Any reason to use a Heavy Mace? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Any reason to use a Heavy Mace? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
StormKnight
05-30-06, 12:24 PM A morningstar costs less, weighs less, does the same damage, and counts as two damage types at once. I just can't see any reason to use a heavy mace over a morningstar...ever. Can anyone else?
Rochlar
05-30-06, 12:33 PM sunder: the morningstar has hardness 5 and 5hp, while the mace has hardness 10 and 20hp. that and deity's favored weapon, but thats about it.
ajb47
05-30-06, 02:09 PM sunder: the morningstar has hardness 5 and 5hp, while the mace has hardness 10 and 20hp. that and deity's favored weapon, but thats about it.

Yes, my solo cleric's god finds the sound of the heavy mace thunking into an evildoer pleasing.

AJ
StormKnight
05-30-06, 03:51 PM sunder: the morningstar has hardness 5 and 5hp, while the mace has hardness 10 and 20hp. that and deity's favored weapon, but thats about it.

Where are you getting the hardness/HP value for the morningstar? I don't see it specifically. Table 8-8 lists things by type, and I assume the morningstar is a "One-handed metal hafted weapon", the same as a heavy mace. Or is it supposed to be just a hafted weapon (presumably meaning wood)? Being much more durable would certainly be a valid reason to choose a mace.
Rulebook
05-30-06, 04:23 PM the morning star is basically a baseball bat with nails through it. i mean thats a bit of an oversimplification, but it gets the point across.
Rochlar
05-30-06, 04:56 PM ...I assume the morningstar is a "One-handed metal hafted weapon", the same as a heavy mace. Or is it supposed to be just a hafted weapon (presumably meaning wood)?

take a look at the illustrations on page 120 of the phb, and you will see how the morningstar is made. it is a spiked ball on the end of a stick (kinda like a flail without the chain). the base hardness/hp isnt that big of a deal, but keep in mind that if you get an adamantine version of a mace, the hardness of the weapon goes up with that change, but since the haft of the morningstar is wood, the best that can be done is to make it from either darkwood or bronzewood, and neither of those is all that hard.

the upside of using a morningstar is you get two damage types instead of just one (although thats not that big of a deal in this case, as almost nothing is resitant to blunt damage, and piercing is the most easily resisted).
Wolf72
05-30-06, 06:09 PM Heavy maces are just cool ... pick weapons for cool factor, not stats.
tiercel
05-30-06, 09:58 PM A morningstar costs less, weighs less, does the same damage, and counts as two damage types at once. I just can't see any reason to use a heavy mace over a morningstar...ever. Can anyone else?Coming at from the other side, one could just argue that the two weapons are functionally nearly identical.

Yes, a morningstar costs less. That 4gp is generally only ever going to be a significant difference at character creation though (and maybe not even then, depending how much you are trying to "kit out" your character).

A morningstar also weighs less -- but that 2lb of difference is unlikely to come into play unless you are riding really close to one of your encumbrance limits. If you are actually worried about using the weapon in melee much, chances are you are a cleric and lumbering around under heavy armor and/or have a decent Strength score anyway. (Also, if your DM isn't a stickler for tracking encumbrance, it may not matter so much anyhow.)

A morningstar has piercing as well as bludgeoning damage, which sounds good but rarely comes up. Not many foes you fight are going to have DR X/piercing.

I'd argue the real differences between weapons are close to negligible and more or less a matter of flavor. If you are stretching your starting funds, or tiptoeing along your encumbrance limit, the morningstar might look a little better. I think the mace is a metal-hafted weapon and hardier, if your DM really does use Sunder (if nothing else, the fact that it is both heavier and more expensive lends some weight to the idea that it is all-metal). There are a couple of specific magical maces in the DMG/SRD, but not morningstars, if that matters at all too.

Ceterum censeo katanam esse disputandum.
Rochlar
05-31-06, 12:31 AM even if your dm doesnt usually use sunder, the one time he does, youre going to be thanking god you got the mace instead of the morningstar.
Sunrider
05-31-06, 02:04 AM Just make a metal morningstar - plenty of bad guys have one.

