| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh Em Gee!
Also don't they know only the worthy can wield Mjolnir? So you should have to be Good aligned to even lift it!
And the only way to destroy it is to throw it at Cate Blanchett, it's obvious really!
"Based off of" does not mean "is the same as".
It's large so it does more damage and is feels more ponderous and solid.
It's destroyed by a fire giant's forge/humanoid blood because it needs to be destroyed by something, and a fire giant's forge brings less questions to mind than a frost giant's?
The shield metaphor isn't parallel and makes no sense.
Perfectly fine artifact is perfectly fine.
Nice try troll, but I’m talking about the Norse Mythology, not the comic book franchise. Which was blatantly obvious if you had actually read my post.Oh Em Gee!
Also don't they know only the worthy can wield Mjolnir? So you should have to be Good aligned to even lift it!
And the only way to destroy it is to throw it at Cate Blanchett, it's obvious really!
And the hammer of thunderbolts is pathfinder/dungeons and dragons and not norse mythology.
And as has already been stated, it is clearly based off of Mjölnir. So your point is pointless.And the hammer of thunderbolts is pathfinder/dungeons and dragons and not norse mythology.Nice try troll, but I’m talking about the Norse Mythology, not the comic book franchise. Which was blatantly obvious if you had actually read my post.Oh Em Gee!
Also don't they know only the worthy can wield Mjolnir? So you should have to be Good aligned to even lift it!
And the only way to destroy it is to throw it at Cate Blanchett, it's obvious really!
Except its not...based off of is not the same as an exact clone of. They wanted a higher damage warhammer, impact wasn't created yet, and they wanted it to be a warhammer for synergy with feats and the like. Hence large warhammer. In 2nd ed i know, and 1st ed im pretty sure you had to have a girdle of giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power just to use a hammer of thunderbolts, so heavy and awkward is pretty par for the course. Large is a way to do heavy and awkward without making an artifact require two other magic items one of which i dont even think exists in pathfinder.
Nice try troll, but I’m talking about the Norse Mythology, not the comic book franchise. Which was blatantly obvious if you had actually read my post.Oh Em Gee!
Also don't they know only the worthy can wield Mjolnir? So you should have to be Good aligned to even lift it!
And the only way to destroy it is to throw it at Cate Blanchett, it's obvious really!
My reply was obviously flippant and dismissive, so I apologise if you're offended.
I DID read your post, but the point is that this item clearly evokes the idea of an iconic norse weapon. You know what it's meant to be, I know what it's meant to be, great.
But which version is it based on? The movie Thor came out in 2011 so it's just as valid an option.
Now either way it's not exactly the same as the iconic weapon - it's handle is too long, and ... actually that's about it.
There are no Aesir or Jötnar on Golarion that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong here), so changing the size to that of the Giants is fine.
Regarding the destruction: Fire Giants on Golarion are essentially large-sized, evil, flaming Dwarves. If any race were to destroy a giant-slaying hammer of the gods it would be them.
Also, I can see two references to this item, one from Ultimate Equipment and one from Anvil of Fire (book 5 of Giantslayer), and spoiler:
Also book 5 of Giantslayer is set in the mountain halls of the Fire Giant King and Queen, meaning there are ways to reverse the process of destroying the hammer, and even add new powers to it.
So I get that it's not exactly the same, but that hardly means "bad artifact is bad".
Well, there is more than one hammer of thunderbolts in the world (most minor artifacts are not unique items), so it makes sense that they do not all have the same manufacturing flaw, no?
Except the primary characteristics of mjolnir are, not everyone can wield it, either due to strength issues or "worthiness" issues, it returns when thrown, and it makes a peal of thunder when it strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the primary characteristics of mjolnir are, not everyone can wield it, either due to strength issues or "worthiness" issues, it returns when thrown, and it makes a peal of thunder when it strikes.
Also this ...
Thunder Hammer: Everyone knows what it is.
Short-handled Hammer: Some people get it ... maybe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More seriously, Gorbacz is correct. The Pathfinder version does what it says it does. It's loosely based on the Norse mythological version. Keyword is loosey.
