercing weapon, it should qualify. So, would that expanded range apply only when she's swinging to pierce, and not when she wants to mash skeletons?That sounds right to me.
[tangent] When I first played AD&D, decades ago, there were no pictures of the various polearms and my Cleric used a Lucerne hammer, which, being named 'hammer', I assumed was a blunt weapon... [/tangent]
Dragon Magazine had a comic about that. The caption was "Imagine my embarrassment when I discovered the Lucerne hammer was a pole-arm."
Dotted.
My group has had this same debate more than once as the Lucerne is a favorite at our table.
Random and off-topic: I know it's goofy and nitpicky but it has always irked me that the weapon isn't just called "polehammer." Why would people in Golarion be running around with weapons named after a town in Switzerland? Also, that we have two B or P pole arms but no non-exotic options for a B or S poleaxe.
Dotted.
My group has had this same debate more than once as the Lucerne is a favorite at our table.Random and off-topic: I know it's goofy and nitpicky but it has always irked me that the weapon isn't just called "polehammer." Why would people in Golarion be running around with weapons named after a town in Switzerland? Also, that we have two B or P pole arms but no non-exotic options for a B or S poleaxe.
I've wondered that too. Generally I chalk it up to translating from Taldane to English. And remember the horrible hodgepodge English is to begin with.
That tangent thought caught me off-guard once too, tho with the morningstar. Every other game and reference, it was the stick-with-spiked-ball-on-chain deal. And Pathfinder isn't the only game with a piercing 'hammer'.As a (part-time) piercing weapon, it should qualify. So, would that expanded range apply only when she's swinging to pierce, and not when she wants to mash skeletons?That sounds right to me.
[tangent] When I first played AD&D, decades ago, there were no pictures of the various polearms and my Cleric used a Lucerne hammer, which, being named 'hammer', I assumed was a blunt weapon... [/tangent]
I blame Castlevania for that. When I first started I wanted the spiked ball on a chain whip that Castlevania called 'morningstar'.. and later found out that it was really more of a flail. That 2E players handbook confused me quite a bit when I read the descriptiosn on that :D
Everywhere I've looked since it's always a flail with the chain and the Morningstar as spiked mace...