Granted, the heavy mace still has a 15hp advantage, which may or may not be significant, depending on how many spare feats you have available to boost Piercing as well as Bludgeoning damage (very few opponents have DR x/Piercing anyway). For a fighter with feats to spare (and who doesn't want to use a martial or exotic weapon), the morningstar is probably better. For a combat cleric, without the feats to get Skewer Foe, Pulverise Foe, MWM (piercing) and MWM (bludgeoning), the extra 15hp on the mace may well be better.
The WarOverlord
05-31-06, 10:22 AM A morningstar costs less, weighs less, does the same damage, and counts as two damage types at once. I just can't see any reason to use a heavy mace over a morningstar...ever. Can anyone else?

Less Mess with a Mace, and in most cases a Mace doubles as a Standard/Scepter for the royalty,Leader, and Preist Types and may be decorated with gems and engravings while a morningstar is basically a glorified "bat with spikes"
StormKnight
05-31-06, 11:45 AM Thanks for the comments. The wood vs. metal difference seems to be the big important part; which considering the minimal differences is enough to make each one viable (in my opinion).
Clawhound
05-31-06, 12:13 PM One usually finds more magic maces than magic morning stars.
dengarbountyhunter
05-31-06, 08:28 PM Hey, not really with the morning star vs mace topic, but if the morningstar is a piercing weapon (and bludg. but that's not my point), it is by the rules easier to use underwater? Just like the spiked chain and picks and blowguns?
MADGator
05-31-06, 09:08 PM Aside from the few minor reasons mentioned so far, there really isn't much reason stats/mechanics wise to use a heavy mace over a heavy mornigstar. What's really messed up is that the maces depicted in the PHB are flanged maces. In real life those can go through plate armor like some sort of infernal can-opener. (Of course, true longswords were used largely as thrusting weapons against armored foes, but that's another rant...)