There's nothing to argue about here except the OP doesn't like how it was implemented in not matching their expectations for Mjolnir, when the Hammer of Thunderbolts isn't Mjolnir.
To the OP, if it bothers you make a new greater (unique) artifact that matches your expectations and make the Hammer of Thunderbolts a knock-off that in your game world is like a running gag or something.
Like everyone has heard about these people who wanted to be like Thor, but messed up replicating his iconic hammer.
The only reason I can think of is that even back in D&D 3.5, there was not a two-handed hammer-like weapon as a base weapon. Even in Pathfinder, the Earth Breaker wasn't introduced until Ultimate Equipment... I think.
What in-universe reason is there for the Hammer to be large? Is it made for/ by a Large sized race? If it is made by dwarves or humans there is no sensible reason for it to be large. Or did the creator just think "Bigger is better"?
It is a bit strange that many legendary items like the Hammer don't seem to have any history at all. Who made them? Or used them?
|
The only reason I can think of is that even back in D&D 3.5, there was not a two-handed hammer-like weapon as a base weapon. Even in Pathfinder, the Earth Breaker wasn't introduced until Ultimate Equipment... I think.
The earthbreaker was invented for 3.5 by Paizo.
It was in the player's guide for Rise of the Runelords.
Ultimate Equipment referencing is something everyone does to simplify things. I am pretty sure the earthbreaker was even in the PF1E playtest.
|
|
What in-universe reason is there for the Hammer to be large? Is it made for/ by a Large sized race? If it is made by dwarves or humans there is no sensible reason for it to be large. Or did the creator just think "Bigger is better"?
It is a bit strange that many legendary items like the Hammer don't seem to have any history at all. Who made them? Or used them?
Hammer of Thunderbolts is not a piece of Golarion equipment. It is not in any adventure or Campaign Setting stuff.
It is just an update on a dnd3.5 piece of equipment.
For anything non-Golarion, they give you a set of rules and allow the GM to create the lore. Players can't even buy it, it's an artefact, so it only shows up if that is what the GM wants.
They are mainly there to give guidelines and inspiration to people who know the mythology but don't want to make stuff like that from scratch.
I'm not sure anyone posts about the lack of Wonderland lore for the Vorpal Sword, do they?
|
|
Mainly, this thread is hurting my grammer-nerd self.
"based off of..."
How can anything be 'off of'? Doubling prepositions is weird.
And 'based off' is different to 'based upon': the OP seems to want to say 'based upon' (drawing direct inspiration from, building on top of). 'Based off' implies moving away from the original thing. 'Off' as a preposition is to do with moving away.
Do people actually say 'off of'? It seems like such an awkward mouthful of a phrase.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mainly, this thread is hurting my grammer-nerd self.
It's "grammar."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mainly, this thread is hurting my grammer-nerd self.It's "grammar."
This is beautiful.
Warhammers can be wielded two-handed. Mjölnir, which the artifact is clearly based off of, was made with a defect that made its handle too short to do so with. Ergo, it can not be a Warhammer, unless you get a size category smaller than yourself for it.
First off, the Hammer of Thunderbolts isn't actually Mjölnir. A Holy Avenger isn't actually Excalibur. Suishen isn't Kusanagi. The Screaming Spear of the Sun isn't Gáe Bolg. Fortune's Arrow isn't Bard's Black Arrow from the Hobbit.
Et cetera.
(On the other hand, Baba Yaga's artifacts are the real deal, because Baba Yaga is the actual legendary Russian witch.)
Furthermore, the Norse Gods were not solely large. They had variable height. For instance, in one story, Thor has dinner with humans, inside their home. In another, Thor accidentally breaks his boat, and walks back to shore. From the middle of the ocean. Yes, walk. As in he is so unbelievably tall, that he can stand in the ocean with his feet hitting the bottom.
Yes, and there's that one time Loki got Thor to dress up as a bride and marry the jotun Thrymr who was holding Mjölnir ransom in exchange for Freya's hand in marriage. It didn't end well for the jotun chieftain or his court. :)
D&D - and by extension Pathfinder - borrowed from a wide array of mythological and literary sources. Hell is Dante's Inferno Hell, populated by the characters Dante Alighieri assigned to it. Abaddon is ruled over by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - yes, the ones out of the biblical Book of Revelation - with the role of Conquest / Pestilence played by Apollyon, and that of Death by the Stygian ferryman Charon.
