Why should I buy a sword, when a war hammer is better?

[Galannor]

Hi everybody: a war hammer is just one gold coin more expensive than the long sword, and slightly more cumbersome, and as deadly as the long sword (1d8): a lot of monsters however are much more vulnerable to bludgeoning weapon than slashing ones (who said skeletons?). Maybe the iconic image of a fighter sword in hand should be changed with that of a warrior wielding his trusted war hammer... Could otherwise be an option lowering the damage dice of the war hammer to 1d6, and obviously its price too, just as it was in D&D Basic?
G.

[zarathustra]

Obviously the dwarves are onto something. I like the variety of hammers as they are- crowbill, light and warhammer seem right to me.

Change warhammer damage and you open a can of worms. If you change warhammer to 1d6 then why should a specially crafted and balanced (often metal), 8lb weapon of war do less damage than a 3lb club (1d6+1) when both are bludgeoning weapons? And on down the line with all the rest you must go.

Given the damage range listed for club as a guide, I think just 1 potential point more for the warhammer is at least where it should be.

[Demiurge]

a war hammer is just one gold coin more expensive than the long sword, and slightly more cumbersome and as deadly as the long sword (1d8): a lot of monsters however are much more vulnerable to bludgeoning weapon than slashing ones

• 1. 1 GP may not seem like much to a PC, but to your average NPC it would be quite a lot.
  2. Encumbrance is a real concern if you are using those rules, especially for low level PCs.
  3. It's easy enough to make bludgeoning weapons less effective against some monsters to offset this. For example, the gorbel from the original Fiend Folio is immune to bludgeoning damage.

I gave this a lot of thought when I first read the C&C weapon tables and went so far as to re-write the tables using csperkis13's old posts as a starting point. It's by no means a finished product, and hasn't been play-tested, but you can take a look at it here: http://sites.google.com/site/reconotf/c ... r-and-arms. I added weapon speeds to try and balance things a bit. I'd suggest only using them to break initiative ties.

[zarathustra]

why does everyone want to break ties these days? What's wrong with simultaneous attack action I say!

[serleran]

Ever need a magic weapon? Odds are you'll find these:

1) sword

2) dagger

3) arrow

Pretty much in that order.

So, while your mundane hammer might be considered slightly more effective in some situations (I see you did not note that it can be used to bash down doors, unlike a weak-ass sword), you will quickly find that your over-reliance on it has actually made you more vulnerable. That is, if you're not "cheating" with weapon placement.

I could go into other reasons to carry a sword, such as it being the common weapon and not wearing one would make you stick out like a thumb on a fish, or that swords are probably the easier weapon to find in a smith because "everyone uses one" and they're easier to make. But who ever role-plays the purchase of equipment?

[clavis123]

The warhammer should be much cheaper than a sword. Historically, swords were prestige weapons that indicated the social status of their wearer. In medieval Europe, you would only expect to see nobility wielding swords, because a properly made sword is difficult and costly to create. The same situation existed in Japan.

Swords are horrifically effective against unarmored or lightly armored opponents, but much less so against armored opponents. The sword was a weapon that heroic knights in shining armor used to kill unruly and unarmored peasents, who perhaps had the audacity to want keep enough money to buy a chicken once a month or so. Swords (including katanas, which tended to break if used against armored opponents) can't even penetrate mail, never mind plate armor.

Many weapons are better than the sword. You do not want to face a halberd, for instance, armed only with a sword. Axes and warhammers (and a real warhammer looked more like a modern carpenter's claw hammer than a sledgehammer) were much more common than swords historically, because they were cheaper and just as deadly. To modern eyes it can look like the sword was common, simply because the nobility were likely to keep their swords (while the common axes and hammers of the middle ages were melted down for scrap). The sword had style and romance, because it was associated with the upper class. That's which is why its still a part of military dress uniforms.

[serleran]

You should pick a real weapon. Something with versatility. The lantern shield.

[Relaxo]

Why should I buy a sword, when a war hammer is better?

Chicks dig swords, not hammers.
'nuff said.

[Rikitiki]

umm, maybe because it's "Sword and Sorcery" and

not "Hammers and Sorcery"?

And, to add to what's already been alluded to:

Nobody says, "Hey, babe, wanna see my hammer?"

[Omote]

But who ever role-plays the purchase of equipment?

As was mentioned in an earlier post, in my world the common people do not as often have swords. Status is part of this, ease of making the weapon is another. Swords might be more common in number, but they are more difficult to produce generally speaking.

Also, I tend to roleplay the purchase of equipment in my games. Not always, particularly when the items are readily available or the PCs are doing simple restocking. Sometimes, when the PCs are looking for something special, different or rare, I roleplay that out when necessary. Sometimes these merchants become interesting NPCs.