If you pick up a copy of Libris Mortis, though, the heavy mace becomes entirely obsolete. The holy water sprinkler costs quite a bit more, but it gives you a heavy mace with added potential against undead and certain other foes. Don't leave home without one!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
StormKnight 05-30-06, 12:24 PM	A morningstar costs less, weighs less, does the same damage, and counts as two damage types at once. I just can't see any reason to use a heavy mace over a morningstar...ever. Can anyone else?
Rochlar 05-30-06, 12:33 PM	sunder: the morningstar has hardness 5 and 5hp, while the mace has hardness 10 and 20hp. that and deity's favored weapon, but thats about it.
ajb47 05-30-06, 02:09 PM	sunder: the morningstar has hardness 5 and 5hp, while the mace has hardness 10 and 20hp. that and deity's favored weapon, but thats about it. Yes, my solo cleric's god finds the sound of the heavy mace thunking into an evildoer pleasing. AJ
StormKnight 05-30-06, 03:51 PM	sunder: the morningstar has hardness 5 and 5hp, while the mace has hardness 10 and 20hp. that and deity's favored weapon, but thats about it. Where are you getting the hardness/HP value for the morningstar? I don't see it specifically. Table 8-8 lists things by type, and I assume the morningstar is a "One-handed metal hafted weapon", the same as a heavy mace. Or is it supposed to be just a hafted weapon (presumably meaning wood)? Being much more durable would certainly be a valid reason to choose a mace.
Rulebook 05-30-06, 04:23 PM	the morning star is basically a baseball bat with nails through it. i mean thats a bit of an oversimplification, but it gets the point across.
Rochlar 05-30-06, 04:56 PM	...I assume the morningstar is a "One-handed metal hafted weapon", the same as a heavy mace. Or is it supposed to be just a hafted weapon (presumably meaning wood)? take a look at the illustrations on page 120 of the phb, and you will see how the morningstar is made. it is a spiked ball on the end of a stick (kinda like a flail without the chain). the base hardness/hp isnt that big of a deal, but keep in mind that if you get an adamantine version of a mace, the hardness of the weapon goes up with that change, but since the haft of the morningstar is wood, the best that can be done is to make it from either darkwood or bronzewood, and neither of those is all that hard. the upside of using a morningstar is you get two damage types instead of just one (although thats not that big of a deal in this case, as almost nothing is resitant to blunt damage, and piercing is the most easily resisted).
Wolf72 05-30-06, 06:09 PM	Heavy maces are just cool ... pick weapons for cool factor, not stats.
tiercel 05-30-06, 09:58 PM	A morningstar costs less, weighs less, does the same damage, and counts as two damage types at once. I just can't see any reason to use a heavy mace over a morningstar...ever. Can anyone else?Coming at from the other side, one could just argue that the two weapons are functionally nearly identical. Yes, a morningstar costs less. That 4gp is generally only ever going to be a significant difference at character creation though (and maybe not even then, depending how much you are trying to "kit out" your character). A morningstar also weighs less -- but that 2lb of difference is unlikely to come into play unless you are riding really close to one of your encumbrance limits. If you are actually worried about using the weapon in melee much, chances are you are a cleric and lumbering around under heavy armor and/or have a decent Strength score anyway. (Also, if your DM isn't a stickler for tracking encumbrance, it may not matter so much anyhow.) A morningstar has piercing as well as bludgeoning damage, which sounds good but rarely comes up. Not many foes you fight are going to have DR X/piercing. I'd argue the real differences between weapons are close to negligible and more or less a matter of flavor. If you are stretching your starting funds, or tiptoeing along your encumbrance limit, the morningstar might look a little better. I think the mace is a metal-hafted weapon and hardier, if your DM really does use Sunder (if nothing else, the fact that it is both heavier and more expensive lends some weight to the idea that it is all-metal). There are a couple of specific magical maces in the DMG/SRD, but not morningstars, if that matters at all too. Ceterum censeo katanam esse disputandum.
Rochlar 05-31-06, 12:31 AM	even if your dm doesnt usually use sunder, the one time he does, youre going to be thanking god you got the mace instead of the morningstar.
Sunrider 05-31-06, 02:04 AM	Just make a metal morningstar - plenty of bad guys have one. Granted, the heavy mace still has a 15hp advantage, which may or may not be significant, depending on how many spare feats you have available to boost Piercing as well as Bludgeoning damage (very few opponents have DR x/Piercing anyway). For a fighter with feats to spare (and who doesn't want to use a martial or exotic weapon), the morningstar is probably better. For a combat cleric, without the feats to get Skewer Foe, Pulverise Foe, MWM (piercing) and MWM (bludgeoning), the extra 15hp on the mace may well be better.
The WarOverlord 05-31-06, 10:22 AM	A morningstar costs less, weighs less, does the same damage, and counts as two damage types at once. I just can't see any reason to use a heavy mace over a morningstar...ever. Can anyone else? Less Mess with a Mace, and in most cases a Mace doubles as a Standard/Scepter for the royalty,Leader, and Preist Types and may be decorated with gems and engravings while a morningstar is basically a glorified "bat with spikes"
StormKnight 05-31-06, 11:45 AM	Thanks for the comments. The wood vs. metal difference seems to be the big important part; which considering the minimal differences is enough to make each one viable (in my opinion).
Clawhound 05-31-06, 12:13 PM	One usually finds more magic maces than magic morning stars.
dengarbountyhunter 05-31-06, 08:28 PM	Hey, not really with the morning star vs mace topic, but if the morningstar is a piercing weapon (and bludg. but that's not my point), it is by the rules easier to use underwater? Just like the spiked chain and picks and blowguns?
MADGator 05-31-06, 09:08 PM	Aside from the few minor reasons mentioned so far, there really isn't much reason stats/mechanics wise to use a heavy mace over a heavy mornigstar. What's really messed up is that the maces depicted in the PHB are flanged maces. In real life those can go through plate armor like some sort of infernal can-opener. (Of course, true longswords were used largely as thrusting weapons against armored foes, but that's another rant...) If you pick up a copy of Libris Mortis, though, the heavy mace becomes entirely obsolete. The holy water sprinkler costs quite a bit more, but it gives you a heavy mace with added potential against undead and certain other foes. Don't leave home without one!