Rolled a Paladin and originally chose a warhammer....then realized that the
Warhammer ( Warhammer Type: Weapon. Resizable. Melee. Martial. OneHanded. Bludgeoning. Hammer.
Weapon Group Hammers
Wield: OneHanded
Cost: 12 gp Wt: 5 lbs.
Size: M
Damage: 1d8
Crit Range: 1 Crit Mult: x3 Range: 0 ft.)
has nothing on the Morningstar
(Type: Weapon. Resizable. Melee. Simple. OneHanded. Bludgeoning. Piercing. Mace. Flail.
Weapon Group Flails. Weapon Group Melee OneHanded Piercing
Wield: OneHanded
Cost: 8 gp Wt: 6 lbs.
Size: M
Damage: 1d8 Crit Range: 1 Crit Mult: x2 Range: 0 ft.)
other than an extra crit numerical, while the morningstar has piercing thrown in on every hit...
Warhammer isn't one of the better martial weapons, but in my experience enemies with DR/Piercing are rarer than natural 20s.
Morningstar happens to be one of the best weapons in the game... I don't know why this constantly surprises people. I honestly don't think I have ever played a PF1 character that didn't start with a Morningstar in their back pocket. It is an essential item.
yep. morning-star for zombie and skelli' dr and a kunai for utility
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yep. morning-star for zombie and skelli' dr and a kunai for utility
Cold Iron Sawback Kunai... never leave home without it, and every character starts with one of them, as well. It's a shovel, it's a saw, it's a crowbar, it's a climbing piton, and it's also a cold iron simple weapon with two types of damage and a range increment. Legit.
Zombies have DR/Slashing. Morningstar wouldn't help there.
To me the weapons are basically equivalent.
Aside from low level enemies, you don't see many enemies with damage reduction based b/p/s so it doesn't come up all that much except with some low level skeleton/zombies.
Outside of that, I'd probably use the warhammer, and possibly carry a backup weapon (at low levels) to deal with other damage types.
To me the higher crit multiplier is more relevant than anything else.
Honestly though, I'm probably going to be using a two-handed martial weapon of some sort in the first place. And I'm much more likely to use something with a 18-20 crit range.
So what I'm saying is...screw those weapons and use a nodachi.
Doing piercing damage is just not very relevant, enemies with DR/piercing or any other piercing vulnerability are extremely rare.
A better than normal crit multiplier or crit range is the second best trait a weapon can have (behind reach).
Slashing and bludgeoning DR are about equally common, though slashing weapons are better because keen is one of the best non-numerical enchantments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warhammer's pretty cool. I like the Grimdark lore, but I always find it takes too long to actually finish a game.
The Morningstar is one of the most interesting Angels. For those who like Grimdark lore you really can't beat The Old Testament.
Why are morning stars in the flail category?
Because there isn't a "nail-bat" catagory, so they figured it's like a flail, but without the chain and all that flailing.
Why are morning stars in the flail category?
Well, a flail is basically a mace with a bit of flexible stuff in between the handle and the head.
But yes, it does seem incorrect.
Why are morning stars in the flail category?Because there isn't a "nail-bat" catagory, so they figured it's like a flail, but without the chain and all that flailing.
LOL...
Piercing can matter underwater; unless you're a swashbuckler that's about the only advantage of it.
Warhammers aren't good weapons unless you're a divine spellcaster who worships Torag though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I pick morningstar just because I like them more (if I was a god it would be my favored weapon.)
Because there isn't a "cactus-on-a-stick" category
Fixed that for you! :-p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Piercing can matter underwater; unless you're a swashbuckler that's about the only advantage of it.
Warhammers aren't good weapons unless you're a divine spellcaster who worships Torag though.
What's funny is that warhammers were actually a very good weapon when they became popular. They excelled at dealing with heavily armored enemies as the blunt trauma of the hammer part was effective even through plate & padding. Not to mention the force could knock down a foe in plate (who could then have trouble getting back up). And warhammers almost always had a big curved spike on the back. For piercing! the plate armor and potential ripping it apart.
But yes, in the mechanics of the game it's pretty lackluster.
How much would adding P to warhammer unbalance things, I wonder?
yep. morning-star for zombie and skelli' dr and a kunai for utilityCold Iron Sawback Kunai... never leave home without it, and every character starts with one of them, as well. It's a shovel, it's a saw, it's a crowbar, it's a climbing piton, and it's also a cold iron simple weapon with two types of damage and a range increment. Legit.
The perfect backup weapon for The Shoveler.
How much would adding P to warhammer unbalance things, I wonder?
It means swashbucklers can use warhammers and they are effective underwater without freedom of movement or similar. And they can have the keen enchantment, not that that's value for money on a 20/x3 weapon, and if they're also holy or similar then they work on rakshasa.
I can't see that unbalancing anything. It also doesn't make any difference to sundering armor in PF mechanics, which I gather is the actual purpose of that spike.
How much would adding P to warhammer unbalance things, I wonder?It means swashbucklers can use warhammers and they are effective underwater without freedom of movement or similar. And they can have the keen enchantment, not that that's value for money on a 20/x3 weapon, and if they're also holy or similar then they work on rakshasa.
I can't see that unbalancing anything. It also doesn't make any difference to sundering armor in PF mechanics, which I gather is the actual purpose of that spike.
Swashbucklers are a silly place.
Aquatic combat rules are a silly place.
Keen would only apply to the piercing.
I was just wondering whether there's already a 1d8/x3 B/P weapon? Although in fantasy warhammers are often portrayed far different from reality. They usually don't have spikes or hooks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was just wondering whether there's already a 1d8/x3 B/P weapon?