For the hammer's game mechanics, they refer to the awkwardness of construction in a different way - the immense size means that most wielders struggle even if they have artifacts akin to the belt and gauntlets even THOR HIMSELF needed to wield his hammer.
As for the destruction, it needs to be difficult (though not entirely impossible) in the case of minor artifacts. The use of a fire giant here is an oblique reference to the fact that fiery Surtr, the jotun who rules the fire jotnar of Muspelheim, leads the charge and ultimately triumphs at Ragnarok, all but cleansing the worlds with fire. (Spoiler: the worlds are reborn afterward.)
And as has already been stated, it is clearly based off of Mjölnir. So your point is pointless.And the hammer of thunderbolts is pathfinder/dungeons and dragons and not norse mythology.Nice try troll, but I’m talking about the Norse Mythology, not the comic book franchise. Which was blatantly obvious if you had actually read my post.Oh Em Gee!
Also don't they know only the worthy can wield Mjolnir? So you should have to be Good aligned to even lift it!
And the only way to destroy it is to throw it at Cate Blanchett, it's obvious really!
Rarely is any person's point truly pointless. It seems like you are just looking for a reason to grouse. People do have different viewpoints, and no one person's OPINION is any more valid than another's. That being said, we've all been guilty of nerd rage before, and discrepancies in source material can be aggravating.
Clearly the first thing that comes to mind if you hear hammer of thunderbolts is Mjolnir, but as was stated, inspired or based off of isn't the same thing as a carbon copy. For one thing, is this item even unique, or is it just a commonly referenced, albeit powerful, magical item/artifact. Unless there's only one, it can't be Mjolnir. Maybe this is just the arcane craftsman's humble homage to that singular relic.
Also, other stories and mythos use thunder/electrical/lightning hammers. None as well known as Thor's I admit; but Raiden and his big ol' slede-hammer immediately come to mind.
Anyway, you're entitled to your nerd rage; but allow for the possibility of other ideas and inspirations.
Its a minor artifact, which basically means "they lost the know how of how to make it long ago but it was once made by mortal hands"
Except its not...based off of is not the same as an exact clone of. They wanted a higher damage warhammer, impact wasn't created yet, and they wanted it to be a warhammer for synergy with feats and the like. Hence large warhammer. In 2nd ed i know, and 1st ed im pretty sure you had to have a girdle of giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power just to use a hammer of thunderbolts, so heavy and awkward is pretty par for the course. Large is a way to do heavy and awkward without making an artifact require two other magic items one of which i dont even think exists in pathfinder.And as has already been stated, it is clearly based off of Mjölnir. So your point is pointless.And the hammer of thunderbolts is pathfinder/dungeons and dragons and not norse mythology.Nice try troll, but I’m talking about the Norse Mythology, not the comic book franchise. Which was blatantly obvious if you had actually read my post.Oh Em Gee!
Also don't they know only the worthy can wield Mjolnir? So you should have to be Good aligned to even lift it!
And the only way to destroy it is to throw it at Cate Blanchett, it's obvious really!
Look, I’m not saying exact copy of, but imagine this: Imagine Pathfinder devils did not try to trick people into signing their souls away for a favor. Imagine they didn’t even have the power to take souls. Would you not say then that Pathfinder devils are badly designed, since they are based off of the christian devil?
That’s the point I’m making here. Maybe the large size is excusable, but the fact that it can be two-handed is not. That is literally the defining feature of Mjölnir, so for being based off of Mjölnir and going against this, the Hammer of Thunderbolts is thus badly designed.
In all fairness, the Christian devil is not lawful, bound by contracts, or in any way a ruler of hell/the abyss, and technically he is a demon as well. Unless "Devil Went Down to Georgia" is the defining source for the mythology, pathfinder devils don't match well at all, but games had a certain niche to fill, and popular novels and art used the above portrayals, so it fit well enough for their purposes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anything it reminds of of Aegis-fang instead of Mjölnir.