Others may find the roleplaying of equipment of no importance. I find that every once in a while if you roleplay certain mundane activities you can get a good session that, more importantly, is not based on bashing stuff, dungeon crawlin' or loot. In my experience mixing it up like this, even if the session turns out somewhat lame, breaks the tone up enough to keep a campaign fresh, and different from session to session.

~O

[alcyone]

Galannor never would have defeated Gorkalk without his talking sword Scorbane. Who ever heard of a talking warhammer?

(been playing Blade of Vengeance, and am not finished yet, so no spoilers!)

[Mark Hall]

I generally don't roleplay the purchase of equipment, unless it is special or rare. Buying your first suit of full plate? That stuff is expensive. You've got to find a smith who can manage that, and he won't have them available to just pull off a shelf. On the other hand, buying a bunch of rations and new arrows is no problem.

[Lord Dynel]

I was just talking about a similar topic today, with the guy at the FLGS.

Cultrual weapons is what we were talking about. We were discussing humans in a fantasy medieval society probably wouldn't use swords, unless they were military or former military. The farmer's son? probably a club, or perhaps a quarterstaff. Forester or carpenter or woodwooker? An axe. Hunters and woodsmen? Bows and small melee weapons (daggers for examples). Dwarves would probably favor hammers and picks (I really don't know where the dwarf-and-hammer visualization comes from, if not Lord of the Rings). Elves? Bows, if woodland elves and light, fast blades (perhaps sword or rapier). I'm not tryign to steer the thread somewhere else, I just thought it was an interesting coincedence.

For me and my players, it comes down to preference. I usually don't see players picking a weapon because it's the cheapest d8 damage weapon. I like to think that players pick a weapon because they've had a good mental image of their character and they see a particular weapon in his or her hand. In my game right now, I have a ranger who has a bow and a dagger, that's it. In melee, it's dagger or nothing. But she envisioned her character that way. I also have a barbarian with a scythe. Not the best choice for two-handed weapons, but that's what he wanted so as long as he's happy, it's all good.

[zarathustra]

I believe Dwarves and hammers makes perfect sense because hammers are used more than picks in crafting (rather than mining) of stone and in metalwork.

Need hammers for crushing stone, hammering pegs for splitting stone blocks and all the stonework done with chiselling of various kinds etc. Hence, Dwarves and hammers.

LOR need not be involved at all.

[Mark Hall]

2e's Arms and Equipment Guide put a dwarven favoritism towards axes and hammers as having something to do with their lower center of gravity... they could get more out of them than a comparatively unbalanced human.

FWIW, I allowed a dwarven rogue to trade out some of the weirder weapons for the ability to use a warhammer (including in a backstab). It made sense for his character, and wasn't any more damaging than a longsword.

[Breakdaddy]

Galannor never would have defeated Gorkalk without his talking sword Scorbane. Who ever heard of a talking warhammer?

(been playing Blade of Vengeance, and am not finished yet, so no spoilers!)

Don't piss off Galannor Nightflame, chief.

[serleran]

Another thing to consider, beyond the more obvious culture or economic reasons is one of era. Perhaps a "sword" is very rare in a world populated by dinosaurs and cavemen. It may also be that the material used to produce a given weapon is inferior -- imagine a sword made of obsidian as compared to one made of titanium steel: both are effective, but one is better than the other, especially when armor comes into play.

Many equipment selections necessitate a Castle Keeper to provide a reason. The lists do not. They just say what "could" be available.

[Omote]

Actually a very good point Serl.

Another thing to think about relating to social or economic reasons for swords vesus warhammers, etc. is one of availablility based on the weaponsmiths in the area. Often, weapons such as swords were not available to the common people because all of the weaponssmith were made to make weapons for the lord of the county, sheriff, duke, king, etc. Particularly during times of war, swords (even more simple weaponry like hammers, axes, spears and flails) were simply unavailable to commoners due to the demand of the county, kingdom, etc.

Simply walking into some thorpe, or village, or even a town does not guarentee you that someone will have weapons to buy, in particular, swords. Just because there is a blacksmith tinging away at the anvil doesn't mean he knows how to make weapons or armor. Such smiths were highly regarded and often relocated to the area around a warzone, siege or to the castle/keep of the local lord.

Think about the roleplaying possibilities of a PC simply breaking his sword. When he gets to the next town, there are simply no weapons to buy other then perhaps a pitchfork or staff. Makes a fighter think twice about not taking care of his weapons.

~O

[Mark Hall]

Heh. Reminds me of one encounter with a conjurer. My younger brother, the only one with a decent magic weapon, found his barbarian dueling with a fire elemental... which destroyed his armor. Our wizard cast Armor on him, but we were still in podunk, nowhere, and so he didn't get any more good armor for a while.