You can find out yourself! click "file" -> "make a copy" to use the filters
I can tell you there isn't. There is a martial one-handed 1d8 x2 P-or-S weapon, and the overwhelming majority of DR/piercing monsters actually have DR/piercing or slashing. It's the only martial one-handed weapon with two damage type and 1d8 damage though.
If you look at the one-handed 1d8 weapons, you see that it's not really the warhammer being too weak, but rather the morningstar being too strong for a simple weapon, especially as it's one of just two non-exotic "X and Y" weapons in the entire game. It really should only do 1d6.
I was just wondering whether there's already a 1d8/x3 B/P weapon? Although in fantasy warhammers are often portrayed far different from reality. They usually don't have spikes or hooks.
It's funny because 90% of representations of warhammers I've ever seen have a spike (usually curved) opposite the hammer.
Like it's not technically required, but it had several uses. Piercing enemy armor, which then could allow you to rip it off. Catching weapons with it. Tripping someone with it. It provided additional mass for the hammer attack.
Shortly after the warhammer saw common use I believe it also became common for them to have the spike for the versatility it offered.
I was just wondering whether there's already a 1d8/x3 B/P weapon? Although in fantasy warhammers are often portrayed far different from reality. They usually don't have spikes or hooks.It's funny because 90% of representations of warhammers I've ever seen have a spike (usually curved) opposite the hammer.
Like it's not technically required, but it had several uses. Piercing enemy armor, which then could allow you to rip it off. Catching weapons with it. Tripping someone with it. It provided additional mass for the hammer attack.
Shortly after the warhammer saw common use I believe it also became common for them to have the spike for the versatility it offered.
In real life (in which case I'd agree) or Pathfinder art?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure he means in real life. Also a fair number of warhammers had a blade or spike on the top you could jab people with. I've even seen smaller spikes on the sides.
Many weapons are depicted woefully wrong by the game mechanics and even the descriptions and images are way off.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not an historian or archeologist by trade, so please take this with a healthy dose of skepticism and research if you are curious:
The weapons we think of as "typical" examples of medieval weapons (and earlier) usually aren't that typical. Most of the surviving pieces that you can see in a museum include a note that they were made by master smiths for high-ranking nobles.
Take a morningstar, for example. We think of a sphere with regularly spaced pyramid or conical spikes projecting from it. That's what a master smith could make, but the far more common version would be a bunch of nails placed in a circle, a blob of hot metal poured over it, and more nails poked into the metal before it cooled. The quick version is less durable but still pretty effective. And you could make many of them in the time it took to make one masterwork piece.
Ditto for warhammers. Rather than a huge piece of metal with one perfectly flat end opposed by a spiked end and various other poking and cutting bits on the top and sides, they were usually just a small, dense mass with a really long handle to generate a lot of momentum. Think of the head of a normal (hand-tool) hammer, but with a 4-foot long handle. The spiked end was added relatively late but did become standard. But again, the typical quality was the same or worse than what a village carpenter would have. Crank them out fast. At the end of the war melt them down, or put a shorter handle on it and use it as a tool. A hammer with extra spikes and the like would require much more work and would have been made specifically for a noble who wanted to look particularly menacing or (more likely) wanted a conversation piece.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about a Morninghammer? Or a Warstar?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about a Morninghammer?
Is that what you Aussies call a hangover?
Or a Warstar?
Can't, Marvel has the copyright!
looks like an over-sized meat tenderizer, so technically it does throw a little piercing into the mix.
Nah, those little spikes are to prevent the hammerhead slipping off, they don't go deep enough to be considered piercing for game mechanics.
I'm not an historian or archeologist by trade, so please take this with a healthy dose of skepticism and research if you are curious:
The weapons we think of as "typical" examples of medieval weapons (and earlier) usually aren't that typical. Most of the surviving pieces that you can see in a museum include a note that they were made by master smiths for high-ranking nobles.
Take a morningstar, for example. We think of a sphere with regularly spaced pyramid or conical spikes projecting from it. That's what a master smith could make, but the far more common version would be a bunch of nails placed in a circle, a blob of hot metal poured over it, and more nails poked into the metal before it cooled. The quick version is less durable but still pretty effective. And you could make many of them in the time it took to make one masterwork piece.
Ditto for warhammers. Rather than a huge piece of metal with one perfectly flat end opposed by a spiked end and various other poking and cutting bits on the top and sides, they were usually just a small, dense mass with a really long handle to generate a lot of momentum. Think of the head of a normal (hand-tool) hammer, but with a 4-foot long handle. The spiked end was added relatively late but did become standard. But again, the typical quality was the same or worse than what a village carpenter would have. Crank them out fast. At the end of the war melt them down, or put a shorter handle on it and use it as a tool. A hammer with extra spikes and the like would require much more work and would have been made specifically for a noble who wanted to look particularly menacing or (more likely) wanted a conversation piece.
This seems to be relatively accurate. At least for some areas...perhaps not Burgundy. ;)
I saw a video by Lindybeige where he shows some hastily made armour and weapons from a museum. They were aweful looking. :)
Why are morning stars in the flail category?
It always annoyed me that the term is used inconsistently. A google image search gives me both mace-type weapons and flail-type weapons.
I imagine the term "Morningstar" was used for basically any weapon with a ball on the end that looked vaguely star-shaped.
My first introduction to the Morningstar was in Castle of the Winds. They had a Morningstar as a single spiked ball on a chain on a stick, while a Flail had 2-3 balls on chains (also on a stick). Also the Flails looked more spikey, but we're not talking high quality images here.
It's harder than I thought to find a good picture of the weapons separately, but HERE is an image some of the assets used in the game. The Flails and Morningstars are to the left of the 6th row (with an axe trap thrown in for some reason).
It's basically like how the term "Longsword" probably meant vastly different things to different people throughout history.